Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index) - § 34. Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

[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]
[§ 34. Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 8757-8816]

CHAPTER 28

Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS

Sec. 34.--Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

Amendments that merely place restrictions on the use of funds that
are authorized or referred to in the bill are frequently held to be
germane. As in other cases, however, the extent of the restriction or
the manner in which it is sought to be imposed may affect the propriety
of the amendment. Thus, to a bill authorizing funds for a given
purpose, an amendment placing restrictions on funds authorized or
appropriated in other bills and in prior years will be ruled out as not
germane.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 31.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While it is normally germane to limit the uses to which an
authorization carried in a bill may be applied, that principle applies
more appropriately to annual authorization bills reported from the
committees of jurisdiction, rather than to a (re)organization bill
creating a new department and transferring thereto existing au

[[Page 8758]]

thorities and programs, in which case amendments restricting authorized
funds to effect a change in the administration of substantive law may
not be germane.⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 34.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above,⁽¹⁰⁾ it is not germane to make the
effectiveness of an authorization contingent upon an unrelated
determination involving issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and
committees outside the purview of the pending bill.⁽¹¹⁾ But
where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of
certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the discussion in the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
11. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
12. See Sec. 31.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on expenditures, of course, are often sought to be
imposed in furtherance of a larger policy or overriding aim. The
precedents indicate that in such case, the germaneness of a
proposed amendment should be determined from provisions of its
text, rather than from the purposes which circumstances may
suggest.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 34.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increases in Public Debt Limit as Standard Affecting Availability of
Funds

Sec. 34.1 An amendment which conditions the expenditure of funds
covered by a bill by adopting as a measure of their availability
the monthly increase in the public debt limit may be germane so
long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of
law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions
of Congress; thus, to a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations and restricting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to
pay cost-of-living salary increases for Members of Congress and
other federal employees above a certain percentage, an amendment
prohibiting the use of all such funds to pay over 99 percent of
Members' salaries in any month in which the public debt has been
increased was held germane since not amending or affecting the
public debt limit, but rather using that limit as an easily
ascertainable standard by which to relate Members' salary
entitlements to the entire Federal fiscal situation.

[[Page 8759]]

During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 (continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 1980), the Speaker overruled a point of
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of Sept.
25, 1979,⁽¹⁴⁾ were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 26150-52, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
For further discussion of amendments which seek to adopt,
as a measure of the availability of funds for particular
purposes, a determination required to be made with respect to
the existence of certain conditions, related expenditures, or
the like, see the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kramer: Page 6, insert before line
13 the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution or any other provision of law, for any month
immediately following any month during which the total public
debt subject to the statutory debt limit, as reported in the
monthly statement of the public debt published by the
Department of the Treasury, indicates an increase from the
level so reported during the preceding month, no part of the
funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1980, by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the
salary of any Member of the Congress at a rate greater than 99
percent of the rate which would be payable without regard to
this sentence. . . .

Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
The amendment deals with the subject of Federal pay and has the
purpose of limiting Federal pay. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Kramer) introduces a new subject of a
public debt, a completely new subject of public debt, and a
different method of limiting Federal pay, that is, calculated
relations between Federal pay and the public debt. . . .
Mr. Kramer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Deschler's
Procedure, chapter 25, section 2.1 and also section 2.3. I think
the precedents are very clear that this amendment is germane. I
read as follows:

A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for
departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until
the regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general
appropriation bill'' within the meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI.
The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation
in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto are not
applicable to a joint resolution continuing appropriations,
despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not
``continuing'' in nature.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in talking to the
Parliamentarian's office, that a contingency amendment is, indeed,
germane, provided that the contingency itself is within the scope
of the performance of Congress.
I would ask that the amendment be ruled germane on that basis.
. . .
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁵⁾ The Chair is ready to rule on the
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 8760]]

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Kramer) provides a mechanism for measuring the ceiling to be placed
on the amount of fiscal 1980 funds which can be available to pay
salary increases for Members. The amendment does not in any way
directly affect provisions of law relating to public debt levels
during fiscal 1980.
As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section
24.18, the Chair ruled on July 26, 1973, that an amendment which
conditions the expenditure of funds in a bill by adopting as a
measure of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal
year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts
is germane, so long as the amendment does not directly affect the
obligation and expenditure of other funds or the administration of
other programs.
In the opinion of the Chair, the legislative standard stated in
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as a measure
of the amount of pay increase to be paid by fiscal 1980
appropriated funds is an easily ascertainable method of adjusting
the availability of those funds in relation to the Federal
financial situation as a whole, and is not drafted as a contingency
which is dependent upon specific unrelated events or actions of
Congress.
The gentleman's point of order is overruled.

Levels of Spending in Resolution on Budget as Measure of Spending
Authority

Sec. 34.2 To a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an amendment
restricting the amounts of direct spending authority in the bill
for the next fiscal year to the pertinent levels set forth in the
lower of the House or Senate levels as adopted in the concurrent
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year was held germane as
merely a measure of availability of funds in the bill which did not
directly affect the Congressional budget process.

On June 11, 1987,⁽¹⁶⁾ during consideration of H.R. 4,
the Housing Authorization Act, the Chair overruled a point of order
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 15540, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John] Hiler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hiler: Page 353, after line 9, add
the following new title and conform the table of contents
accordingly:

TITLE VII--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
sec. 701. enforcement provisions.

If this Act and the amendments made by this Act provide for
new budget authority, budget outlays, or new entitlement
authority, for fiscal year 1988 in excess of the level
established (for any budget function or subfunction applicable
to programs authorized by this Act and the amendments made by
this Act) by

[[Page 8761]]

the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year as
passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate (whichever
is lower), each amount provided by this Act and the amendments
made by this Act for such budget function or subfunction shall
be reduced by an equal percentage to ensure compliance with
such level.
sec 702. definitions.

For purposes of this title, the terms ``budget authority'',
``budget outlays'', ``concurrent resolution on the budget'',
and ``entitlement authority'' have the meanings given such
terms in section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 622). . . .

Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is invalid on the face of it because it would commit the
House to an improbability of action on the part of the other body,
over which we have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
It is premised on an illusory contingency which may or may
never happen. We do not even do that to the Appropriations
Committee; so I object on the basis that it foists on the House an
unacceptable mandate under the rules. . . .
Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the point of order is
in place. It is clear that what we are doing with this amendment is
trying to bring this bill within an appropriation budget level, as
we do on many, many bills when we have similar kinds of language. I
do not think the point of order should be sustained.
Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
support the point of order, because this is an attempt to change
the Budget Act which is not before us, to put in place a new
mechanism and a unique mechanism for enforcement of the Budget Act,
which is not a part of this legislation.
The fact is that it specifies and directs the Secretary in a
certain way to enforce this on the Budget Act. It extends to the
Budget Act that which cannot be amended. It goes to the
reconciliation process and to other processes in the 1974 Budget
Act, which is not the subject of this measure that is before us.
However important the budget mechanisms that are in place, it is an
attempt to modify them in a unique way and I think in a cumbersome
way in terms of this issue. . . .

The Chairman: ⁽¹⁷⁾ The Chair will rule that the
amendment does not amend the Budget Act. The Budget Act is only a
reference point, and levels in the budget resolution are measures
of availability of funds authorized or provided by the pending
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will rule that it is not in violation of the rules of
the House. No rule of the House requires the Chair to rule on or to
determine the workability or unworkability of an amendment.
The Chair will rule that the amendment is germane and the point
of order does not lie.

Expenditures Under Other Acts as Measure of Availability of Funds

Sec. 34.3 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the
obligation or ex

[[Page 8762]]

penditure of funds therein by adopting as a measure of their
availability the expenditure during that fiscal year of a
comparable percentage of funds authorized by other Acts is germane
so long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other
funds; thus, to a bill authorizing foreign economic and military
assistance, an amendment providing that the percentage of funds
obligated or expended pursuant to that Act at any time during
fiscal 1974 shall not be more than 10 percent greater than
percentages expended under certain other programs authorized by
Congress was held to impose a germane limitation on the
availability of funds authorized in the bill which did not directly
affect the operation of other government programs.

During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act
of 1973,⁽¹⁸⁾ on July 26, 1973,⁽¹⁹⁾ the Chair
overruled a point of order made against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 9360.
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Danielson: On page 53, after line
23, insert the following new section:

equitable expenditure of funds

Sec. 30. (a) Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise in
language expressly made applicable to this section, at any time
during the fiscal year 1974, the amount obligated or expended
pursuant to this Act for any program or activity authorized by
this Act, expressed as a percentage of the amount appropriated
by law for purposes of such program or activity, shall not be
more than 10 percentage points greater than the amount
obligated or expended at that time for any other program or
activity authorized by Act of Congress, expressed as a
percentage of the amount appropriated by law for purposes of
such other program or activity for the fiscal year 1974.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``other program
or activity'' shall include any program or activity
administered by or under the direction of the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Veterans' Administration. . . .

Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
insist on a point of order. . . .
[T]his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations
for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many
programs of agencies: The

[[Page 8763]]

Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veterans' Administration.
It goes far afield from the present legislation, and therefore I
insist on my point of order.
The Chairman: ⁽²⁰⁾ The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair has examined the amendment, and observes that the
amendment does not directly affect the obligation or expenditure of
funds under other Government programs. Rather, the percentages
obligated or expended under other programs merely serve as a
measure or limit of percentages which can be obligated or expended
under programs in the pending bill. For this reason, the Chair
feels that the amendment is a germane restriction on the
availability of funds authorized in the pending bill, and the Chair
overrules the point of order.

Salaries of Members Who Voted Against Salary Increase

Sec. 34.4 To a proposition limiting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to
pay salary increases for Members of Congress above 5 percent while
permitting top executive and judicial salaries to be increased by 7
percent, an amendment further restricting availability of those
funds to pay salaries of those Members voting against any salary
increase for Members contained in the pending joint resolution was
held germane as an additional restriction on the use of the same
funds, applied to the same category of recipients.

During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 in the House on
Sept. 25, 1979,⁽¹⁾ the Speaker overruled a point of order
against the amendment described above, demonstrating that, to a
proposition restricting the availability of funds to a certain category
of recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of
those funds to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 26135, 26136, 26138, 26140-43, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.J. Res. 404

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable
corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the
several departments, agencies, corporations, and other
organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year
1980, namely:

Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for
continuing projects or activities. . . .

[[Page 8764]]

For the fiscal year 1980, funds available for payment to
executive employees, which includes Members of Congress, who
under existing law are entitled to approximately 12.9 percent
increase in pay, shall not be used to pay any such employee or
elected or appointed official any sum in excess of 5.5 percent
increase in existing pay and such sum if accepted shall be in
lieu of the 12.9 percent due for such fiscal year: Provided
further, That for the purpose of carrying out this provision
and notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living
Adjustment Act, or any other related provision of law, which
would provide an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for
certain Federal officials for pay periods beginning on or after
October 1, 1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint
resolution, the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative
Branch Appropriation Act, 1979, which limit the pay for certain
Federal offices and positions, shall apply to funds
appropriated by this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal
year 1980 except that in applying such limitation the term ``at
a rate which exceeds by more than 5.5 percent the rate'' shall
be substituted for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the
rate'' where it appears in subsection (a) of such section for
the purpose of limiting pay increases to 5.5 percent. . . .

Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: On page 5, strike lines
10 through 16.

On page 6, line 3, strike everything after ``1980'' through
line 8, and insert a period. . . .

Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: Page 5, beginning on line 3,
strike out ``(except as to executive salaries which are covered
subsequently)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(without regard to
section 305 thereof)''.
Page 5, strike out line 10 and all that follows down
through ``limitation'' on line 4 of page 6 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living
Act, or any other related provision of law, which would provide
an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for certain Federal
officials for pay periods beginning on or after October 1,
1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution,
the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1979, shall apply to funds appropriated by
this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal year 1980;
except that in applying the limitation in such section 304 to
the pay of offices and positions (other than Members of
Congress) covered by that section the term ``at a rate which
exceeds by more than 7 percent the rate'' shall be substituted
for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the rate'' where it
appears in subsection (a) of such section for the purpose of
limiting such pay increases to 7 percent, and in applying such
limitation to the pay of Members of Congress. . . .

Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8765]]

Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser to the amendment offered by
Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr.
O'Brien: After the substitute offered by the gentleman from
Virginia add the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, no
part of the funds appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 1980
shall be available to pay the salary of any Member at a rate
which exceeds the salary rate payable for that office for
September 30, 1978, if at any time in the consideration of this
resolution that Member voted in a recorded vote for any
amendment that has the effect of limiting the amount payable
for Members of Congress to the rate payable for September 30,
1978. . . .

Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . I make the
point of order that the amendment is not germane to the substitute.
The amendment conditions the use of funds to pay salaries on the
votes of Members of Congress on this resolution and, therefore,
introduces new subject matter, both a Member's voting record and a
new method of calculating pay depending on the Member's voting
record. The amendment places nongermane restrictions on the use of
funds and should be ruled out of order. . . .
The Speaker: ⁽²⁾ . . . The Chair will rule that the
Fisher substitute contains a selective restriction on the
availability of funds in the bill by separating salaries of certain
employees, as opposed to Members of the Congress of the United
States, and that is in order. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) is a further selective
restriction on the availability of fiscal 1980 funds for the
Members' pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair feels that the amendment as offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Peyser) is germane to the Fisher amendment, and
the point of order of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte)
is overruled.

Travel of House Committee

Sec. 34.5 To a resolution authorizing an investigation and incidental
travel to be undertaken by a committee of the House, an amendment
placing restrictions on the funds permitted to be used in such
travel may be germane.

In the 88th Congress, a resolution ⁽³⁾ reported from the
Committee on Rules was under consideration. The resolution stated:
⁽⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H. Res. 84 (Committee on Rules).
4. 109 Cong. Rec. 1547, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolved, That effective January 4, 1963, the Committee on
Armed Services, acting as a whole or by subcommittee appointed by
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, is authorized to
conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all
matters--
(1) relating to the procurement . . . and disposition of . . .
equipment, supplies, and services, and the acquisition . . . and
disposition of real property, by or within the Department of
Defense. . . .

The following committee amendment was reported:

[[Page 8766]]

On page 3, after line 4, add the following paragraphs:

Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States
Code, or any other provision of law, local currencies owned by
the United States shall be made available to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and employees
engaged in carrying out their official duties under section
190(d) of title 2, United States Code: Provided, (1) That no
member or employee of said committee shall receive or expend
local currencies for subsistence an amount in excess of the
maximum per diem rates approved for oversea travel as set forth
in the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as revised
and amended by the Bureau of the Budget; (2) that no member or
employee of said committee shall receive or expend an amount
for transportation in excess of actual transportation costs;
(3) no appropriated funds shall be expended for the purpose of
defraying expenses of members of said committee or its
employees in any country where counterpart funds are available
for this purpose. . . .

Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, made the point of order that
``the matter of the appropriation of funds and the authorization of the
use of funds by any committee of the House is within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on House Administration.'' He further stated:

There is no authorization for the use of funds in the
resolution as presented, yet they attempt by the same resolution
now to limit the expenditures that may subsequently be authorized
by the Committee on House Administration. . . .

The Speaker,⁽⁵⁾ in overruling the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The resolution before the House does not deal with funds, but
the authorization of funds, and is also a restriction on the use of
funds that may be made available. The actual funds are matters that
will be passed upon by the Committee on House Administration.

Funds for Expenses of Retiring Members

Sec. 34.6 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute
providing that use of the contingent fund for committee
investigations be confined to travel in the United States and that
no appropriated funds be expended for committee expenses outside
the United States where local currencies are available, an
amendment providing that ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no part of any appropriation and no local currency'' shall be
available to pay any expenses in connection with travel outside the
United States of retiring Members was ruled out as not germane,
since it waived provisions of law not necessarily related to House
committee travel.

[[Page 8767]]

On Oct. 8, 1974,⁽⁶⁾ during consideration of House
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of
House committees), the Chair sustained a point of order against the
amendment described above. The amendment read, in part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 34463, 34464, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . .
Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part
of any appropriation and no local currency owned by the United
States shall be available for payment of any expenses, nor
shall transportation be provided by the United States, in
connection with travel outside the fifty States (including the
District of Columbia) of the United States of--
``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of
the House after he has been defeated as a candidate for
nomination, or election, to a seat in the House in any primary
or regular election until such time as he shall thereafter
again become a Member; or
``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the
House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a
Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next
Congress. . . .

Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment. . . .
As I heard the amendment, I believe it is directed at some
general laws of the United States, not just at the Rules of the
House of Representatives. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the
point of order should be sustained, because it goes far beyond the
Rules of the House and it deals with appropriations. It puts
jurisdictions on agencies. It puts additional duties on the
Department of State, and while I do not know that this directly
affects the point of order, it interferes with the 2-year elected
term of a Member of Congress. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽⁷⁾ The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair has carefully examined the second amendment read by
the Clerk. At the bottom of the page the paragraph starts out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
authorized for a committee, no part of any appropriation shall
be available--
and so forth.

This prefatory provision itself makes the amendment subject to
a point of order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and
the amendment is not in order.

Sec. 34.7 To a provision in an amendment in the nature of a substitute
restricting the use of the House contingent fund for committee
expenses to travel only in the United States and providing that no

[[Page 8768]]

appropriated funds be used for committee expenses outside the
country, where local currencies are available, an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds ``authorized for a committee'' for
expenses of retiring Members was held germane as a further
restriction on the availability of committee funds.

During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the
circumstances described above. The proceedings of Oct. 8,
1974,⁽⁸⁾ were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 34465, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . .
Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(2) No funds authorized for a committee shall be
available for payment of any expenses, nor shall transportation
be provided by the United States, in connection with travel
outside the fifty States (including the District of Columbia)
of the United States of--
``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the
House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination,
or election, to a seat in the House in any primary or regular
election until such time as he shall thereafter again become a
Member; or
``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the
House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a
Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next
Congress. . . .

Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment. It changes the Constitution of the
United States wherein it reduces the term of office of a Member and
takes away some of his prerogatives and privileges that he has for
a 2-year term equal to other Members, and it in effect makes a
second-class citizen of a Member who may decide to retire. . . .

The Chairman: ⁽⁹⁾ The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair cannot pass upon constitutional questions. The Chair
can only pass upon the germaneness of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee.
The Chair notes that the amendment is directed to the portion
of the Hansen amendment relating to funds for committee travel and
unlike the language in the prior amendment against which the point
of order was sustained, does not appear to be broader in effect
than the language in the Hansen amendment. The Chair holds the
amendment germane and overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: The prior ruling referred to by the Chair
is discussed in Sec. 34.6, supra.

[[Page 8769]]

Provision Authorizing Missile System Depending on Specified
Conditions--Amendment Containing Unconditional Prohibition on
Missile System for One Year

Sec. 34.8 To an amendment precluding the availability of an
authorization for a program for part of a fiscal year and then
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a
contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the
availability of the same funds for the entire fiscal year is a
germane alternative; thus, where an amendment as amended authorized
procurement of an MX missile system after a time certain during the
fiscal year if the President determined that the Soviet Union was
not limiting similar weapons, a subsequent amendment prohibiting
the use of funds in that title as a one year moratorium on the MX
program notwithstanding other language in the amendment was held
germane as an unconditional prohibition for the same fiscal year.

During consideration of H.R. 5167 (the Military Procurement
Authorization for fiscal 1985), on May 16, 1984,⁽¹⁰⁾ the
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 12566, 12567, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Mavroules to the amendment offered
by Mr. Bennett: At the end of the section proposed to be added
by the amendment add the following:

moratorium on mx missile procurement

Sec. 111. (a) Notwithstanding section 103(a) of this title,
the maximum amount that may be appropriated for fiscal year
1985 for missiles for the Air Force is $5,942,700,000.
(b) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to
authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for
the MX missile program.
(c) It is the intent of Congress that the denial of funds
for procurement under the MX missile system program for fiscal
year 1985 constitutes a moratorium on procurement of missiles
under such program but does not constitute a unilateral
termination of that program.

Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order on the amendment.

The Chairman: ⁽¹¹⁾ Does the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Dickinson) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

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

[[Page 8770]]

Mr. Dickinson: The gentleman will insist on the point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, without having had an opportunity
to study it, and I have not, but let me attempt to, it appears that
this is broader than the scope of what we have just worked on. And
I think it takes out missiles for more than just the MX. At this
point it affects 1984 money, and at this point, without having any
prior notice, there is no chance for me or staff to study it. . . .
So I respectfully submit that it is not germane, Mr. Chairman.
. . .
The Chairman: The Chair would rule that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Massachusetts is germane to the Bennett
amendment as amended and the Chair does not rule on the consistency
of amendments and, therefore, rules that the amendment is in order.

Production of Chemical Weapons

Sec. 34.9 To an amendment only decreasing the fiscal year 1984
authorization for Army ammunition funds in Title I of the Defense
Department authorization bill, a substitute adding language
prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for the production
or procurement of binary chemical weapons was held to be not
germane because addressing funds not addressed by the pending
amendment.

During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on
June 15, 1983,⁽¹²⁾ the Chair, in sustaining a point of order
against the amendment described above, indicated that a substitute for
an amendment must be germane to the amendment to which offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 15809, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike
out ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,157,900,000''. . . .

Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike out
``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,157,900,000''.
Page 10, after line 12, insert the following new section:

prohibition on procurement of binary chemical munitions and
related production facilities, equipment, and precursor
chemicals

Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorizations of appropriations in this title may be
obligated or expended

[[Page 8771]]

for procurement of binary chemical munitions or for production
facilities, equipment, or precursor chemicals for such
munitions.
(b) No funds available to the Department of Defense may be
made available for the production or procurement of binary
chemical munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or
precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of
reprogramming authority. . . .

Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton (of New York): Mr. Chairman, under
section 109 of the amendment, on line 9, it says,

No funds available to the Department of Defense may be made
available for the production or procurement of binary chemical
munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or
precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of
reprogramming authority.

The point of order is that this bill is a bill that would
authorize funds for fiscal year 1984 exclusively, whereas the
amendment deals with funds that might have been made available to
the Department of Defense in other ways, prior years, or subsequent
year, and, therefore, is outside of the scope of the pending
legislation and is, therefore, out of order. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: ⁽¹³⁾ The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Zablocki amendment addresses the Army ammunition funds
authorized by title I of the pending bill. The Bethune substitute
addresses other funds available to the Department of Defense not
authorized by the pending title I and is not germane to the
Zablocki amendment.
The Chair sustains the point of order.

Military Operations in North Vietnam

Sec. 34.10 To a bill authorizing supplemental appropriations for
military procurement, research and development, and military
construction, an amendment declaring it to be the sense of Congress
that none of the funds therein authorized shall be used to carry
out military operations in North Vietnam, was held to be germane.

In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill
⁽¹⁴⁾ comprising supplemental military authorizations for
fiscal 1967, an amendment was offered ⁽¹⁵⁾ as described
above. Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, raised the point of
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill.⁽¹⁶⁾
The Chairman,⁽¹⁷⁾ in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 5142, 5143, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
16. Id. at p. 5143.
17. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment relates only to funds authorized in this bill and
is similar in concept to an amendment offered to the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1950.

[[Page 8772]]

That amendment provided that no money authorized by the bill
should be granted to any country which violated the Charter of the
United Nations.
It was thus a restriction on funds authorized by the bill.
Chairman [Oren] Harris of Arkansas ruled that it was germane--
81st Congress, March 30, 1950, Record, page 4550.
The Chair thinks the present amendment simply places a
restriction on authorizations contained in this bill and relates
only to the funds in this bill.
The Chair holds that the amendment is germane.

Congressional Support for Geneva Accords

Sec. 34.11 To a bill authorizing military expenditures, an amendment
providing that ``none of the funds authorized herein'' be used
except in accordance with a congressional declaration of support
for the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 was held to be not
germane.⁽¹⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967. See
Sec. 30.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Funds To Relocate Vietnamese Evacuees in High Unemployment Areas
in United States

Sec. 34.12 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation
assistance out of South Vietnam, an amendment prohibiting the use
of such assistance to relocate or to create employment
opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in the United
States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the bill and
was held to be not germane.

During consideration of H.R. 6096 ⁽¹⁹⁾ in the Committee
of the Whole on Apr. 23, 1975,⁽²⁰⁾ Chairman Otis G. Pike, of
New York, sustained a point of order and held that the following
amendment went beyond the scope of the bill and was therefore not
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by
Mr. Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the
end of the bill which reads:
``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly
or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any
congressional district or

[[Page 8773]]

create employment opportunities in any congressional district
where the unemployment rate exceeds the national unemployment
rate as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United
States Department of Labor.''. . .

Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the
scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Nothing in the bill or in the amendment in the nature of a
substitute deals with the national unemployment rate. . . .

Mr. Clay: . . . The amendment simply imposes a condition that
none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money
will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this
bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. For the reasons
stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) and for the
fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's amendment is
not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of order is
sustained.

Funds for Deployment of Troops Beyond Specified Period

Sec. 34.13 To a bill authorizing funds and limited use of troops for a
specific purpose, an amendment stating that ``notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act'' funds authorized in the Act could not
be used for deployment of troops beyond a certain period of time
was held to be a proper limitation on use of funds and germane to
the bill.

On Apr. 23, 1975,⁽¹⁾ during consideration of the Vietnam
Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act ⁽²⁾ in the
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, overruling
a point of order, held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by
Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Page 1, line 5, insert
``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 2.'', and page 2, immediately
after line 2, add the following new subsection:
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
funds authorized or made available under this Act may be used
to finance, directly or indirectly, any combat activity, any
involvement in hostilities, or any military or paramilitary
operation, by the Armed Forces of the United States in, over,
or off the shores of South Vietnam after the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the first date after the date of enactment
of this Act on which any American

[[Page 8774]]

ground combat forces are introduced into South Vietnam in
conjunction with any program of evacuation as defined by
Section 4 of this Act. . . .

Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
From the few brief words that I heard, the amendment talks
about authorizing funds, authorizing the President to operate in
combat areas after a 30-day period of time, and I do not know
whether that has to do with any provision in the bill. I raise a
point of order against it. . . .
Mr. Solarz: . . . I think it is quite clear from the debate
today that the President had the inherent constitutional authority
to send American troops to evacuate American citizens and their
dependents.
My amendment says, in effect, if any troops are sent in, they
cannot be sent in for any more than 30 days. I think it is quite
clear under the constitutional powers that this amendment is
germane. . . .
Ms. Holtzman: . . . I did not understand that there was
anything in the bill that authorized the President to engage our
troops in combat in Laos or anyplace else and, therefore, it seems
to me the gentleman's amendment is not germane and subject to a
point of order. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: . . . There is no question in my
mind, with all of the precedents I have heard around here for many
years, that this is a germane amendment. It is simply a limitation
of the proposed legislation, no more and no less. It limits the
time that the President can do the things that this bill will give
him permission to do for 30 days. It is that simple.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
This amendment constitutes and states in its language,
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds
authorized or made available under this act may be used to
finance,'' et cetera.
It is a limitation on the funds authorized in the act.
The amendment is germane, and the point of order is overruled.

Assistance Barred for Country Engaging in Aggression

Sec. 34.14 To a bill to provide foreign economic assistance, an
amendment proposing that none of the money therein authorized be
granted to any country which violates the Charter of the United
Nations or engages in acts of aggression was held to be germane.

In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill ⁽³⁾
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was
offered: ⁽⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 4550, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: On
page 31, after line 10, insert the following:

[[Page 8775]]

Title IV, section 401. No money under any of the previous
titles of this bill, or any of the acts amended by this bill,
shall be granted, lent, or used directly or indirectly, and no
assistance provided for, shall be made available to . . . any
country which violates any provisions of the Charter of the
United Nations, or directly or indirectly engages in acts of
aggression as determined by proclamation of the President of
the United States of America, or by the United Nations, so long
as such acts continue, nor to, for, or in any country which
directly or indirectly sells, gives, or ships any material to
any country to which American nationals cannot obtain licenses
for the sale, gift, or shipment of similar materials unless the
consent of the President shall have first been obtained.

Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,⁽⁵⁾
in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The language of the amendment relates to a title of the bill.
The point of order is overruled.

Operation of Early-warning System in Sinai--Amendment Making Funds
Dependent on Reduction in United States Contribution to United
Nations' Peacekeeping Forces

Sec. 34.15 To a joint resolution authorizing the use of American
civilians to operate an early-warning system in the Sinai, an
amendment providing that funds subsequently authorized to carry out
the provisions of the resolution may only be used to the extent
that the United States contribution to the United Nations'
peacekeeping forces in the Middle East is proportionately reduced,
there being no mention of the United Nations' peacekeeping role or
of United States contributions thereto in the resolution, was held
to go beyond the scope of the resolution and was ruled out as not
germane.

During consideration of House Joint Resolution 683 (to implement
the United States proposal for the early-warning system in the Sinai),
the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment described
above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1975,⁽⁶⁾ in the Committee
of the Whole, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 121 Cong. Rec. 32430, 32431, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: Page 2, line 10,
after the period insert the following new sentence: To the
extent funds are authorized to carry out the provisions of this
resolution, such funds may be

[[Page 8776]]

used only to the extent that the United States contribution to
the United Nations for the purpose of peacekeeping forces in
the Middle East is reduced. . . .

Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise
a point of order against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane under clause 7 of
rule 16 because it deals with a subject matter which is not dealt
with in this resolution. The resolution would authorize the
stationing of American technicians in the Sinai.
The cost of this operation would come from the special
requirements fund for the Middle East, under section 903 of the
Foreign Assistance Act. Neither the resolution before the House,
nor section 903 of the Foreign Assistance Act, deal with the U.N.
peacekeeping force.
The U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force is
authorized by different legislation. U.S. contribution to that
force comes also from separate legislation. The amendment, by
attempting to tie this resolution to U.S. contribution to the U.N.
peacekeeping force, goes far afield from the purpose of this
legislation. It would considerably broaden the scope of this
legislation and is therefore not germane. . . .
Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The title of House Joint Resolution
683 reads:

To implement the United States proposal for the early-
warning system in Sinai.

The resolving clause says:

That the President is authorized to implement the ``United
States Proposal for the Early-Warning System in Sinai''

Mr. Chairman, the vast authority to implement stressed in the
title and resolving clause make this an extremely broad and
encompassing piece of legislation, in fact, more so than most.
For example, according to the report and also according to my
earlier colloquy with the chairman, implementation of this early
warning proposal will require $20 million the first year of already
appropriated funds or funds still to be appropriated.
Since this resolution authorizes the implementation of the
proposal, without a doubt, it inherently authorizes the spending of
the funds.
The Chair has ruled many times that amendments to place a
limitation on appropriations bills are in order if said amendments
are limiting in nature and do not include legislation. . . .
Further, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the language of the title
and resolving clause of this resolution are in fact broad enough
that this amendment be considered in order.
The Chairman: ⁽⁷⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) makes a point of
order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) on the grounds that it is not germane to the joint
resolution.
The Chair observes that the resolution does not involve the
role of the U.N., and that the amendment would broaden the scope of
the pending measure in a significant manner. By requiring a
reduction in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force,
in an

[[Page 8777]]

amount necessary to accomplish the purpose of the joint resolution,
the amendment would inject into the joint resolution the issue of
the extent of U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force and
the issue of the curtailment of the entire peacekeeping role of the
United Nations in the Middle East. As stated in Cannon's Procedure,
page 205, two subjects are not necessarily germane because related,
and the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the
fundamental purpose of the bill, as indicated at page 199, Cannon's
Procedure.
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Federal Aid Road Act--Restriction Affecting States Practicing
Segregation

Sec. 34.16 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act,
an amendment providing that no funds collected under the act be
available to any state or subdivision in which segregation is
practiced in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction was
held to be germane.

In the 84th Congress, a bill ⁽⁸⁾ was under consideration
amending the Federal Aid Road Act. The following amendment was offered
to the bill: ⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
9. 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana:

On page 32, following line 7, add a new section 19:
No funds collected under this act may be available to any
State, city, or subdivision in which segregation is practiced
in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction. . . .

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

Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not
germane. . . .
Mr. Wilson [of Indiana]: . . . Here we are authorizing this
great appropriation, under which we are going to spend billions of
dollars in every State in the Union. Yet, there are some States in
which the Negroes are not going to have a chance to work and earn
part of this money to pay the taxes to build the highways, to earn
money to pay the excise taxes on their trucks, to earn money to pay
the extra cost of their tires.
. . . I think these Negroes should be given the opportunity to
help build the highways because they are going to help to pay the
taxes. I think they should be able to use the facilities, the
restaurants, and the comfort stations, and so forth, that appear
along the highways.
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁰⁾ The gentleman from Indiana offers
an amendment to provide for a limitation on the funds collected
under the pending bill, to which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Jones] makes a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the opinion of the Chair that since the amendment refers
to and

[[Page 8778]]

touches upon the funds collected under this act, limiting their
use, the amendment is germane; therefore, the Chair overrules the
point of order.

Branches of Air Force Practicing Segregation

Sec. 34.17 To that section of a supplemental appropriation bill making
appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none
of the funds appropriated therein be used in branches of the
Department of the Air Force in which racial segregation exists was
held to be germane.

In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill
⁽¹¹⁾ comprising Supplemental National Defense Appropriations
of 1948, an amendment was offered ⁽¹²⁾ as described above. A
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 6226 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is,
therefore, not in order on this bill; that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill; that [it] imposes additional burdens and
restrictions that are entirely out of place.
This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill.
. . .

In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr.,
of New York, stated:

. . . This is an amendment which has limitations; it is
negative; it is the type that has been ruled in order on previous
appropriation bills.

The Chairman ⁽¹³⁾ overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph P. O'Hara (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons or Corporations Practicing Discrimination in Employment

Sec. 34.18 To a bill on the Consent Calendar seeking to remove from a
paragraph of an appropriation bill a provision that no loans be
made for the construction of any public works except in pursuance
of a specific authorization, an amendment was held to be not
germane which provided that none of the funds appropriated in the
same paragraph ``shall be paid to any person, firm or corporation
which refuses equality in employment because of race, color or
creed.''

In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill
⁽¹⁴⁾ relating to loans by federal agencies for the
construction of certain public

[[Page 8779]]

works, an amendment was offered ⁽¹⁵⁾ as described above. A
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 1771 (Committee on Public Works).
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 7951, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1949.
16. Id. at pp. 7951, 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I
make a point of order against the amendment that it is not germane
to the bill under consideration. It is not a limitation because
there is no appropriation involved. The purpose of the pending bill
is merely to remove a restriction on legislation already passed
where appropriations have been made. This makes no appropriation
whatever.

In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:
⁽¹⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, my amendment
refers to the First Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1946. This
bill, H.R. 1771, seeks to make amendments to that act. I submit the
amendment I have offered to the pending bill is a further amendment
of the Federal Public Works section of that act. My amendment is a
further proviso restricting the use of funds. . . .

The Speaker pro tempore,⁽¹⁸⁾ without elaboration,
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actions Brought on Account of Discriminatory Practices of State and
Local Governments

Sec. 34.19 To that title of a bill authorizing the Attorney General to
participate in actions brought on account of discriminatory
practices of state and local governments, an amendment to limit
expenditures to carry out purposes of the title was held to be
germane.

In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act
of 1963,⁽¹⁹⁾ the following amendment was offered:
⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 2274, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page
50, line 3, after the word ``title'' insert a new section 305 to
read as follows:

In carrying out the provisions of title III of H.R. 7152
expenditures shall be limited to not more than $312,530.

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

Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is not
germane to the title of the bill. It would limit expenditures. The
title itself makes no mention of expenditures; therefore, the
amendment is not germane.

The Chairman,⁽¹⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will hold that the amendment is in the form of a
limitation on

[[Page 8780]]

the authorizations of appropriations which may be made under the
title; that there are sections authorizing activities for carrying
out the provisions and of the title; and therefore the Chair
overrules the point of order. . . .

Transportation Programs Intended To Overcome Racial Imbalance

Sec. 34.20 To a program authorizing federal financial assistance, an
amendment limiting the uses to which those funds may be put is
germane; thus, to a bill providing assistance for mass
transportation programs, including language permitting school
systems to be eligible applicants for schoolbus construction and
operating subsidies where not in competition with private
operators, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized by
the bill to implement transportation programs intended to overcome
racial imbalance in school systems was held germane as a
restriction on the availability of assistance contained in the
bill.

