<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclvi.wais]



                           Chapter CCLVI.\1\
 
            THE HOUSE RULE THAT AMENDMENTS MUST BE GERMANE.

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

   1. The rule. Section 2908.
   2. General principles. Sections 2909-2917.
   3. Propositions to strike out not necessarily germane. Sections 
     2918-2921.
   4. Amendments should be germane to the paragraph or section. 
     Sections 2922-2937.
   5. Propositions to reenact or modify existing law. Sections 
     2938-2950.
   6. One individual proposition not amended by another individual 
     proposition of same class. Sections 2951-2963.
   7. Subjects not necessarily germane because related. Sections 
     2964-2994.
   8. A bill for a specific object may not be amended by general 
     provisions. Sections 2995-3001.
   9. A bill for general objects may be amended by specific 
     provision. Sections 3002-3020.
   10. A private bill may not be made general by amendment. 
     Section 3021.
   11. Amendments in the nature of a limitation. Sections 3022-
     3037.
   12. Decisions related to revenue subjects. Sections 3038-3044.
   13. Decisions related to subject of immigration. Sections 3045-
     3050.
   14. Decisions related to general subjects. Sections 3051-3064.

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

  2908. A former rule required that amendments to revenue bills be 
germane not only to the subject matter in the bill but to the item of 
the bill to which proposed.
  History and form of former Section 3 of Rule XXI.
  On April 5, 1911,\2\ the rule requiring that amendments be germane 
was supplemented by a rule requiring germaneness to the specific 
paragraph under consideration in amendments offered to revenue bills, 
as follows:

  No amendment shall be in order to any bill affecting revenue which is 
not germane to the subject matter in the bill; nor shall any amendment 
to any item of such bill be in order which does not directly relate to 
the item to which the amendment is proposed.

  This rule was adopted to expedite consideration of the several tariff 
bills passed in the Sixty-second Congress revising the tariff by 
schedules, and was designed to supersede special orders under which 
tariffs had previously been revised by general bills including all 
schedules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXVI.
  \2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, pp. 16, 80.
Sec. 2909
  It was retained in the rules until the Sixty-eighth Congress, when 
omitted in the adoption of the rules for that Congress on January 19, 
1924.\1\
  Notable decisions interpreting the rule were made by Speaker Champ 
Clark, of Missouri, on May 8, 1911,\2\ May 8, 1913,\3\ July 10, 1916; 
\4\ and February 1, 1917; \5\ Chairman Joshua Alexander, of Missouri, 
May 8, 1911; \6\ Chairman Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, April 21, 1911; 
\7\ Chairman John C. Floyd, of Arkansas, January 27, 1912; \8\ Chairman 
Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, April 29, 1913; \9\ May 6, 1913; \10\ 
and September 19, 1918; \11\ Chairman Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, 
May 21, 1917,\12\ and May 22, 1917; \13\ Chairman Edward W. Saunders, 
of Virginia, May 21, 1917,\14\ and September 19, 1918,\15\ Chairman Ben 
Johnson, of Kentucky, September 5, 1917;\16\ Chairman Sydney Anderson, 
of Minnesota, October 7, 1919,\17\ and December 22, 1920; \18\ Chairman 
C. Frank Reavis, of Nebraska, May 27, 1920; \19\ Chairman Louis C. 
Cramton, of Michigan, May 27, 1920; \20\ Chairman Philip P. Campbell, 
of Kansas, April 15, 1921; \21\ Chairman Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, 
May 12, 1921; \22\ and Chairman Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, October 24, 
1921.\23\
  2909. The rule of germaneness applies to the relation between a 
proposed amendment and the pending bill to which offered and not to the 
relation between such amendment and an existing law of which the 
pending bill is amendatory.
  On August 19, 1921,\24\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 8245) to amend the revenue 
act of 1918, proposing the modification of section 200 of that act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1143.
  \2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1120.
  \3\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1381.
  \4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 10767.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2439.
  \6\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, pp. 1092, 1110.
  \7\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 556.
  \8\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1410.
  \9\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 783.
  \10\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1234.
  \11\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10522.
  \12\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2664.
  \13\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2724.
  \14\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2686.
  \15\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 10510, 10511.
  \16\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 6635, 6638.
  \17\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6526.
  \18\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 640, 658, 659, 
662.
  \19\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7745.
  \20\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7765.
  \21\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 353.
  \22\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1370.
  \23\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6702.
  \24\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5276.
                                                            Sec. 2910
  Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, offered an amendment to be inserted 
as a separate paragraph further modifying section 200 of the original 
act.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to section 200 of the revenue act of 1918.
  After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Arkansas makes the point of order to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the ground that the proposed 
amendment is not germane to section 200 of the revenue act of 1918. The 
Chair will state that the rule of germaneness applies to amendments 
offered to a bill under consideration, but there is nothing in the 
rules of the House that requires when a former act is sought to be 
amended that the amendment under consideration should be germane to the 
former act sought to be amended either to the paragraph or section. The 
rule requires that the proposed amendment to the bill shall be germane 
to the subject matter of the bill under consideration.
  The rule of germaneness does not require a measure under 
consideration, proposing an amendment to a former act, to be germane to 
any part of the former act or the act itself. An entirely different 
subject by way of amendment could be added to any particular section of 
the former act by a bill under consideration. The Chair overrules the 
point of order.

  2910. In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
considers the relation of the amendment to the bill as modified by the 
Committee of the Whole at the time at which offered, and not as 
originally referred to the committee.
  An amendment which would have been in order if offered when the bill 
was first taken up for consideration, was held not germane to the bill 
as modified after portions of the bill had been stricken out by 
amendments in the Committee of the Whole.
  On May 31, 1932,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 8174), to exempt 
certain classes from the immigration quota.
  The Clerk read in part as follows:

  Sec. 2 Section 6 of the immigration act of 1924 is amended to read as 
follows:
  ``(1) Fifty per cent of the quota of each nationality for such year 
shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration 
visas to the following classes of immigrants, without priority of 
preference as between such classes: (A) Quota immigrants who are the 
fathers or the mothers not over 60 years of age, or the husbands by 
marriage occurring after May 31, 1928, of citizens of the United States 
who are 21 years of age or over; and (B) in the case of any nationality 
the quota for which is 300 or more, quota immigrants who are skilled in 
agriculture, and the wives, and the dependent children under the age of 
18 years, of such immigrants skilled in agriculture, if accompanying or 
following to join them.''

  Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, proposed an amendment providing visas 
should be issued to other quota immigrants.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised the question of 
germaneness.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The bill as originally offered by the committee undertakes to amend 
two sections of the immigration law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 11691.
  \3\ William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, Chairman.
Sec. 2911
  If the gentleman from Ohio chosen in the first place to offer is 
proposed amendment as a substitute for the entire bill, with notice 
that if the amendment was agreed to he would then move to strike out 
the remaining section, he would have offered a germane amendment, in 
the opinion of the Chair; but the gentleman from Ohio chose to offer 
his amendment as an amendment to section 1 of the bill. The Chair held 
on the interposition of a point of order that it was not germane. 
Thereupon the gentleman from Ohio elected to move to strike out section 
1 of the bill. That motion prevailed, so that there is now left for the 
consideration of the committee only section 2 of the bill, and, that 
section undertakes only to deal with one class of persons, whereas the 
proposed amendment of the gentleman from Ohio seeks to enlarge the 
field of operation of the section now in the bill and include other 
people in the proviso. The Chair is of opinion that it is not germane 
because it deals with a number of subjects other than that provided in 
the section of the bill now before the committee, and the Chair 
sustains the point of order.

  2911. The rule providing that amendments must be germane has been 
construed as requiring that the fundamental purpose of an amendment be 
germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill to which it is offered.
  On September 19, 1918,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 12863, the revenue 
bill, when Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, proposed the 
following amendment to be inserted as a new title:

  That to cooperate with the President in promoting efficiency and 
preventing waste and extravagance in the conduct of the war with the 
Imperial Government of Germany a joint committee shall be appointed, 
composed of six Members of the Senate, including three Democrats and 
three Republicans, and seven Members of the House of Representatives, 
including three Republicans and four Democrats, to be known as the 
joint committee on war expenditures. The membership of such committee 
for the Senate shall be designated by the President of the Senate and 
for the House of Representatives by the Speaker thereof. Such committee 
shall sit during the sessions or the recesses of Congress, shall confer 
and advise with the President of the United States and the heads of the 
various executive departments on any or all matters relating to war 
expenditures, and shall make report to Congress from time to time, in 
its own discretion or when requested to do so by either branch of 
Congress.

  Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane.
  After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The Chair does not think it is necessary to go into any elaborate 
statement. Even if it were not for the provision contained in clause 3 
of Rule XXI, the Chair does not think that the amendment would be in 
order.
  The present occupant of the chair had the honor of presiding as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole when the amendment was proposed 
to create a tariff commission as a part of a revenue bill. The point of 
order was made, and the Chair held generally that the meaning of the 
expression ``germaneness'' under the facts that were then presented was 
that the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
fundamental purpose of the bill.
  Subsequently, when the matter reached the House the Speaker of the 
House, in a more elaborate and better reasoned ruling than the one 
delivered by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, sustained that 
ruling and held that that amendment was out of order because it was not 
germane. Under that general principle the Chair would certainly be of 
the opinion that this would not be in order, and the Chair sustains the 
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10522.
  \2\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2912
  2912. The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same end 
sought to be attained by the bill to which offered does not render it 
germane.
  One of the functions of the rule requiring germaneness is to preclude 
consideration of legislation which has not been considered in committee 
and for this reason the rule should be invoked with particular 
strictness against amendments proposing substitutes for an entire bill.
  To a proposition to effect a purpose by one method a proposal to 
effect the same purpose by a different and unrelated method is not 
germane.
  To a bill designed to raise the price of agricultural products to a 
ratio consistent with the price of other commodities by the creation of 
a corporation authorized to deal in such products an amendment 
proposing to accomplish the same result through a comprehensive system 
of cooperative marketing was held not to be germane.
  To a bill undertaking to advance the price of agricultural 
commodities through the operation of a Federal agency with power to 
control marketing conditions an amendment proposing to secure such 
advance by granting a bounty to exporters of agricultural commodities 
was held not to be germane.
  To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency and limited 
in operation to a period of five years an amendment proposing permanent 
legislation of the same character was held not to be germane.
  An amendment being offered, and the reading having begun, a point of 
order may interrupt the reading and the Chair may rule the amendment 
out if enough had been read to show that it is out of order.
  On May 24, 1924,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, was considering the bill H. R. 9033, the farm relief bill, 
declaring an emergency in respect of certain agricultural commodities 
and providing for the creation of a corporation to continue for a 
period of five years with authority to buy and sell agricultural 
products and authorizing an appropriation for that purpose.
  The first section of the bill having been read, Mr. James B. Aswell, 
of Louisiana, moved to strike out the section with notice as to 
subsequent sections, and insert a new bill proposing to relieve the 
declared emergency through a comprehensive system of cooperative 
marketing.
  During the reading of the proposed amendment Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, interrupted the Clerk and submitted that sufficient had been 
read to show that the amendment was not germane to the pending bill.
  The Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The question of whether the amendment will be read in full is largely 
in the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is inclined to think that 
an important amendment like this should be read in full.
  The gentleman's point is right on the proposition that when enough 
has been read and the Chair is convinced it is out of order the entire 
amendment does not have to be read. The Chair recognizes the rule as 
stated, but in this case the Chair, in his discretion, is going to have 
more read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 9444, 9456.
  \2\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
Sec. 2912
  The reading of the proposed substitute having been concluded Mr. 
Cannon renewed the point of order.
  After debate the Chairman sustained the point of order and said:

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana by way of a 
substitute undertakes to deal with the agricultural problem. However, 
the mere fact that it tackles the same problem does not necessarily 
make it a germane amendment. The gentleman from Missouri calls 
attention to some of the details of the bill offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana which make it, it seems to the Chair, not germane.
  The bill under consideration by the committee creates a Government 
corporation, and through the agency of that corporation--by the aid of 
other agencies--undertakes to artificially provide a means of taking 
care of the surplus exports in such way as to raise the price of 
agricultural commodities up to the point where the ratio will be the 
same on agricultural commodities as on other commodities over a fixed 
period of time, and it carries out that plan. Now, this proposition, 
while it undertakes to relieve agriculture, undertakes to do it in an 
entirely different way and in such manner as would not be proper by way 
of a substitute, because the committee would then have to vote upon the 
adoption of an entire bill, which would have to be rewritten on the 
floor and which has never been reported by any committee. The Chair 
will sustain the point of order.