On Aug. 15, 1974,⁽²⁾ during consideration of H.R. 12859
⁽³⁾ in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that
the germaneness of an amendment should be determined from provisions of
its text rather than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 120 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28438, 28439, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
3. The Federal Mass Transportation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Sec. 520. schoolbuses

``No Federal financial assistance shall be provided under this
title for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment
for use in providing public mass transportation service to any
applicant for such assistance unless such applicant and the
Secretary shall have first entered into an agreement that such
applicant will not engage in schoolbus operations, exclusively for
the transportation of students and school personnel, in competition
with private schoolbus operators. This section shall not apply to
an applicant with respect to operation of a schoolbus program if
the applicant operates a school system in the area to be served and
operates a separate and exclusive schoolbus program for this school
system. This section shall not apply unless private schoolbus
operators are able to provide adequate transportation, at
reasonable rates, and in conformance with applicable safety
standards; and this section shall not apply with respect to any
State or local public body or agency thereof if it (or a direct
predecessor in interest from which it acquired the function of so
transporting schoolchildren and personnel along with facilities to
be used therefor) was so engaged in schoolbus operations any time
during the twelve-month period immediately prior to the

[[Page 8781]]

date of the enactment of this section. A violation of an agreement
under this section shall bar such applicant from receiving any
other Federal financial assistance under this title.
Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Snyder: Page 68, line 4. After the
period insert the following: ``No funds appropriated for the
purpose of carrying out any applicable program may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase
of equipment for such transportation) in order to overcome
racial imbalance in any school or school system, or for the
transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of
equipment for such transportation), in order to carry out a
plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system,''
. . .

Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: I do insist on my point of
order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the amendment as offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky is totally unrelated to a national bus
transportation policy that is being considered under this act. His
amendment goes to a policy of social concern that he apparently has
a deep commitment to, that I do not think should be considered in
this bill, because this bill is dealing with physical property in
transportation. It is not dealing with social causes involved in
the gentleman's amendment. . . .
Mr. Snyder: . . . Certainly there is no question that what the
gentleman says is absolutely correct. This is unrelated to the mass
transit policy of this country, but it is absolutely related to the
language of this bill and the exception to the prohibition that
appears on line 13, page 67, relates not to the mass transit policy
of this Nation, but to an individual school system that might
operate a schoolbus system in connection with their school
operation. There is where the prohibition is necessary if, in fact,
the funds are not going to be used for this purpose.
The Chairman: ⁽⁴⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule on
the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. James W. Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair would remind the committee that the germaneness of an
amendment should be determined from provisions of its text, rather
than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest (Hinds'
Precedents, volume V, sections 5783, 5803).
Since the text of the amendment is related to a subject covered
by the bill, which is to say there is money authorized in the bill
for the construction and operation of buses which might be used for
the transportation of students, it is germane to place a limitation
on the uses for which that money may be directed.

Funds To Purchase Foreign-made Goods

Sec. 34.21 To a bill granting authorities to the federal government or
authorizing the appropriation of funds, an amendment denying the
use of those authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made goods or
equipment is germane.

The proceedings of Dec. 4, 1980, during consideration of H.R. 6417,

[[Page 8782]]

the Surface Transportation Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 35.82,
infra.

Funding Denied Unless Goods Produced by Slave Labor in Soviet Union are
Barred From Customs Entry

Sec. 34.22 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and
expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for
Enforcement and Operations after a date certain unless Congress
enacts authorizing legislation for the Customs Service, a proposed
substitute amendment restricting availability of funds in that bill
for the same office unless specific categories of products,
determined to have been produced by slave or convict labor in the
Soviet Union, are barred from customs entry into the United States
was conceded to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to
that contained in the Senate amendment.

On Nov. 7, 1985,⁽⁵⁾ during consideration of H.R. 3036
⁽⁶⁾ in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane,
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations,
fiscal 1986.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽⁷⁾ The Clerk will
designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

[[Page 8783]]

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

Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and
Operations if any of the following products of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the
United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner
of Customs is provided with sufficient information pursuant to
19 CFR 12.43 attesting to the fact that the products have not
been produced, manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by
forced labor, convict labor, or indentured labor under penal
sanctions:
``(1) gold ore,
``(2) agricultural machinery . . .
``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs
determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in
whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured
labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or
impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations
tons in making determinations under subsection (8) of the
preceding proviso''. . . .

Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment
numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be
available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after
March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for
the U.S. Customs Service.
The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits
funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products
and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to
be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are
barred entry into the United States after December 31.
The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject
matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also
constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports
within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of
order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that
the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds
contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the
U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the
Congress. . . .
This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the
Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to
those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any
other act.
No. 2, the language included in the amendment could
appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated
in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any ad

[[Page 8784]]

ditional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to
committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation
could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this
provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose
of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce
existing laws.
I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect
them to start enforcing the law.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of
order, and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Frenzel] is sustained.

United States Payments to Asian Development Bank

Sec. 34.23 To be germane an amendment restricting authorized funds in a
pending title must relate solely to those funds and may not apply
to another related category of funds; thus, to a title of a bill
authorizing a United States contribution to the Asian Development
Fund, a special fund of the Asian Development Bank, and providing
for accounting procedures by the Bank applicable to such
contribution, an amendment restricting United States payments to
the Bank for subscriptions in Bank stock, as well as payments to
the special Fund, was held not germane since affecting funds not
carried in the bill.

During consideration of H.R. 3829 ⁽⁸⁾ in the Committee
of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1980,⁽⁹⁾ the Chair sustained a point
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A bill increasing United States participation in international
financial institutions.
9. 126 Cong. Rec. 4960, 4970, 4971, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II--ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Sec. 201. The Asian Development Bank Act, as amended (22
U.S.C. 285 et seq.), is further amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 24. (a) The United States Governor of the Bank is
hereby authorized to contribute on behalf of the United States
$445,000,000 to the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of
the Bank: Provided however, That any commitment to make such
contribution shall be made subject to obtaining the necessary
appropriations.
``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution to
the Asian Development Fund provided for in this section, there
are hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year
limitation $445,000,000 for pay

[[Page 8785]]

ment by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(c) For the purpose of keeping to a minimum the cost to
the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the
United States contribution to the Asian Development Fund
authorized by this section by letter of credit in four annual
installments. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to take
the steps necessary to obtain a certification from the Bank
that any undisbursed balances resulting from drawdowns on such
letter of credit will not exceed at any time the United States
share of expected disbursement requirements for the following
three-month period.''. . .

Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 3, line 24, strike
out ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof ``sections''.
Page 4, insert the following after line 21:
``Sec. 25. No payment may be made to the Bank by the
Secretary of the Treasury for (1) the United States share of
the increase in subscriptions to the paid-in capital stock and
callable capital stock, or (2) the United States contribution
to the Asian Development Fund, if Taiwan (before January 1,
1979, known as the Republic of China) is excluded from
membership in the Bank.''
Page 4, line 21, strike out the closed quotation marks and
final period. . . .

Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment
is not germane to the bill before us. Chapter 28 of ``Deschler's
Procedure'' sets forth many examples of and precedents indicating
that an amendment must be germane to the bill before the committee.
In this instance, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York would, if adopted, amend the relationship of the United
States to the Asian Development Bank.
The bill before the committee in no way makes any reference to
the Asian Development Fund.
I would argue that the gentleman's amendment is not germane and
should be ruled out of order. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, the
legislation before us is the general authorizing legislation for
all of the various multilateral lending institutions covered by the
bill. The terms of this bill before us are broad in scope, and in
the case of the Asian Development Bank, they specifically, for
instance, in title IV, section 401, direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to instruct the Directors of the Asian Development Bank to
take certain steps regarding some future contingent event described
therein. There are a number of other restrictions placed upon the
lending institutions described in this bill.
The gentleman from New York's amendment simply suggests an
additional limitation of the same quality and type already included
in this bill be imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury as it
pertains to the Asian Development Bank, one of the institutions
that the bill authorizes. The amendment is germane. . . .
Mr. Solomon: . . . I would just like to explain, in reference
to the germaneness of the amendment, that this amendment would
prohibit the U.S. participation in the Asian Development

[[Page 8786]]

Bank if Taiwan is excluded from membership in that particular bank.
The gentleman is talking about the Asian Development Fund,
rather, capital stock, and the pending bill makes no reference to
capital stock. We are talking about the Asian Development Fund.
So the gentleman's amendment properly is not germane to the
subject matter under consideration.
Mr. Solomon: With all due respect to the chairman, it is simply
a limitation. It refers to title II, the Asian Development Bank. I
would state that the amendment is germane.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I do so
only to underline the major motivation for my point of order, and
this is that our bill addresses itself to the Asian Development
Fund. At no point is it considering the question of capitalization
structure or the stock. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁰⁾ The Chair would direct [a]
question to the gentleman and ask whether or not the $445 million
authorized to be contributed in title II, does it include in that
the U.S. share of subscriptions to the paid-up in capital stock and
the callable capital stock, as well as the contribution to the
Asian Development Fund?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Duncan (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Gonzalez: No; if the distinguished chairman will look at
page 4 of the bill, the first line, section 24(a):

The United States Governor of the Bank is hereby authorized
to contribute on behalf of the United States $445 million to
the Asian Development Fund.

There is a distinction between the fund and the bank. The
amendment of the gentleman addresses itself to the bank and the
capitalization structure, et cetera, et cetera. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Having examined title II, and concurring with the gentleman
from Texas that the authorizations are entirely to the Asian
Development Fund and without reference to the bank and without
reference to either paid in capital stock or callable capital
stock, the Chair is forced to rule that to that extent the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is
nongermane to title II of H.R. 3829.

Restriction on Funds for Abortions

Sec. 34.24 To the ``general provisions'' title of the annual Defense
Department authorization bill, including authorizations for special
pay to health professionals within the armed services and
authorization ceilings on payments to physicians under the
uniformed services health benefit program (CHAMPUS) as well as
other miscellaneous provisions and authorizations, an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds authorized by the bill to pay for
abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered
if the fetus were carried to term

[[Page 8787]]

was held in order as a germane limitation on the use of the funds
and authorities provided in the bill.

On Oct. 4, 1978,⁽¹¹⁾ the Committee of the Whole was
considering an amendment to H.R. 14042 when a point of order was raised
against the amendment on grounds that it was not germane. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 33529, 33530, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 39, immediately after
line 3, insert the following new section:

prohibition on use of funds for abortions

Sec. 818. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act may be used to pay for abortions performed by any
means except where the life of the mother is in danger if the
fetus is carried to term, nor may such funds be used to promote
or encourage abortion.

Mr. [Mendel J.] Davis [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the
amendment on the basis of germaneness. In this bill, title I
authorizes money for the procurement of major weapons systems for
the Department of Defense.
Title II authorizes funds for R. & D. by the Department of
Defense, and title VII authorizes funds for Civil Defense. However
in the operation and maintenance of hospitals, medical clinics,
payments for the services, and so forth, they are operated and paid
for out of the O. & M. account and therefore not subject for
authorization by this bill.
The amendment was introduced likewise on the appropriation
bill. That is where it should have been, because that is where the
moneys are, but, Mr. Chairman, to burden this bill with a
nongermane amendment going to a limitation of funds that are not
authorized by this bill is improper, and I would hope the Chair
would sustain the point of order.
The Chairman: ⁽¹²⁾ Does the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dornan) care to be heard on that point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Dornan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina did not mention
title VIII. If my colleagues will turn to title VIII of this bill
they will see a section entitled ``Extension of Authority for
Special Pay for Health Professionals.'' This impacts of course in
some areas on abortion. On page 29 they will see the heading
``Ceiling for Payments to Physicians Under CHAMPUS.'' It was this
very program that first called my attention to how far we had moved
in supporting and encouraging abortion with Defense dollars,
because it was under this program in a military medical journal
where they began to outline how vigorously they were going to move
in the area of abortion far and beyond the movement we have seen,
contrary to the wishes of the President and of Mr. Califano even in
HEW.

[[Page 8788]]

So I believe it is not only germane, it is super-germane to
this bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dornan) and noted the arguments made by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Davis). There are in title VIII
authorizations for appropriations for certain programs involving
military personnel as well as ceilings for payments and limitations
with respect to the expenditure of funds involving personnel. It is
for this reason and because of the specific provisions in title
VIII mentioned by the gentleman from California that the Chair
overrules the point of order and sustains the germaneness of the
amendment.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.