  Subsequently, Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, offered an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for the pending bill proposing to 
encourage the exportation of agricultural products and thereby relieve 
the declared emergency by granting a bounty to exporters of 
agricultural commodities.
  Mr. Cannon made the point of order that the substitute was not 
germane.
  After further debate the Chairman ruled:

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois as a substitute 
for the entire bill is more nearly germane than the former amendment, 
but the Chair is of opinion that it does not come within the rule of 
germaneness. The object sought, of course, is farm relief, but that 
does not necessarily make the bill germane. The method is so entirely 
different in the bill offered by the gentleman from Illinois from the 
method of the bill under consideration that it seems to the Chair that 
it is not germane. Both bills recognize that the question of price is 
determined somewhat upon the exportable surplus, but the bill, with the 
Chair has rather hastily read, offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
by way of substitute, proposes to deal with this question of exportable 
surplus by giving a bounty to the exporter, evidently with the view 
that if the export brings a fair price, a fair price would result in 
the domestic market; but that is such a departure from the plan of the 
bill which creates a Government corporation, giving it power and 
authority to export, that it would not come within the rules of the 
House to hold it germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of 
order.

  Thereupon, Mr. Morgan G. Sanders, of Texas, offered an amendment 
intended to alleviate the declared agricultural situation by a method 
similar in many respects to that provided by the pending bill but 
proposed as a permanent legislation.
  Mr. Cannon having again raised the question of germaneness, the 
Chairman said:

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas seeks to effect the 
same general purpose as the bill in question--that is, to relieve the 
agricultural situation. It is true as suggested that the mere fact that 
there is to an extent a departure from the bill under consideration 
does not make it out of order because otherwise there would be no 
necessity of offering a substitute or amendment of any kind. However, 
it is not possible to offer a substitute for a bill which undertakes to 
give the same relief and yet departs entirely from the method of the 
bill under consideration. The Haugen bill, under consideration, is an 
emergency measure and merely gives power to investigate and determine 
when a special emergency exists with reference to any one of the
                                                            Sec. 2913
enumerated agricultural products, and then the corporation having 
certain definite powers comes into action and by means of control of 
exportable surplus relieves the situation. This substitute is permanent 
legislation, giving the Government power to buy and sell farm products. 
While the ultimate object is to relieve agriculture, it embraces a 
method that does not come within the rules of the House in reference to 
germaneness to the bill under consideration, and the point of order is 
sustained.

  2913. To a proposition to appropriate for a general increase in 
salaries for one year an amendment to extend the increase to another 
year was held not to be germane.
  On December 19, 1916,\1\ while the legislative, executive, and 
judicial appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, offered the following amendment to be inserted as a new 
section:

  That to provide during the fiscal year 1918, for increased 
compensation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to employees who 
receive salaries at a rate per annum less than $1,200, and for 
increased compensation at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to employees 
who receive salaries at a rate not more than $1,800 per annum and not 
less than $1,200 per annum, so much as may be necessary is 
appropriated.

  To this amendment Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, proposed an 
amendment reading as follows:

  After the word ``provide,'' insert ``during the remainder of the 
fiscal year 1917 and.''

  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.
  The chairman \2\ ruled:

  The Chair thinks that the object of the special rule is to provide 
for these increases for certain classes of employees for the fiscal 
year 1918, and that if the proviso in the special rule cited by the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, namely--
  ``Resolved, That no amendment shall be in order in the consideration 
of the foregoing amendment changing existing law beyond the fiscal year 
1918, nor shall any amendment be in order relating to the compensation 
of employees not appropriated for in H. R. 18542''-- were not in the 
special rule, an amendment would not be in order that would have 
extended it beyond the fiscal year 1918. It would not, in that event, 
be germane to this section. There is quite a difference, in the opinion 
of the Chair, between an amendment making an appropriation immediately 
available and in an amendment that provides for increasing the 
appropriation during the remainder of the year 1917. The Chair can not 
agree with the argument of the gentleman from Illinois that there is 
any deficiency to be taken care of in this amendment. It proposes, on 
the other hand, to increase an appropriation and change existing law. 
The amendment, in the opinion of the Chair, is not germane to the 
provision and sustains the point of order.

  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, having appealed, the decision of the 
Chair was sustained by the committee--yeas 96, nays 79.
  2914. To a section proposing legislation for the current year an 
amendment rendering such legislation permanent was held not to be 
germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 559.
  \2\ Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, Chairman.
Sec. 2915
  On December 19, 1922,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment 
No. 1 to the Treasury Department appropriation bill then in 
disagreement between the two Houses and reading as follows:

  Undersecretary of the Treasury, to be nominated by the President and 
appointed by him, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who 
shall receive compensation at the rate of $7,500 per annum and shall 
perform such duties in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury as 
may be prescribed by the Secretary or by law, and under the provisions 
of section 177, Revised Statutes, in case of the death, resignation, 
absence, or sickness of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall perform 
the duties of the Secretary until a successor is appointed or such 
absence or sickness shall cease, $7,500.

  Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, moved that the House recede from 
its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
as follows:

  In line 2 of the matter inserted by said amendment, after the word 
``Treasury,'' insert the word ``hereafter.`` In line 4 of the matter 
inserted by said amendment, after the word ``who,'' insert the word 
``hereafter.''

  Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, submitted that the insertion of the 
word ``hereafter,'' as provided, would render the legislation permanent 
and made the point of order that the proposed amendment was for that 
reason not germane.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:

  It seems to the Chair that either the language is surplusage or it 
does make it permanent law. In that case it would be subject to a point 
of order.

  2915. To a provision in an appropriation bill proposing legislation 
for the fiscal year provided for by the bill, an amendment proposing to 
make the provision permanent legislation was held not to be germane.
  On February 6, 1925,\3\ during consideration of the District of 
Columbia appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:

  Be it enacted, etc., That in order to defray the expenses of the 
District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, any 
revenue (not including the proportionate share of the United States in 
any revenue arising as the result of the expenditure of appropriations 
made for the fiscal year 1924 and prior fiscal years) now required by 
law to be credited to the District of Columbia and the United States in 
the same proportion that each contributed to the activity or source 
from whence such revenue was derived shall be credited wholly to the 
District of Columbia, and in addition, $9,000,000 is appropriated, out 
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and all the 
remainder out of the combined revenues of the District of Columbia and 
such advances from the Federal Treasury as are authorized in the 
District of Columbia appropriation act for the fiscal year 1923.

  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, offered the following amendment:

  Provided, That in order to defay the expenses of the District of 
Columbia for each fiscal year after the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1926, any revenue (not including the proportionate share of the United 
States in any revenue arising as the result of the expenditure of 
appropriations made for the fiscal year 1924 and prior fiscal years) 
now required by law to be credited to the District of Columbia and the 
United States in the same proportion that each contributed to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 698.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3166.
                                                            Sec. 2916
activity or source from whence such revenue was derived, shall be 
credited wholly to the District of Columbia; and, in addition, 
$9,000,000 shall each such fiscal year be appropriated out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and all the remainder out 
of the combined revenues of the District of Columbia and such advances 
from the Federal Treasury as are authorized in the District of Columbia 
appropriation act for the fiscal year 1923.

  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
effect of the proposed amendment was to render permanent the proposed 
legislation carried by the pending paragraph, and the amendment was 
therefore not germane to the bill.
  After debate the Chairman ruled:

  The paragraph which this amendment seeks to amend clearly embodies 
legislation and would have been repugnant to the rule unless taken out 
by some exception to the rule. Doubtless, it would have been claimed 
that the Holman rule makes it an order. The present occupant of the 
chair, not now being called upon to decide it, can say that as the 
paragraph stood, if a point of order had been made against it, he would 
have ruled it out of order as not coming under the Holman rule, because 
of the indefinite, uncertain nature of the refund provision. If the 
uncertainty had been removed by some provision making it readily 
demonstrable that the amount appropriated in the paragraph is less than 
the 40 per cent of the total amount of the bill to be paid jointly from 
the General Treasury and from District funds, then the Chair would have 
held it in order, because the existing law authorizes a contribution of 
40 per cent from the Treasury.
  No point of order was made, however. Now, the gentleman from Michigan 
offers to amend by inserting a new paragraph, making permanent 
substantially the same provision carried in the original paragraph as 
applicable only to the year for which the appropriation is carried in 
the bill.
  The new paragraph would make permanent law, so far as we can make a 
law permanent, whereas the paragraph in the bill relates only to the 
year for which the appropriation is made. The gentleman from Michigan 
claims that because the original paragraph is legislation, therefore, 
it opens up the paragraph to amendment by anything that is germane. The 
Chair agrees to this proposition as a general statement of the rule. 
The amendment, however, must be germane in fact. The paragraph as it 
stands deals with temporary legislation only, its force and effect 
being limited to the year for which the bill appropriates. The 
gentleman's amendment would make it permanent law. It seems to the 
Chair that this introduces an entirely new element that is in fact ``a 
subject different from that under consideration'' and, therefore, 
repugnant to the rule relating to germane amendments.
  The Chair cites one precedent only, and that was by Mr. Speaker 
Gillett in the Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session, on December 19, 
1922. A bill was returned from the Senate carrying an amendment 
providing for an Undersecretary of the Treasury, but for the current 
year only. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Madden, moved that the 
House recede and concur with an amendment adding the word 
``hereafter,'' which would have had the effect of making it permanent 
law. On this the Speaker indicated that the word ``hereafter.'' 
changing a temporary provision to a permanent one, made the amendment 
subject to a point of order as not germane to the amendment as it came 
from the Senate. The Chair sustains the point of order.

  2916. To a bill amendatory of a existing law as to one specific 
particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than 
to those of the bill was held not to be germane.
  To a bill amending provisions of a law providing for the measurement 
of vessels to determine the tolls to be paid thereon an amendment 
repealing provisions of the law establishing such tolls was held not be 
germane.
  In determining the germaneness of amendments offered to a bill the 
title of the bill is not taken into consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 2917
  On October 1, 1919,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 7015) 
governing tolls to be paid at the Panama Canal.
  Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, offered the following amendment:

  Provided, That from and after the date of approval of this act no 
tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of 
the United States for the use of the Panama Canal, and all acts or 
parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
proposed amendment was not germane to the bill.
  After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:

  There have been several arguments advanced in relation to the point 
of order under consideration, and while the Chair, after consulting 
precedents, feels that there are several counts on which the point of 
order can be sustained will consider only one, that of germaneness. The 
matter of germaneness, of course, is one that is filled at times with 
some uncertainty. There are frequently twilight zones, but in this case 
the mater seems clearly defined. There is one point the Chair wants to 
speak about, however, before considering the main question. It was 
advanced by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Johnson, with reference 
to the title to this bill. In the opinion of the Chair the title was 
comparatively little to do with the body of the bill in this case. In 
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, page 411, that point is very thoroughly 
brought out. The Chair will read that part of the decision which 
pertains to the title of a bill. It states that the title itself does 
not affect the essence of the bill. Regarding the interpretation of the 
title, Speaker Henderson said:
  ``The question as to whether these sections are germane can not be 
determined by the title alone, as had been suggested, because an act 
amending an act will always describe the title amended, although it may 
only touch one feature or part of the law; but the whole resolution has 
to be considered and the amendments to the resolution. If this was not 
clear, possibly the title would be brought into consideration.''
  Now, as to germaneness: It seems to the Chair that this is a matter 
of whether or not this particular amendment is properly related to the 
bill itself. The bill provides certain rules for the measurement of 
vessels using the Panama Canal, but it does not provide for the payment 
of tolls. It merely establishes a standard of measurement for ships 
going through and does not prescribe the amount of money which shall be 
paid by the ships themselves. From rule 16, paragraph 7, it is very 
clear, ``That no motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' 
Therefore it seems to the Chair that the two subjects, the subject 
matter of the bill and the subject matter of the amendment, are not 
related, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

  2917. A proposal to strike out a portion of a text may not be germane 
to the proposition involved.
  A proposal to eliminate portions of a text thereby extending the 
scope of its provisions to other subjects that those originally 
presented is in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.
  To a proposal to dismiss officers violating the ``Federal prohibition 
laws'' an amendment striking out the word ``Prohibition'' was held not 
to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6225.
  \2\ Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2918
  On February 8, 1930,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 8574, the prohibition 
reorganization bill, when the following committee amendment was read:

  Provided, That all officers and employees of the Bureau of 
Prohibition who the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall 
hereafter violate any penal provisions of the Federal prohibition laws 
shall be dismissed.