Education Bill--Funds for Teaching or Counseling as to Use of Abortion

Sec. 34.25 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of
Education, containing findings and purposes and setting forth
restrictions on the authority of the new department to exercise
federal control over education, an amendment denying the use of
funds under federal programs to assist the teaching of or
counseling as to the use of abortion was ruled out of order as not
germane, being unrelated to the fundamental purpose of the title to
restrict federal control over public education and curricula,
inasmuch as it sought to address funding authority rather than
legal restrictions.

On June 12, 1979,⁽¹³⁾ the Chair sustained a point of
order against an amendment to a title of a bill ⁽¹⁴⁾ which
restricted the authority of an entity to exercise control over
institutions for which it was to administer funding under existing
laws, holding that the amendment, which curtailed the authority of the
agency to provide funds for certain reasons, was not germane. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 2444, Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 57, after line 7
insert new section:

prohibition against abortion educational expenditure

Sec. 104. No provision of law relating to a program
administered by the Secretary or by any other officer or agency
of the executive branch of the Federal Government shall be

[[Page 8789]]

construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to
fund, control, supervise, or to assist in any manner, directly
or indirectly, the teaching of abortion as a method of family
planning, or counseling the use of abortion by students or
others, or the practice of abortion, through or in conjunction
with the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864),
as amended; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(P.L. 80-10), as amended; the Higher Education Act of 1965
(P.L. 89-329), as amended; the Adult Education Act (P.L. 89-
750), as amended; or any other federally sponsored educational
program, except as explicitly provided by statute. . . .

Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would say (the
germaneness rule) requires an amendment to be germane to the
subject under consideration and to be germane the amendment must
have the same fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration.
This amendment does not and I would like to speak on it if I might.
. . .
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the effect of amending
statutes not before the House. The amendment imposes an additional
restriction on the expenditure of funds that are not now in the
law. The amendment is not related to Federal control but is a
direct restriction on Federal funding.
Mr. Chairman, the prior amendments to this title have been
ruled proper as clarifying the intent of the legislation, not to
extend the authority of the Federal Government in the areas of
discrimination and religion. They did not undermine or add new
restrictions to the authority but merely offer to prevent its undue
expansion.
This amendment would curtail, in a manner not previously
considered by the committee of substantive jurisdiction, existing
authority to assist biological and health educational programs and
rather than protecting the local authority from Federal control
will add a new restriction and extend Federal control over that
local authority. This is not a matter appropriate to a
reorganization bill. It is not a decision that is within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and should
not be approved, ``except as explicitly provided by statute.'' It
just does not eliminate a flaw in this amendment because it simply
leads us in circles. In effect, the amendment says no provision of
law shall be construed to do so and so except as explicitly
provided by statute. Of course, no provision of the law can be
construed to do anything except as provided by statute. . . .
Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I would indicate that my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas, is correct in indicating that my amendment
would attach to several provisions of law; however, under this
reorganization that is precisely what we are doing. We are bringing
the administration provisions of law, of statutes heretofore
enacted under the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of Education.
I would also point out that on page 90 in section 437 the
General Education Provision Act is specifically referred to.
The Speaker in November of 1971 in a direct ruling similar to
this indicated where the General Education Provision Act is brought
before the Congress, that opens up the provisions that are covered
by the General Education Provisions Act.
Even beyond that, I limited the amendment to specific
educational acts

[[Page 8790]]

that under this reorganization are brought under the jurisdiction
of the new Secretary of the Cabinet office to be created.
I think the rulings of the Chair in the past days, yesterday
and today, clearly indicate that this amendment as a limitation on
programs administered by the Secretary of the new department to be
created would be germane.
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁵⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the grounds that it
is not germane to the bill.
The Chair might state that the precedent cited by the gentleman
from Ohio did not involve a reorganization bill.
The amendment which the gentleman from Ohio has offered would
provide that no provision of law shall be construed to authorize
the Secretary of Education or any other officer to fund, control,
or assist the teaching of abortion as a family planning method or
the counseling or use of the practice of abortion in connection
with federally sponsored educational programs, except where
explicitly provided by statute.
The gentleman has argued in opposition to the point of order
that the provisions of title I as perfected by the Committee of the
Whole yesterday already limit in various respects the authority of
the Department of Education and other Federal officials to control
the activities of local educational agencies receiving Federal
funds for educational purposes.
The provisions of section 103 of the bill as amended contain
restrictions on the authority of the Federal Government to exercise
control over the local discretionary use of Federal funds and to
require eligibility standards for the receipt of such funds; but it
is contrary to the fundamental purpose of those limitations to
directly change the Secretary's authority to provide funds to local
educational agencies.
Nothing in the bill before the Committee of the Whole, which is
essentially an organizational bill, changes the authority to
provide Federal funds for educational purposes under those laws
whose administration is transferred to the new Department.
Title I, as amended, remains restricted in scope to expressions
of policy which indicate that the authorities being transferred by
this bill are not to be construed as being expanded to permit
increased Federal control over local educational policies.
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Denying Assistance to Health Centers in States That Permit
Public Bath Houses

Sec. 34.26 It is not germane to condition assistance to a particular
class of recipient covered by a bill upon an unrelated contingency,
such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or agent
not covered by the bill; thus,

[[Page 8791]]

to a bill only relating to federal funding and programs for
community and migrant health centers not operated by state
governments, an amendment denying assistance under the bill to any
health center located in any state which permitted the operation of
public bath houses was ruled out as imposing a nongermane
contingency to bar the use of funds, since state governments were
not recipients of funds in, or otherwise affected by, the
provisions of the bill.

During consideration of H.R. 2418 (Health Services Amendments of
1985), in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1986,⁽¹⁶⁾
the Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 132 Cong. Rec. 3613, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 5, after line 23
insert the following:
sec. 7. grant condition.

Effective 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, no grant may be made under section 329 of the Public
Health Service Act for a migrant health center or under section
330 of such Act for a community health center if such center is
located in a State which permits the operation of any public
bath which is determined by the State or a local health
authority to be hazardous to the public health or used for
sexual relations between males. . . .

Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I assert
my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, the
gentleman from California, is not germane to this bill. This bill
provides for the operation of community health centers and migrant
health centers. To our knowledge, no community or migrant health
centers are operated by State governments. This amendment would
delay the operation of the legislation until a contingency not
related to the purposes of this bill is carried out by States. This
amendment is not germane. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order that is
being asserted by my friend from Los Angeles may have some merit if
the proscription of the amendment had general applicability to all
health care funds. It does not.
It is limited exclusively to any funding that may be available
under the two programs. Community Health Centers and Migrant Health
Centers. With that limitation, I think it is most appropriate to
say in this authorization bill that none of the funds can be used
unless, within 6 months, States of the Union who seek to apply for
these funds have shut down bathhouses in their jurisdictions. In
that narrow area, I believe it should pass muster as having
germaneness and applicability.
Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further on this
amend

[[Page 8792]]

ment. An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation
pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. The funds granted
under this program are to private entities, not to State
governments.
To permit that those funds be cut off to private entities
because of the inaction by State government is not germane because
it is a contingency that cannot be met by the organization to which
the funds would be granted. Chapter 28, section 24, provides that
an amendment making the implementation of Federal legislation
contingent upon the enactment of unrelated State legislation is not
germane.
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is reference
in this amendment that would close down these programs if something
was ``used for sexual relations between males.'' There is nothing
in this bill dealing with that. It introduces an entire new subject
and would require the ascertainment of a fact that has nothing to
do with the subject matter of this bill and would delay the
enactment of the program on that basis. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁷⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bill, H.R. 2418, is a categorical grant program. The money
that is authorized under the bill, if appropriated, goes to
community and migrant health centers and not to the States. The
bill was narrowed earlier in these proceedings to remove from the
bill the only paragraph that referred to the States.
This amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr.
Dannemeyer, seeks to impose a condition upon a State which must be
met by the State government before community health centers that
may be in that State or partly in that State can receive the funds.
States are not recipients of the funds provided in the bill or
otherwise within the purview of the bill.
An earlier ruling of September 25, 1975, which appears in
Deschler's Procedures of the House at page 596, states, ``That an
amendment is not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill
contingent upon an unrelated event or determination.''
Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order
is sustained.

Federal Energy Administration Hearings To Be Conducted in Specified
Areas

Sec. 34.27 To a bill extending the existence of the Federal Energy
Administration and authorizing appropriations for that agency, an
amendment requiring that agency to promulgate regulations to assure
that the agency hearings funded by the bill are conducted in the
areas to be affected by that agency's actions was held germane as a
restriction on the use of funds authorized by the bill.

On June 1, 1976,⁽¹⁸⁾ during consideration of H.R. 12169,
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Ken

[[Page 8793]]

tucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment to the bill. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16057, 16058, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

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

requirements for hearings in areas affected by rules and
regulations of the administrator

Sec. 3. Section 7(i)(1) is amended by adding after
subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
``(D)(i) The Administrator shall, not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, prescribe
and implement rules to assure that any hearing the expenses of
which are paid by any funds authorized to be appropriated under
this Act shall--
``(I) if such hearing concerns a single unit of local
government or the residents thereof, be held within the
boundaries of such unit;
``(II) if such hearing concerns a single geographic area
within a State or the residents thereof, be held within the
boundaries of such area; or
``(III) if such hearing concerns a single State or the
residents thereof, be held within such State. . . .''

Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. . . .
[T]he amendment is not germane. If my colleagues will observe,
we have a lengthy amendment here which embodies a number of things
including extensive requirements for hearings in different parts of
the country. But in addition to this it vests broad new discretion
in the Administrator of FEA by saying that he can have a hearing or
not have a hearing, or determine none is appropriate.
It also provides new quasi-judicial powers to the Administrator
of the FEA to consolidate these hearings, raising great questions.
There is also a series of cross-references to a large number of
other parts of the Federal Energy Agency Act and of the EPCA, and
as a result it is impossible to discern very quickly just what
discretions and what authorities and what requirements are imposed
upon the Administrator. . . .
Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, to
alleviate any doubts any of my colleagues may have regarding the
germaneness of this amendment, let me stress this is an amendment
dealing not with just any hearings but would be one specifically
tied to any hearing with respect to the disagreement over an
expenditure of FEA funds. My amendment would assure that in
connection with the administrative expenses paid out for FEA, the
hearings--and it does not require any hearings to be held which are
not now required to be held--will be held within the jurisdictions
affected. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lagomarsino) is limited to hearings paid for by the funds
authorized in this bill. The amendment restricts the uses to which
such funds may be used and is germane. The Chair therefore
overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8794]]

Contracts for Development of Synthetic Fuels--Prohibition Against
Contracts With Major Oil Producers

Sec. 34.28 To a bill authorizing appropriations to enter into contracts
for the development of synthetic fuels, an amendment prohibiting
the use of the funds authorized to enter into contracts with any
major oil company was held germane.

During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of
1979 ⁽¹⁹⁾ in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated
that to a bill authorizing appropriations and providing contracting
authority, an amendment restricting the use of the authorization or
contracting authority for the benefit of a certain class of recipients
is germane. The proceedings of June 26, 1979,⁽²⁰⁾ were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 3930.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 16694-96, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 11, after line 2,
insert the following:
``(3) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first word of section
(a) and by inserting the following after the last sentence.
``(2) No funds authorized in subparagraph (1) above to
carry out the purposes of Sections 305(d)(3) and 305(d)(5) may
be used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to
purchase any amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical
feedstock with any major oil company. For the purposes of this
section:
``(A) The term `major oil company' means any person,
association, or corporation which, together with its
affiliates, either produces or refines a daily world-wide
volume of 1,600,000 barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids
equivalents, and natural gas equivalents''. . . .

Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, according to
rule XVI, clause 7--that is the germaneness rule of the House--one
of the tests is the jurisdiction of the committee of jurisdiction.
Certainly a bill of this nature which we are talking about, when we
have sort of a divestiture of certain oil companies, legislation of
this sort should come from the Committee on the Judiciary.
Second, the title of the bill is another test of jurisdiction.
According to the title, this is a bill ``to amend the Defense
Production Act of 1950 to extend the authority granted by such act
and to provide for the purchase of synthetic fuels and synthetic
chemical feedstocks, and for other purposes.''
Certainly that does not come under germaneness test and the
defense title of the bill. If there is any purpose to this bill, it
is to provide for the production because of defense purposes, and
this is an attempt to interfere and stop a substantial section of
our country from participating in the program.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly under rule XVI, clause 7,
my argument stands up. . . .
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The amendment is
carefully draft

[[Page 8795]]

ed as a limitation on authorization. It says, ``No funds authorized
. . . to carry out the purposes of sections'' so-and-so ``may be
used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to purchase any
amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock with any
major oil company.''
The amendment is clearly germane to the bill. . . .
Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise
to suggest that the point of order is not well taken. The
provisions of this act that provide for an opportunity for
Government-based cooperation provides for the limitation on the
size of the contract in terms of 100-billion-a-day equivalent
synthetic fuels. It has all sorts of parameters in the nature of
purchases by contractors and the nature of the agreement. I think
this is one further limitation that is in order in terms of this
legislation. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair cannot see any questions of germaneness raised by the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). It
appears to the Chair to be simply an additional restriction or
condition on the contracting authority granted under this act and,
therefore, to be germane.
The Chair overrules the point of order.

Direction to Department of Energy Concerning Purchase of Alternative
Fuels

Sec. 34.29 To a title of the annual Department of Energy authorization
bill, providing limitations and directions on the use of operating
expenses for the entire Department funded throughout the bill, and
specifically limiting the use of funds for physical facilities and
for the purchase of gasoline for use of the Department, an
amendment providing procedures for the Department to follow in
purchasing alternative fuels for use in its vehicles during the
fiscal year covered by the bill, was held germane as a further
related restriction or direction on the use of operating funds for
the fiscal year.

During consideration of H.R. 3000 in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 18, 1979,⁽²⁾ the Chair overruled a point of order,
demonstrating that to a title of an annual authorization bill
containing both limitations on the use of funds and directions to the
agency for the fiscal year covered by the bill, an amendment adding
further directions to that agency to be followed during the same period
is germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 28795, 28796, 28798-800, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8796]]

limitation of reprogramming of funds

Sec. 801. (a)(1) Subject to the limitations of sections 201(b)
and 802, no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than
title I) may be used for any program, function, or purpose in
excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated for
that program, function, or purpose by this Act, nor may the amount
available for any program, function, or purpose from sums
appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than title I) be reduced
by more than 5 percent of the total of the sums appropriated
pursuant to this Act for such program, function, or purpose or by
more than $10,000,000 (whichever is the lesser) . . .
``(e) Not later than 120 days after the close of a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report
on--
``(1) revenues received during such fiscal year from uranium
enrichment activities and other programs, and . . .

limitation of funds for facilities for department of energy

Sec. 809. No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
may be used for the renovation . . . of facilities to provide
temporary or permanent space for personnel relocated as a result of
the establishment and activation of the Department of Energy and
for which funds were appropriated by chapter V of title I of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1978.

limitation on use of gasoline by department

Sec. 810. No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used
to purchase motor gasoline or to reimburse any other Federal agency
for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the
amount of motor gasoline purchased . . . during the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1979, by any component of the Department for
which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act. . . .
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 78, line 11,
insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 810.''.
Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
(b)(1) The Secretary of Energy shall advertise in the
Federal Register to request bids from distributors of
alternative fuels produced in the United States for the
purchase of such alternative fuels for use during the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1980, in motor vehicles owned by the
Department of Energy.
(2) The Secretary shall require that each such distributor
who submits such a bid include in such bid an agreement--
(A) to provide a quantity of an alternative fuel--
(i) which will produce an amount of energy which is not
less than the amount of energy produced by 200,000 gallons of
motor gasoline, and
(ii) the cost of which does not exceed the cost that the
Secretary would incur to purchase 200,000 gallons of motor
gasoline,
(B) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by
which any cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any
facility for the storage of such alternative fuel ex

[[Page 8797]]

ceeds the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any
facility for the storage of motor gasoline that would have been
incurred if such motor gasoline had been purchased by the
Secretary in lieu of such alternative fuel. . . .

Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rules of
the House require that amendments to legislation shall be germane,
first, to the bill, and second, to the portion of the bill to which
they are directed.
Mr. Chairman, without addressing at this particular moment
whether or not the amendment is germane to the bill, I will address
the second point, which is the lack of germaneness of the amendment
to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.
Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will observe, the portion of the
bill to which the amendment is offered, it can be observed it is a
limitation on the use of gasoline by a department. It then is a
limitation on funds, which reads as follows:

No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Act
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used to
purchase motor gasoline or reimburse any other Federal agency
for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the
amount of the motor gasoline purchase.

In other words, we have here a limitation. The proposal that is
offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from California, is one
which would set up a rather large program which would require the
Secretary of Energy to do a whole series of things, none of which
are consistent with or which are relevant to this limitation. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, section 810 of the committee bill
which is before the committee now for its consideration contains a
restriction on the use of funds during the existing fiscal year for
the purchase of motor gasoline. That is in section 810 of the bill
before the committee.
For instance, it provides that the Department of Energy is
required to reduce its consumption of gasoline by not less than 15
percent during this 1980 fiscal year.
That is the very thrust of this proposed amendment. It is
designed also to reduce the quantity of gasoline that is being
consumed by the Department of Energy through the medium of
soliciting alternative sources of supply. It is not specific; it
just says, ``alternative fuels'' in the proposed amendment. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: ⁽³⁾ The Chair is prepared
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will observe that the rules of the House require that
the amendment first be germane to the pending portion of the bill
to which it is offered.
Title VIII deals with operating funds and personnel expenses of
the entire Department of Energy for the fiscal year 1980. The
amendment appears to the Chair to be confined to fiscal year 1980
and to constitute an appropriate restriction or direction on how
the Department uses its operating funds for the fiscal year in
question, and it is, therefore, germane.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Administrative Services Related to Construction of Electrical Power
Facilities

Sec. 34.30 To that paragraph of the Agriculture Appropria

[[Page 8798]]

tions Bill making appropriations for the Rural Electrification
Administration, an amendment was held to be germane which provided
that ``during the period of the war . . . no part of [the
appropriation in the paragraph] shall be expended for
administrative services which have to do with the construction of
any facilities for the production . . . of electric power in any
area now receiving central station service.''

In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural
Appropriations Bill of 1943,⁽⁴⁾ an amendment was offered
⁽⁵⁾ to a paragraph of the bill in an attempt to place
restrictions, in the manner described above, on the expenditure of the
appropriation in that paragraph. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and that
it constituted legislation on an appropriation bill. He stated:
⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
5. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
6. Id. at pp. 2445, 2446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the duties
of the Rural Electrification Administration are already prescribed
in existing law. This amendment attempts to change that, which
makes it purely legislation on an appropriation bill. Besides, as I
pointed out a moment ago, this expense account has nothing whatever
to do with the disposition of the money borrowed by the rural
electrification cooperatives from the R.F.C. or through the R.F.C.
. . .

The following exchange ⁽⁷⁾ ensued between Mr. Malcolm C.
Tarver, of Georgia, who spoke in support of the point of order, and the
Chairman: ⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at p. 2446.
8. The Chairman was Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, may I offer an observation in
connection with this argument? The limitation which the gentleman
seeks to impose upon the administrative expenses cannot be germane
to this paragraph of the bill, which has nothing to do with
administrative expenses but merely with the item of loans. The item
of administrative expenses has already been passed.
The Chairman: The Chair would call attention to the fact that
the amendment is offered to the total amount for rural
electrification, which includes everything for rural
electrification.

Subsequently, the Chairman overruled the point of order. He stated:

The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order [that
the amendment] is not germane. The Chair feels that the present
amend

[[Page 8799]]

ment . . . being limited to the amount proposed to be appropriated
for the Rural Electrification Administration, and being a
limitation only upon the expenditure of those funds, is in order. .
. .

Prior to the above ruling, the Chairman had ruled that a similar
amendment, providing that no part of the money appropriated ``under
this bill'' should be expended for the stated purposes, was not germane
to the paragraph in question. Inclusion of the quoted language, the
Chairman indicated, rendered the amendment improper at that point,
``since the amendment is directed to the entire bill.'' ⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the proceedings at 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Mar. 13, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Amendment Affecting Exports of
Uranium

Sec. 34.31 It is germane to a bill authorizing appropriations for an
agency, to prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which
the funds may otherwise be applied; thus, to a bill authorizing
appropriations for all the annual activities of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, including review and approval of exports of
uranium, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized in
the bill to review, process or approve exports of certain uranium
was held germane.

On Nov. 5, 1981,⁽¹⁰⁾ during consideration of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission authorization bill for fiscal years 1982 and
1983,⁽¹¹⁾ the Chair overruled a point of order against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 26715, 26716, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 4255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 16, after line 20,
insert the following:
Sec. 14. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part
of any funds authorized to be appropriated by the Act may be
used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process,
or approve any application for a license to export uranium
enriched to greater than 20 percent U-235.
(b) The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any application for a license to export uranium if
such uranium is exported for use in reactors which the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission determines cannot feasibly be converted
to low enriched uranium. . . .

Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: . . . Mr.
Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment. I make
the point of order against the amendment on the grounds that the
amendment is not germane to the bill and the amendment is not
germane to the nature of the substitute

[[Page 8800]]

that is before us and thus is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI
of the rules of the House.
Proceeding further with my argument, I would point out that the
measure before us, the purpose is to authorize appropriations
through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the
provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act.
In addition, the bill before us makes other changes in the
authority of the NRC, granting them rights to issue temporary
operating licenses to nuclear-powered electric generating plants
and also gives (discretion to the NRC) to report to the Congress on
their recommendations for reducing the licensing time for nuclear-
powered electric generating facilities.
Now the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is an amendment to entirely different
sections of the act. It sets up new criteria governing the
exportation of certain nuclear material. That subject matter is
found nowhere in the bill before us.
The bill before us does not address in any way the question of
exportation of nuclear matter. In fact, the question of criteria
governing the export of nuclear material is found in an entirely
different section of the act, section 127. . . .
I would remind the Chair that not only should the fundamental
purpose of an amendment be germane to the fundamental purpose of
the bill, but also any amendment seeking to restrict the use of
funds must be limited to the subject matter and scope of the
provision sought to be amended. I do not believe that the amendment
meets either test.
I would also question whether an amendment of this nature
involving exportation of material to foreign countries might also
fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Their jurisdiction is over measures to foster commercial
intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business
interests abroad.
I am questioning whether or not there might be jurisdiction of
another committee involved here.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is imperative
that this amendment is not germane and would urge the Chair to
sustain the point of order. . . .
Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, what
we have before us at this time is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
authorization. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is for all
purposes, for all funding. This is merely a limitation on the
expenditure of those funds from one of those functions.
Clearly, it is germane within the definition of the functions
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to place a restriction upon
the expenditure of funds for these purposes. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽¹²⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from North Carolina makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is not
germane to the bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI, of
the rules of the House.
The bill before the Committee is a general authorization bill
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which

[[Page 8801]]

provides funds for a variety of functions of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, including nuclear reactor regulations, instructions and
enforcement standards development, nuclear materials safety,
safeguards, nuclear regulatory research program, technical support
administration and international programs.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
merely limits whatever funds are available under this authorization
bill for the issuing of export licenses, that is, those funds that
are used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process,
or approve any application for license to export uranium. If there
are no funds authorized to perform those activities, the amendment
would not be relevant; but the amendment merely restricts whatever
role the NRC has with respect to the export of enriched uranium and
it goes no further.
In addition, in the Interior Committee report the chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee in a letter to the chairman of the
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee states, and I read from his
letter:

We have paid particular attention to activities within both
the Office of International Programs and the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, both of which have major
responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978
to upgrade international standards, strengthen the export and
import licensing process, and explore further international
cooperation in the area of nuclear health and safety.

The letter goes on to relate those activities to the operation
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
So the Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts is germane and the point of order is overruled.

Funds for Airport Access Road

Sec. 34.32 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington
airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the
appropriation permitted to be used for the construction of an
authorized access road was held to be germane.

In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Supplemental
Appropriation Act of 1960,⁽¹³⁾ an amendment was offered
⁽¹⁴⁾ as described above. Ruling on a point of order raised
by Mr. Harold R. Gross, of Iowa, the Chairman ⁽¹⁵⁾ stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 7978 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1959.
15. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment . . . to which the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) has made a point of order on the
grounds that the amendment is not germane and that it constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access
roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that
the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which
funds may be used, that it is

[[Page 8802]]

germane to the bill and is not legislation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.