  Mr. Frederick Lehlbach, of New Jersey, offered an amendment proposing 
to strike out the word ``prohibition'' where last occurring.
  Mr. William Williamson, of South Dakota, having submitted a point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman \2\ said:

  The amendment offered by the committee provides:
  ``That all officers and employees of the Bureau of Prohibition who 
the Attorney General finds have heretofore or shall hereafter violate 
any penal provision of the Federal prohibition laws shall be 
dismissed.''
  The Chair thought at first that the canceling in the amendment of the 
word ``prohibition'' would be germane, but as he looks at it now he 
believes it would be enlarging, and enlarging very greatly, the scope 
of this amendment, and that it would be bringing into the amendment and 
into the purpose of the amendment a vast variety of other acts which 
are made crimes under the Federal law.
  Therefore the Chair is inclined to hold, and does hold, that under 
the conditions the striking out of the term is not permissible and that 
the question of germaneness arises in the situation which confronts us, 
and sustains the point of order against the language of the amendment.

  2918. While an amendment proposing to strike out language in a 
pending bill can not ordinarily be ruled out of order as not germane, 
yet if the effect of striking out such language so affects the scope 
and import of the text as to present a different subject from that 
under consideration it is not germane.
  To a bill relating to interstate commerce an amendment pertaining to 
foreign commerce was held not to be germane.
  On January 26, 1916,\3\ during consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill (H. R. 8234) to 
prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor, the Clerk 
read as follows:

  That no producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for 
shipment in interstate commerce the product of any mine or quarry 
situated in the United States which has been produced, in whole or in 
part, by the labor of children under the age of 16 years.

  J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, offered the following amendment:

  After the word ``States,'' insert a comma and the words ``or any 
foreign country.''

  Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, made the point of order that the 
subject under discussion related exclusively to interstate commerce, 
and the amendment proposing to add the products of foreign commerce was 
not germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3310.
  \2\ Joseph L. Hooper, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1598.
Sec. 2919
  The Chairman \1\ ruled:

  It will be understood that the Chair has nothing to do with the 
merits of the feasibility of extending this act to foreign commerce. 
His province is to determine whether or not the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is germane to the bill now pending. The 
House is familiar with the principle that to one specific subject 
another specific subject is not in order. This has been held in the 
House time and again. It seems to the Chair that most of the gentlemen 
who have argued in favor of this proposition have discussed the power 
of Congress to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce rather 
than the question of whether a proposition regulating foreign commerce 
is germane to a bill regulating interstate commerce. Two subjects are 
not necessarily germane to each other because they are related. The 
Chair believes that this is a bill to regulate child labor in 
interstate commerce, and, therefore, that an amendment proposing to 
extend it to foreign commerce is a different matter, and is not in 
order. Therefore the point of order is sustained.

  Mr. Moore then proposed this amendment:

  After the word ``States,'' insert the words ``or imported from any 
foreign country.''

  Mr. Lewis interposed the same point of order made against the first 
amendment.
  The Chairman sustained the point of order and said:

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania will observe that the committee has 
limited this bill to child-labor goods produced in the United States. 
The child-labor goods produced in foreign countries are another matter. 
If the gentleman will turn to the Record of a year ago, he will find 
where the Speaker overruled the Committee of the Whole on the same 
identical proposition. In that case the Speaker held that where the 
committee had limited the application of the bill to the products of 
one kind of labor, a proposition to extend it to the products of 
another kind of labor was not germane. The Chair thinks he ought to 
follow the ruling of the Speaker where the Speaker was sustained by the 
House and therefore sustains the point of order.

  Mr. Edwin Yates Webb, of North Carolina, then asked, as a 
parliamentary inquiry, if any amendment striking out words in the 
pending paragraph would be in order, having reference to the words ``in 
interstate commerce'' and ``in the United States.''
  The Chairman replied tentatively in the affirmative.
  Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, submitted:

  Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard before the Chair makes a ruling 
along those lines, because the Chair will find a long line of 
precedents in rulings by Speaker Carlisle and Speaker Reed and several 
other distinguished Speakers holding that where the effect of striking 
out words is to change the scope of the bill it is not in order.

  The Chairman said:

  Upon reflection, the Chair thinks the gentleman from Kentucky is 
correct. The Chair was in error in making his answer.

  2919. An amendment which by striking out words would change a 
privileged proposition to an unprivileged proposition was held not to 
be in order.
  On December 15, 1908,\2\ the House was considering a privileged 
resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 447) requesting the Secretary of State 
to inform the House if he had in his possession any information as to 
whether or not the House of Commons of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 276.
                                                            Sec. 2920
Great Britain had recently adopted a resolution to the effect that a 
committee be appointed to consider changes in its rules.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment 
striking out a portion of the resolution.
  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
elision of the language proposed to be stricken out would destroy the 
privilege of the pending resolution.
  After debate the Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The motion to discharge the committee was privileged, and the 
resolution, from the consideration of which the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs was discharged, is privileged. The amendment strikes out the 
following words:
  ``That the Secretary of State, and he is hereby, respectfully 
requested, if not incompatible with the public interests, to inform the 
House of Representatives whether he has in his possession any 
information as to whether or not the House of Commons of Great Britain 
has recently adopted a resolution to the effect.''
  Those words are to be stricken out by the amendment, and the 
amendment would then leave the words in the original resolution as 
follows:
  ``That a committee of eight Members of the House be immediately 
appointed, five to be selected by the Speaker and three by the leader 
of the minority, to consider the existing rules of the House and to 
report not later than February 1, 1909, what changes, if any, it is 
desirable to make.''
  Thus the amendment would change the character of the resolution, 
which was one of inquiry and therefore privileged under the rule, by 
striking out the matter inquired about and leaving in the resolution 
matter that is not privileged. If the resolution had stood as the 
gentleman now proposes by his amendment to have it stand, it would not 
have been in order, because it would be shorn of all matter of inquiry 
contained in the resolution. The precedents are quite numerous. I read 
from the Digest, volume 7:
  ``A privileged proposition may not be amended by adding thereto 
matter not privileged or germane to the original question.'' (Vol. 5, 
sec. 5890.)
  That was a ruling by the present Speaker of the House.
  ``It is not in order to amend a pending privileged proposition by 
adding a matter not privileged and not germane to the original 
proposition.'' (Vol. 5, sec. 5809.)
  That was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Carlisle. Section 5810 contains a 
similar ruling by Mr. Speaker pro tempore Blackburn:
  ``The next of a bill containing a nonprivileged matter, privilege may 
not be created by a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
not containing the nonprivileged matter.'' (Vol. 4, sec. 4623.)
  The precedents are numerous and to the point, and the Chair is 
perfectly clear that the point of order is well taken, and sustains the 
same.

  An appeal by Mr. Gardner from the decision of the Chair was, on 
motion of Mr. Payne, laid on the table--yeas 149, nays 136.
  2920. An amendment which by striking out a portion of the text 
changes the purpose and scope of the bill is not germane.
  To a bill authorizing suit against a certain class of Government-
owned vessels an amendment striking out language designating the class 
and making the bill applicable to all Government-owned vessels was held 
not to be germane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2920
  On January 19, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 3076) authorizing suits 
against the United States in admiralty for salvage services; applying 
exclusively to merchant vessels employed in carrying cargo for hire.
  Mr. James W. Husted, of New York, proposed an amendment striking out 
the language specifying the class of vessels to which the bill related.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane and said:

  Mr. Chairman I make the point of order, that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York is not germane, in that this bill and the 
section to which the amendment is offered is confined to a certain 
class of Government-owned vessels. In line 10 and 11, on page 10 of 
this bill, the proviso is ``that such vessel is employed or intended to 
be employed in the carriage of cargoes or of passengers for hire.''
  That certainly restricts the application of the act, if it becomes a 
law, to a certain class of vessels. I submit that this amendment seeks 
to strike out the language, and then provides for what shall be done 
and how suit may be brought and proceedings had against all Government-
owned vessels, and that it is not germane to the purposes and 
provisions of the bill. It goes far beyond the scope of its provisions. 
It is a provision which if it were in the bill as originally introduced 
would probably take the jurisdiction of the bill out of the Committee 
on the Judiciary. I think it is well recognized that we can not include 
by way of amendment in a measure restricted to one particular subject 
or class, other classes. In other words, you can not, by amendment, 
broaden the scope of a bill when by the terms of that bill it is 
restricted to one particular class or subject. I submit that this 
measure as it has been passed by the Senate and as it has been reported 
by the Committee on the Judiciary to the House, is restricted in its 
provisions to merchant vessels employed or intended to be employed in 
the carriage of cargoes or passengers for hire. Under the amendment of 
the gentleman from New York it strikes out that proviso, and permits 
suits to be brought because of damage resulting from collisions with 
naval vessels, or Army transports, or Coast Guard cutters, or Bureau of 
Fisheries steamers and vessels under the jurisdiction of the Board of 
Engineers in the War Department, and opens it to all Government-owned 
vessels, whether they be employed or intended to be employed in the 
carriage of cargo, and passengers for hire, or whether they be employed 
or intended to be employed strictly on Government business, in which 
they are not competing with any privately owned craft or any individual 
enterprise.

  Mr. Husted took the position that an amendment striking out words in 
a bill is always germane.
  In reply Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, argued:

  Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I shall take part in this 
discussion. I certainly would not but for the statement of the 
gentleman from New York that the motion to strike out words is always 
in order.
  Now, I will give an illustration which I am sure the gentleman from 
New York will say proves that a motion to strike out is not always in 
order. Take, for instance, the Philippine tariff law. We had the right 
to fix the rates of duty on goods coming from the Philippines into the 
United States. We had the right to say that they should come in free 
from the Philippines. That would be a bill relating wholly to the 
question of tariff between the United States and the Philippine 
Islands, a possession of the United States. As I recall--and I do not 
give the reference--when that bill was up for consideration some one 
moved to strike out the language that would confine it to the 
Philippine Islands. If it had said ``goods coming from the Philippines, 
imported into the United States from the Philippines,'' all that was 
necessary to do was strike out the words ``coming from the 
Philippines,'' and that would have made it a universal tariff bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1754.
                                                            Sec. 2920
  Now, it is perfectly patent that the striking out of that language 
was not a germane amendment. It had no relation to the subject matter, 
because it was intended to change the subject matter wholly from a 
tariff with the Philippine Islands, to a universal tariff law, and it 
was held to be out of order.
  The same thing was true when the Canadian reciprocity bill was before 
the House. I can not cite the reference; I do not know whether it is 
carried in the Record even, because some one who looked it up told me 
that while the decision was made there was some error in recording, so 
that it did not appear in the Record. I do not know as to that.
  But a motion was made to strike out the language which would confine 
the provision for reciprocity to Canada. That would have made it 
universal and would have destroyed wholly the purpose of the bill in 
the first instance, which was designed to operate with Canada only, and 
would have made it a universal reciprocity proposition. It was held 
there that the motion to strike out was out of order. I think it is the 
general rule that where words of limitation are in a bill, limitating 
the subject matter of the bill, and it is proposed to strike out those 
words, so as to change the subject matter of the bill and enlarge its 
scope, such an amendment is held not germane, because it is not germane 
to that bill but would be germane to a bill involving the whole subject 
matter. Now, a Member introducing a bill has the right to introduce it 
in relation to a particular proposition. There are many adjectives of 
definition constantly used in public bills and private bills which, if 
you should strike them out, would make the bills universal in character 
and entirely change their scope. I hope the Chair will not express the 
opinion in ruling that it necessarily follows that a motion to strike 
out is in order because of the general principle that it is within the 
power of the House to strike out any language in a bill. It is 
generally true that a parliamentary body can strike out any proposition 
in a bill, but under the question of germaneness an amendment is not 
permissible which by striking out language would change the purpose and 
scope of the bill.