Salaries Within Public Housing Administration

Sec. 34.33 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that
no part of an appropriation therein for ``defense housing'' be used
for administrative expenses or salaries within the Public Housing
Administration ``so long as that agency proceeds with'' certain
projects was held to be germane.

In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a supplemental
appropriation bill,⁽¹⁶⁾ the following amendment was offered:
⁽¹⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 8370 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8353, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of California]:
On page 14, line 18, after the period, insert the following: ``No
part of this appropriation may be used for administrative expenses
or to pay salaries to any employee within the Public Housing
Administration or for any other purposes so long as that agency
proceeds with any public-housing project after such project has
been rejected or previous approval thereof canceled by the
governing body of the locality by resolution or otherwise or by
public vote and the governing body has recognized local liability
to reimburse the Federal Government for funds, if any, advanced on
such project prior to such cancellations.''

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

Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to
the bill, and it introduces new subject matter.
The Chairman,⁽¹⁸⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The Chair has had opportunity to examine this amendment,
and is of the opinion that it is merely a limitation upon the
manner in which, and the purpose for which, the money can be used
and therefore is germane and overrules the point of order.

Payments to Persons Who Strike Against Government

Sec. 34.34 To a bill proposing to establish a national housing
objective and the policy to be followed in the attainment thereof,
an amendment providing that no part of any appropriation, loan, or
expenditure authorized in the act be paid to any person who engages
in a strike against the government or who seeks the overthrow of
the government was held to be germane.

[[Page 8803]]

In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of
1949,⁽¹⁹⁾ an amendment was offered ⁽²⁰⁾ as
described above. The following exchange ⁽¹⁾ concerned a
point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4009 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 8659, 8660, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1949.
1. Id. at p. 8660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this bill.
. . .

Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a similar
provision has been placed in every appropriation bill which this
House has passed during this session of Congress. . . . [The
provision] is a limitation which is in effect in both appropriation
and authorization bills.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, this is not an appropriation bill. In
an appropriation bill it probably would be in order.
Mr. Jensen: This bill has the effect of an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: ⁽²⁾ . . . The legislation before the
committee authorizes loans and other funds to be used, consequently
the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lease of Property by National Park Service to Concessioners

Sec. 34.35 For an amendment to a general appropriation bill directing
the National Park Service to lease certain land at fair market
rental value, a substitute prohibiting the use of funds in the bill
for lease of that same property by the National Park Service to
concessioners was held germane and a negative limitation on the use
of funds which did not add legislation to that permitted to remain
in the original amendment.

During consideration of H.R. 14231 ⁽³⁾ in the Committee
of the Whole on June 25, 1976,⁽⁴⁾ the Chair overruled a
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Department of Interior Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 20548-50, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 10, line 2, strike
the period, insert a semicolon and the following:
Provided, That the National Park Service shall not lease
the facilities located at 900 Ohio Drive in the District of
Columbia on any other basis than the fair market rental value
generally pertaining for such premises in the area.

Mr. [Gilbert] Gude [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gude as a substitute for the
amendment

[[Page 8804]]

offered by Mr. Yates: On page 27, between lines 18 and 19,
insert the following:
``Sec. 109. No part of the appropriations made available
under this title shall be available for the use of the Federal
buildings located at 900 Ohio Drive, Haines Point in the
District of Columbia by any concessioner of the National Park
Service for any purpose.''

Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gude). . . .
Mr. Chairman, while this amendment has the appearance of a
simple limitation, as a matter of fact, it is much more than that.
The amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill for use by a
national park concessioner of a National Park Service building. The
intent of the amendment is to evict the concessioner from the
building. At the present time, the concessioner which occupies the
building pays an annual rent and also pays for utilities and
routine maintenance. If the concessioner vacates the building, the
National Park Service must assume responsibility for maintenance
and utility costs. The National Park Service estimates these costs
to be about $26,000 per year.
Mr. Chairman, there are ample precedents in the rules of the
House and I suggest that on page 551 under the Rules of the House,
under section 843, ample precedents are cited to demonstrate that
limitations on appropriation bills ``must not impose new duties
upon an executive officer.''
Clearly this amendment imposes additional duties and
responsibilities on the National Park Service. . . .
Mr. Gude: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment provides nothing
more than the Park Service merely targets a lease. I do not think
it confers any responsibilities on them that they do not already
have. I think it is clearly germane and in order. It is no less
germane than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Yates).
The Chairman: ⁽⁵⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raises a point of order
to the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York.
The question the Chair must decide is whether the substitute
amendment is germane to the original amendment and whether it adds
additional legislation to that which is already in the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois.
The substitute amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, in the
opinion of the Chair, is germane--relating to leasing of the same
property, and does not add additional legislation to that which is
already in the original amendment. Rather, the substitute is a
negative limitation on funds in the bill.
The Chair must, therefore, reluctantly overrule the point of
order.

Amendment To Limit Use of Funds by Agency Funded in Previous Title of
Bill

Sec. 34.36 An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular
agency funded in a

[[Page 8805]]

general appropriations bill may be germane to more than one portion
of the bill, and so may be offered, for example, to the paragraph
carrying such funds or to any general provisions portion of the
bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the bill;
thus, where the last title of a general appropriations bill
contains general provisions applying to funds carried throughout
the bill, an amendment offered to that title which limits the use
of funds by an agency funded in a previous title of the bill may be
germane.

On July 16, 1979,⁽⁶⁾ during consideration of the
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations for
fiscal 1980,⁽⁷⁾ in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. H.R. 4393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16,
add the following new section:
Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act
shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for
information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws.
. . .

Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is
out of order. We have already passed that place in the bill. . . .
Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not legislate on an
appropriation bill. It is only a limitation of spending and adds a
new section to the bill. I would maintain that it is in order and
it is germane to the bill as a whole.
The Chairman: ⁽⁸⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule on
the point of order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an
appropriate point in the bill and is germane to the general
provisions title and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: In this bill, there were ``general
provisions'' in the Internal Revenue Service title applicable only to
that agency, as well as a general provisions title at the end of the
bill containing limitations and legislation applicable to all agencies
funded by the bill. Thus in this case the amendment could have been
germane at three places in the bill.

[[Page 8806]]

Application of Separate Substantive Law to Operations of Agency as
Nongermane Despite Language Restricting Amendment's Effects to
``Use of Funds in the Bill''

Sec. 34.37 The mere recitation that the application of separate
substantive law cited in an amendment is only ``with respect to the
use of funds in the bill'' for an agency does not assure that the
amendment is confined in its application to a restriction on the
use of funds (and therefore germane to a proposition containing
other such funding restrictions), where the laws being applied are
not directly related to funding but rather are statutes governing
the conduct of individuals and the relationship of government
agencies to each other; thus, to a proposal to restrict
availability of funds to an agency for a year and amending the
organic law as it relates to the internal functions of that agency,
an amendment not only placing further restrictions on funding but
also applying to the operation of that agency provisions of
separate criminal and other law not otherwise applicable thereto is
nongermane, even though it is offered ``with respect to the use of
funds in the bill,'' as going beyond the limitation on funding and
issues of organization to the positive enactment and enlargement of
the applicability of those separate laws.

During consideration of H.R. 2991 ⁽⁹⁾ in the House on
Oct. 26, 1989,⁽¹⁰⁾ the Speaker sustained a point of order in
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990.
10. 135 Cong. Rec. p. __, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹¹⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David R. Nagle (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 179: Page 19, after line 16, insert:
Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services
Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal
year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by
the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area
shall be distributed in the following order:
(1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and
contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation
under section 1006(a)(1)

[[Page 8807]]

shall be maintained in fiscal year 1990 at not less than $8.98
per poor person within the geographical area of each grantee or
contractor under the 1980 census . . . Provided, That none of
the funds appropriated in this Act for the Legal Services
Corporation shall be used to bring a class action suit against
the Federal Government or any State or local government
unless--
(1) the project director of a recipient has expressly
approved the filing of such an action in accordance with
policies established by the governing body of such recipient .
. . Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in
this Act made available by the Legal Services Corporation may
be used--
(1) to pay for any publicity or propaganda intended or
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress or State or local legislative bodies . . . Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out the
procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the Legal
Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation prescribes
procedures to ensure that an application for refunding shall
not be denied unless the grantee, contractor, or person or
entity receiving assistance under this Act has been afforded
reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely, full, and fair
hearing . . . Provided further, That the fourteenth and
fifteenth provisos of this section (relating to parts 1607 and
1612 of the Corporation's regulations) shall expire if such
action is directed by a majority vote of a Board of Directors
of the Legal Services Corporation composed of eleven
individuals nominated by the President after January 20, 1989,
and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this Act or under any prior Act for the Legal Services
Corporation shall be used to consider, develop, or implement
any system for the competitive award of grants or contracts
until such action is authorized pursuant to a majority vote of
a Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation composed
of eleven individuals nominated by the President after January
20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by the United States
Senate, except that nothing herein shall prohibit the
Corporation Board, members, or staff from engaging in in-house
reviews of or holding hearings on proposals for a system for
the competitive award of all grants and contracts . . .
subsequent to confirmation such new Board of Directors shall
develop and implement a proposed system for the competitive
award of all grants and contracts, Provided further, That the
Corporation shall insure that all grants and contracts made for
calendar year 1990 to all grantees receiving funds under
sections 1006(a) (1)(A) and (3) of the Legal Services
Corporation Act as of September 30, 1989, with funds
appropriated by this Act or prior appropriations Acts, shall be
made for a period of at least twelve months beginning on
January 1, 1990, so as to insure that the total annual funding
for each current grantee or contractor is no less than the
amount provided pursuant to this Act . . . Provided further,
That any new rules or regulations, or revisions to existing
rules or regulations adopted by the Board of the Legal Services
Corporation after October 1, 1989, shall not become effective
until after October 1, 1990, or until authorized pursuant to a
majority vote of a Board of Directors of the Legal Services
Corporation composed of eleven individuals nominated by the
President after January 20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by
the United States Senate: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any decision or action of the President of the

[[Page 8808]]

Corporation after September 7, 1989, funds appropriated under
this Act or any prior Acts shall not be denied, for the period
October 1, 1989 through December 31, 1990, to any grantee or
contractor which in fiscal year 1989 received funding
appropriated under any prior Act, as a result of activities
which have found by an independent hearing officer appointed by
the President of the Corporation prior to October 1, 1989, not
to constitute grounds for a denial of refunding, and any
decisions or action of the President of the Corporation
reversing or setting aside such decision of an independent
hearing officer concerning section 1010(c) of the Act rendered
in fiscal year 1989 shall be null or void. . . .

Mr. [Charles W.] Stenholm [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion. . . .