  After further debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The Chair recognizes that this point is somewhat involved and 
complicated and that it raises some new questions. The Chair has been 
consulting some of the references, not only those mentioned by 
gentlemen who have debated the point of order but some he has been able 
to find independent of the argument. The gentleman from New York in 
arguing to sustain his amendment bases it, as the Chair understands, 
largely upon the fact that striking out any words in a bill is in 
order, irrespective of what that effect will be. The Chair is aware 
that Mr. Speaker Clark some years ago made a ruling of that kind, that 
a motion to strike out, ``that is always in order--to strike anything 
out of anything,'' and that since then, in a general way, we have 
followed that ruling.
  The present occupant of the chair, however, without the slightest 
desire to take exception to the ruling of the former Speaker, believes 
that that ruling is at times subject to qualification and modification, 
and should properly be interpreted in reference to the subject matter 
affected.
  The Chair for the moment will pass that point, however, and will 
consider the point of order from another angle.
  A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible--paragraph 7, Rule 
XVI--and the amendment of the gentleman from New York not only strikes 
out certain words in the bill but inserts certain other words. It seems 
to the Chair that we should analyze those words which the amendment 
proposes for incorporation in the bill in conjunction with those that 
are to be stricken out. If we refer to the words to be inserted we find 
that while they are limitations to a certain extent, they refer 
directly to a specific class of vessels. The Chair will quote one 
sentence of the amendment to fortify his position:
  ``In the case of a vessel not employed as a merchant vessel.''
  What is that class of vessels? They are the military ships of the 
United States and vessels engaged in the public service of the United 
States. The subject matter of the bill, as the Chair understands its 
provisions, pertains solely to one class of ships, and what is that 
class? They are
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick C. Hicks, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 2920
the ships engaged in merchant service, publicly owned though they be. 
Therefore it seems to the Chair that as the motion to strike out and 
insert can not be divided we have in the words to be added a subject 
which is not so related to the subject matter of the bill as to come 
within the rule for germaneness.
  To complete the record on the point of germaneness, the Chair cites 
paragraph 7, Rule XVI, with which we are all familiar, ``that no motion 
or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration 
shall be admitted under color of amendment,'' and to cite the same rule 
further: ``One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class.'' 
There are so many noted precedents that have been established under 
this rule that the Chair does not think it necessary to refer to them. 
The Chair feels that the word ``proposition'' in paragraph 7 may be 
considered as providing for a situation in which a motion to strike 
out, while it does not in positive language add a new subject, does in 
effect widen the scope of the bill beyond that contemplated if we 
adhere too strictly to the theory ``that it is always in order to 
strike anything out of anything.'' As a counter proposition to this--
and the Chair feels that both are rather general in their application--
the Chair refers to Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, section 5834, where, 
on a motion to recommit, it was held ``that it is not in order to do 
indirectly by a motion what may not be done directly by way of 
amendment.'' The gentleman from New York in his able argument in 
support of his contention refers to Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, 
section 5805, ``where an amendment simply striking out words already in 
a bill'' was held to be germane. The gentleman from New York will note 
that the Chair in making that ruling was evidently not entirely sure of 
his ground, for he says ``that this question is rather a question for 
the committee to decide; a question of policy rather than a question 
for the Chair to decide on a point of order.''
  This brings us to a consideration of the thought suggested by Mr. 
Mann, of Illinois, and Mr. Walsh of a single motion to strike out, if 
by so doing the scope of the bill would thereby be enlarged. The point 
of striking out certain words was the crux of the argument of the 
gentleman from New York, and the Chair will now consider the principle 
involved.
  The points made in this feature of the discussion have opened up very 
broad and in some respects comparatively undetermined questions, which, 
since they have been brought forward, the Chair feels obliged to pass 
upon.
  The Chair realizes that the presiding officer is not called upon to 
determine the effect of an amendment upon the law itself or to 
interpret legislative propositions. In the precedents that have been 
cited conflict of rulings appear, and the Chair thinks that when those 
conflicts arise it is the duty of the Chair to apply the rule of 
reason, and the Chair will endeavor to apply that in the present 
instance. The Chair desires to cite from a precedent and read the 
opinion of the presiding officer at the time, which has not been 
referred to by gentlemen who have spoken to the point of order. It 
seems to the Chair that his precedent is almost a parallel case to the 
point of order now being discussed. The Chair reads from Hinds' 
Precedents, Volume V, paragraph 5864. This was on December 16, 1898. 
The House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, considering the bill to extend the laws relating to customs and 
internal revenue over the Hawaiian Islands, and the first section of 
the bill having been read--and here is the point that the Chair 
especially wants to have emphasized--
  ``Be it enacted, etc., That the laws of the United States relating to 
customs and internal revenue, including those relating to the 
punishment of crimes in connection with the enforcement of said laws, 
are hereby extended to and over the Island of Hawaii and all adjacent 
islands and waters of the islands.''
  After that had been read Mr. McRae, of Arkansas, offered an amendment 
to strike out, after the words ``the United States,'' the following: 
``relating to customs and internal revenue.'' Mr. Dingley, of Maine, 
made the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and after 
debate upon the subject the Chairman held as follows:
  ``The Chair thinks that the point of order is well taken. This bill 
is to extend the laws relating to customs and internal revenue, and the 
amendment seeks to open up the question of land titles and other laws 
in the Territories, thus enlarging the scope and bringing in matter not 
germane to the bill.''
  The point of order was sustained.
                                                            Sec. 2921
  In Hinds' Precedents, Volume IV, section 3596, is another case in 
point which the Chair will cite. An amendment was offered which 
contained, among others, these words, ``appliances for the automatic 
control of railway trains.'' Mr. Crumpacker, of Indiana, moved to 
strike out the word ``automatic,'' Mr. Mann, of Illinois, made a point 
of order, and the Chair in ruling upon it said:
  ``I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana whether or not his 
description, by striking out the word ``automatic'' here, would not let 
in a great many things? That is, would not the scope of the 
investigation be much wider and more extended than if the term 
``automatic'' is included?''
  The ensuing debate having indicated that the effect of the amendment 
might be to extend the scope of the investigation, the Chair sustained 
the point of order, though evidently in some doubt.
  The Chair feels that notwithstanding the general proposition that 
parliamentary questions are usually determined by the form and not the 
effect of an amendment, that when no rules are applicable the effect 
should be taken into consideration as a determining factor, when by 
striking out specific words new and different subjects are thereby 
introduced, and the scope of the legislation under consideration is 
broadened beyond that contemplated in the bill.
  In line with what the Chair considers the most conclusive precedents 
in reference to striking out words, following also the precedents 
pertaining to germaneness, and in conformity with the views just 
expressed by the Chair on the subject of scope of legislation, the 
Chair feels that the point of order is well taken, and sustains it.

  2921. Under circumstances where the omission of language would 
sufficiently change the purport of the text to present another subject 
a motion to strike out has been held not to be germane.
  On March 27, 1920, \1\ during consideration of the District of 
Columbia appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota, proposed the 
following as a new paragraph:

  The rate of taxation on real estate in the District of Columbia, 
under the provisions of section 5 of the District of Columbia 
appropriation act approved July 1, 1902, is hereby increased from 1\1/
2\ per cent to 2\1/2\ per cent, and the rate of taxation on tangible 
personal property in the District of Columbia, under the provisions of 
section 6 of the said act, is hereby increased from 1\1/2\ per cent to 
2\1/2\ per cent.