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stenholm moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment No. 179 with the following amendment: In lieu of the
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the
following:
Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services
Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal
year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by
the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area
shall be distributed in the following order:
(1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and
contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation
under section 1006(a)(1) shall be maintained in fiscal year
1990 at not less than $8.98 per poor person within the
geographical area of each grantee or contractor under the 1980
census . . . Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in
this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used to
bring a class action suit against the Federal Government or any
State or local government unless--
(1) the project director of a recipient has expressly
approved the filing of such an action in accordance with
policies established by the governing body of such recipient;
(2) the class relief which is the subject of such an action
is sought for the primary benefit of individuals who are
eligible for legal assistance; and
(3) that prior to filing such an action, the recipient
project director has determined that the government entity is
not likely to change the policy or practice in question, that
the policy or practice will continue to adversely affect
eligible clients, that the recipient has given notice of its
intention to seek class relief and that responsible efforts to
resolve without litigation the adverse effects of the policy or
practice have not been successful or would be adverse to the
interest of the clients:
except that this proviso may be superseded by regulations
governing the bringing of class action suits promulgated by a
majority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation who have
been confirmed in accordance with section 1004(a) of the Legal
Services Corporation Act . . . Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated under this Act for the Legal Services
Corporation will be expended to provide legal assistance for or
on behalf of any alien unless the alien is present in the
United States and is--

(1) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as
defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) . . .
(3) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration
and Nation

[[Page 8809]]

ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee admissions) or
who has been granted asylum by the Attorney General under such
Act; or
(4) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of
deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)):
Provided further, That an alien who is lawfully present in the
United States as a result of being granted conditional entry
pursuant to section 202(a)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980,
because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, or political opinion or because of being
uprooted by catastrophic natural calamity shall be deemed, for
purposes of the previous proviso, to be an alien described in
clause (3) of the previous proviso . . .
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
Act for the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out
the procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the
Legal Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation
prescribes procedures to ensure that an application for
refunding shall not be denied unless the grantee, contractor,
or person or entity receiving assistance under this Act has
been afforded reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely,
full, and fair hearing to show cause why such action should not
be taken and subject to all other conditions of the previous
proviso: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated
in this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used by
the Corporation in making grants or entering into contracts for
legal assistance unless the Corporation insures that the
recipient is either (1) a private attorney or attorneys (for
the sole purpose of furnishing legal assistance to eligible
clients) or (2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered
under the laws of one of the States, a purpose of which is
furnishing legal assistance to eligible clients, the majority
of the board of directors or other governing body of which
organization is comprised of attorneys who are admitted to
practice in one of the States and who are appointed to terms of
office on such board or body by the governing bodies of State,
county, or municipal bar associations the membership of which
represents a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the
locality in which the organization is to provide legal
assistance, or, with regard to national support centers, the
locality where the organization maintains its principal
headquarters: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the Corporation shall be used,
directly or indirectly, by the Corporation to promulgate new
regulations or to enforce, implement, or operate in accordance
with regulations effective after April 27, 1984, unless the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress have been
notified fifteen days prior to such use of funds as provided
for in section 606 of this Act . . . Provided further, That if
a Presidential Order pursuant to Public Law 100-119, the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act
of 1987, is issued for fiscal year 1990, funds provided to each
grantee of the Legal Services Corporation shall be reduced by
the percentage specified in the Presidential Order . . .
Provided further, That, with respect to the use of funds
appropriated by this Act to the Legal Services Corporation--

(1) for purposes of sections 286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002
of title 18, United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation
shall be considered to be a department or agency of the United
States Government;

[[Page 8810]]

(2) for purposes of sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31,
United States Code, the term 'United States Government' shall
include the Legal Services Corporation;
(3) for purposes of section 3801 of title 31, United States
Code, the term ``authority'' includes the Legal Services
Corporation, and the provisions of section 3801 through 3812 of
title 31, United States Code, shall apply to all parties with
whom the Corporation makes grants or contracts under sections
1006(a)(1) and 1006(a)(3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) and 2996e(a)(3));
(4) applicants for financial assistance from the Legal
Services Corporation shall file applications supported by
written declaration pursuant to section 1746 of title 28,
United States Code, and such declarations shall be subject to
sections 1621(2) and 1622 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to perjury;
(5) for purposes of sections 716 and 717 of title 31,
United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation shall be
considered to be a department or agency of the United States
Government;
(6) for purposes of section 1516 of title 18, United States
Code, as added by section 7078 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-680)--
(A) the term ``Federal auditor'' shall include any auditor
employed or retained on a contractual basis by the Legal
Services Corporation,
(B) the term ``contract'' shall include any grant or
contract made by the Legal Services Corporation, and
(C) the term ``person'', as used in subsection (a) of such
section, shall include any grantee or contractor receiving
financial assistance under section 1006(a)(1) or 1006(a)(3) of
the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) or
2996e(a)(3)); and
(7) funds provided by the Legal Services Corporation under
section 1006 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C.
2996e) shall be deemed to be Federal appropriations when used
by a contractor, grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the
Legal Services Corporation. . . .

Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the motion on the grounds that it violates
rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House of Representatives in
that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is not germane to
the matter under consideration.
The proposed motion deals with eight different issues relevant
to the operation of the Legal Services Corporation and funds
provided thereunder.
Six of the eight issues are not addressed at all in the
underlying amendment. These six issues are as follows: First,
prohibition on redistricting activity--the 19th proviso; second,
protection against theft and fraud--the 20th proviso; third,
procedural safeguards for agricultural litigation--the 21st
proviso; fourth, timekeeping--the 22d proviso; fifth, authority of
local governing boards--the 23d proviso; and sixth, earmarking of
certain funds--the 24th proviso.
With regard to the seventh issue addressed by the motion, that
dealing with the regulation of nonpublic resources--also addressed
in the 24th proviso--the proposed motion is substantially broader
than the provision dealing with nonpublic resources contained in
the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment would prevent the
Corporation from implementing pro

[[Page 8811]]

posed regulations that would place restrictions on nonpublic
resources. The proposed amendment, on the other hand, would amend
the Legal Services Act to extend existing restrictions on the use
of private funds to ``all nonpublic funds and in-kind services used
or obtained by that person or entity.'' Current restrictions in the
act apply only to funds provided for the purpose of providing legal
services and not other activities for which funds may be received.
The last issue in the proposed amendment is the amendment
dealing with competition--the 25th proviso. The underlying Senate
amendment would prohibit the implementation of a competitive
bidding process unless done under the authority of a confirmed
board of directors composed of members named by the current
president. The motion under consideration here, however, goes
considerably beyond the question of whether the current board may
implement a competitive bidding process. In addition, to that
question, the proposed amendment would eliminate critical
procedural safeguards against termination or defunding or existing
LSC grantees within the context of a competitive bidding process.
In addition to the foregoing, the provisions of the motion
relating to theft and fraud--the 20th proviso--would criminalize
activity not previously subject to Federal criminal statutes. The
amendment proposes to do so by applying the provisions of sections
286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002 of title 18, United States Code to
the Legal Services Corporation. In addition, the amendment would
make applications for financial assistance subject to section 1746
of title 28, United States Code, and sections 1621(2) and 1622 of
title 18, United States Code, relating to perjury. The underlying
Senate amendment makes no reference to federal criminal statutes
and such conduct is not now covered by such acts.
Also, the theft and fraud provisions--the 20th proviso--would
make sections 716 and 717 of title 31, United States Code, relating
to audits by the Controller General and the evaluation of programs
and activities of the U.S. Government, applicable to the Legal
Services Corporation. That section of the amendment also provides
that funds provided to the Legal Services Corporation shall be
``deemed to be Federal appropriations when used by a contractor,
grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the Legal Services
Corporation.'' Those issues are not dealt with in any way in the
underlying Senate amendment and deal with subject matter properly
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.
Finally, the 21st provision, which places limits on the ability
of employees of Legal Services supported programs to represent farm
workers is a substantial intrusion on the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Education and Labor in that it would subtantially
diminish the ability of farm workers to assert their Federal rights
under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act, and would
set up barriers not contemplated in that act for the exercise of
such rights. The amendment would require that, before a legal
services attorney could file a suit on behalf of such a farm worker
to vindicate Federal rights, the farm worker would have to exhaust
all administra

[[Page 8812]]

tive remedies and participate in negotiations and in mediation
programs, if available. In each case, the name of the farm worker
would have to be revealed to the grower. Finally, attorneys could
not act without receiving a ``documented request from the named
worker or employer.''
Mr. Speaker, on all these grounds, I ask that the amendment be
ruled not in order. . . .
Mr. Stenholm: . . . I would respond to the point of germaneness
by simply pointing out that our amendment is germane to the Rudman
amendment, which is the purpose for which we offer this amendment.
The Rudman amendment has already had all points of order
relating to authorizing in the appropriation bill waived by the
rule under which we are being considered today.

The second point that I would make is that every item in our
amendment refers to how these appropriations are or are not
supposed to be spent. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Do any other Members desire to be
heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) makes the point
of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) is not germane to the Senate amendment No. 179. As
described on pages 82 and 83 of the joint statement of the
managers, Senate amendment No. 179 is a comprehensive series of
restrictions on Legal Services Corporation activities accomplished
by means of funding restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation
and its grantees.
In addition to the various funding restrictions in the Senate
amendment, changes in the Legal Services Corporation law governing
corporation activities, a directive that the Corporation
reconstitute its board of directors, are included. The Senate
amendment does not, however, incorporate provisions of criminal
law, the False Claims Act and other laws requiring the furnishing
of information to the General Accounting Office.
The proposed amendment, in addition to the inclusion of
additional funding restrictions, attempts to indirectly apply
substantive provisions of Federal criminal law and other laws to
render the Legal Services Corporation an agency of a department of
the U.S. Government for purposes of prosecution of certain activity
and the furnishing of information. While these incorporations of
provisions of law are prefaced as being ``with respect to the use
of funds appropriated by this act to the Legal Services
Corporation,'' it appears that these provisions in the amendment go
beyond merely a restriction on the use of funds and constitute an
application of other Federal law for the period covered by the
appropriation in the bill.
On June 16, 1983, the Chair ruled nongermane an amendment
conditioning the availability to certain recipients of the funds in
an authorization bill upon their compliance with Federal law not
otherwise applicable to those recipients and within the
jurisdiction of other House committees.
In the opinion of the Chair, that portion of the proposed
amendment which incorporates several provisions of law not
contained in the Senate amendment and enacts those provisions as
positive law applicable to the Legal Services Corporation and its
grantees

[[Page 8813]]

for the period fiscal 1990 renders the amendment not germane.
The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating New Department and Transferring Administration of
Existing Laws Thereto--Amendments Changing Substantive Laws Being
Administered

Sec. 34.38 Although it is ordinarily germane by way of amendment to
limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations carried
in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to annual
authorization bills reported by the committees having legislative
and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the funds
are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations
has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in
the executive branch, which transfers the administration of
existing statutes and programs to that department without modifying
such statutes and programs, and which contains a general
authorization of appropriations for the department to carry out its
functions under the Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to
amendments which change the substantive laws to be administered.

On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the functions
transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting appropriations
applicable to any of those functions.⁽¹²⁾ An amendment was
offered ⁽¹³⁾ to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated
under such authorization to provide for transportation of students or
teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic quotas in
schools. The amendment was ruled out as not germane, on the grounds
that the bill was merely organizational in nature and only transferred
the administration of

[[Page 8814]]

educational laws to the Department without modifying those laws; and
because the amendment would impinge on the jurisdiction of other House
committees having jurisdiction over those basic laws. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

authorization of appropriations

Sec. 436. Subject to any limitation on appropriations
applicable with respect to any function transferred to the
Department or the Secretary, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act and to enable the Department and the
Secretary to perform any function or conduct any office that
may be vested in the Department or the Secretary. Funds
appropriated in accordance with this section shall remain
available until expended.

Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 90, after line 6, insert
the following new section and redesignate the following sections
accordingly:

prohibition against the use of personnel funds to force racial/
ethnic quota busing

Sec. 437. No funds appropriated under the authorization
contained in section 436 may be used to assign Department of
Education personnel to promote or to provide for the
transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of
equipment for such transportation) in order to establish racial
or ethnic school attendance quotas or guidelines in any school
or school system, or for the transportation of students or
teachers (of for the purchase of equipment for such
transportation) in order to carry out such a plan in any school
or school system.

Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment. . . . [T]he language of section 436
that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation
applicable with respect to any function transferred to the
department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this
section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional
appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the
department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the
programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but
by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and
not now before the house.
An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is,
therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous
amendment. I believe it is germane.
So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee,
I asked the parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at
this. He said that it might take some further study, but that it
looked germane at first view.
What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to
make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the
burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or
teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my
own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles
school system for 12 years.
I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this one
section and

[[Page 8815]]

not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas in
which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to carry
out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new department of
education suffering under the burden of coming up with their own, I
think would get the new department off to a bad footing for this or
what I expect to be a whole new administration starting on January
20 of 1981. . . .
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁴⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane
which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or
an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the
Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which
is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or
making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from
the committees which have reported such statutes and which during
the authorization and appropriation process have exercised
oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be
carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending
bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is
with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should
administer them. . . .
To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman
from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the
committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the
administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation,
and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one
also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred
intact to the new department.
The Chair believes that it is important to understand the
impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in
that section, which on its face renders the authorization for
appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations
applicable with respect to any function transferred to the
department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to
create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational
programs and policies, it is reasonable to infer that the thrust of
section 436 is merely to assure under the rules of the House that
appropriations both for substantive educational programs and for
administrative expenses of the new department as an organizational
entity will continue to be considered as authorized by and subject
to provisions of existing law.
Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the
availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not
addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay
salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations
relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are
beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an
administrative structure within the new department to carry out
presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title
should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which
redirect the administration of educational programs in ways

[[Page 8816]]

not precisely contemplated by existing law.
Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.