  Mr. William F. Stevenson, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the 
word ``tangible.''
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order and said:

  As a general thing, of course, it is in order to strike out, but it 
has been held on a good many occasions that where a motion to strike 
out a word, such as the word ``not,'' for instance so as absolutely to 
reverse what was intended, it may not be in order. It sometimes is, but 
it is here held not in order because it accomplishes something by 
striking out that you could not accomplish by inserting. In this 
particular case the Chair had already sustained a point of order to an 
amendment to insert a specific provision with reference to the 
intangible property. The effect of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina was to insert it, which amounted to the 
same thing.

  The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4937.
  \2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 2922
  2922. An amendment must be germane to the section or paragraph to 
which it is offered.
  To a section of a revenue bill proposing definitions of terms an 
amendment levying a tax was held not to be germane although germane to 
the bill as a whole.
  If any part of an amendment is out of order the entire amendment may 
be ruled out.
  On February 18, 1924, \1\ the bill H. R. 6715, the revenue bill, was 
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, when the Clerk read the first section devoted exclusively to 
the definition of terms used in the bill.
  Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, proposed the following amendment to 
be inserted as a new subdivision under the section:

  The term ``taxable income from whatever source derived'' shall 
include all incomes received from every source, including Federal, 
State, and municipal securities, except where specifically exempted by 
act of Congress, and shall be laid and collected the same as all other 
taxes.

  Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section.
  After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The rule has always been, ever since 1822, and has been repeatedly 
held by succeeding Speakers and Chairmen from that time, that 
amendments to be germane must not only be germane to the subject matter 
of the bill also to the paragraph where offered. That is the rule now. 
This particular part of the bill is headed ``Definitions,'' and thus 
far in the reading certain terms are defined--for instances, 
``fiduciary,'' ``withholding agent,'' ``paid or incurred,'' ``stock,'' 
and ``shareholder''--giving a definition of the terms as they are used 
in the bill. When this amendment was first presented, the Chair on 
hearing it read was of the opinion that it was a definition and 
therefore proper and germane at this time. That would be true if it 
were not for the closing language of the amendment, ``and shall be laid 
and collected the same as all other taxes.'' Manifestly this goes 
beyond a definition and imposes a tax, or attempts to impose a tax. If 
so, and if it is germane to the subject matter of the bill, upon which 
the Chair will not pass at this time, it ought to be offered to some 
other section. If the amendment were without this language it would be 
proper at this time. Having this language in it, the Chair is of the 
opinion that it is subject to the point of order, and therefore 
sustains the point of order.

  2923. An amendment should be germane not only to the subject matter 
of the bill but also to the particular section of the bill in which it 
is proposed to insert the amendment.
  An amendment to the second title of a bill was held not germane to 
the first title of the bill.
  On April 24, 1930, \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 10381) to amend 
the World War veterans' act of 1924, as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2719.
  \2\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7641.
                                                            Sec. 2924
  During the reading of Title I of the bill Mr. Robert A. Green, of 
Florida, offered an amendment appending a new section of Title II of 
the bill.
  Mr. Royal C. Johnson, of South Dakota, submitted that the amendment 
was not germane to Title I of the bill.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point and said:

  The offer proposes to amend a section of the law under Title II, 
which comes in at a later point in the bill. The Chair does not think 
it is germane to this portion of the bill. The Chair sustains the point 
of order.

  2924. It is not sufficient that an amendment proposed to a pending 
amendment be germane to the bill but it must also be germane to the 
amendment to which it is offered.
  On February 28, 1924,\2\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 6715, 
the revenue bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed the 
following amendment:

  No member of the board shall be permitted to practice before said 
board or any official of the Treasury Department, or be connected, 
directly or indirectly, with any person or any firm of lawyers, 
solicitors, accountants, or agents practicing before said board or any 
official of the Treasury Department on behalf of taxpayers for a period 
of two years after his term of office terminates of from the time such 
member resigns or otherwise leaves the service of the Government.

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to amend this amendment as 
follows:

  After the word ``board,'' in the first line of the LaGuardia 
amendment, insert the words ``or any official or Government employee in 
the Treasury Department.''

  Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the amendment to which offered.
  Mr. Blanton submitted that it was germane to the original bill.
  The Chairman \3\ held:

  Heretofore the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment, which 
at time was discussed, and which the Chair held would be germane when 
we arrived at the proper part of the bill, which the Chair thought at 
that time would be Title X. The gentleman now offers an amendment to an 
amendment. In order to ascertain whether or not it is germane to the 
amendment to which it is offered, one must look to the amendment and 
not to the bill. Now, what is the amendment? The amendment is that no 
member of the board shall be permitted to practice, and so forth. To 
that the gentleman from Texas seeks to add ``or any official or 
Government employee of the Treasury Department,'' thereby interjecting 
an entirely different class of people from those mentioned in the 
amendment, namely the board. Therefore it is not germane to the 
amendment, although it might be germane to the bill if offered as a 
separate proposition. The point of order is sustained.

  2925. An amendment must be germane to the particular paragraph or 
section to which it is offered.
  On June 10, 1921,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish in the 
Treasury Department a veterans' bureau.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3287.
  \3\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2397.
Sec. 2926
  Title II of the bill having read, Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, 
offered an amendment proposing a modify a section of existing law dealt 
with in Title IV of the pending bill.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point or order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section to which offered.
  After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The war risk insurance act, as the Chair has already stated, is 
divided into four titles. The first of those titles deals with 
provisions that are more or less general to the entire act, 
definitions, and general provisions of that sort. The second title 
relates to allotments. The third title relates to compensation, and the 
fourth relates to insurance. The general rules applicable to amendments 
provides that an amendment must be germane not only to the bill but to 
the section, if it is offered to a section, or, if offered as a new 
section, it must be germane in the place where it is offered.
  The provision under consideration amends but one section of the first 
title of the war risk insurance act. It amends no other section of that 
title. The Chair feels that the purpose of the rule requiring that an 
amendment shall be germane at the place in which it is offered is to 
preserve the proper order of the legislation, and that to permit the 
introduction of an amendment to a portion of the bill under Title IV, 
as an amendment to a section in Title I, for instance, of this bill, 
would be to destroy the orderly sequence of the legislation. The Chair 
is not now holding that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Iowa is not germane to the bill, but under the rules of the House the 
Chair does not think the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Iowa 
is germane to the section to which it is offered as an amendment, or as 
a new section in the place in which it is offered, and therefore 
sustains the point of order.

  2926. On May 1921,\2\ during consideration of the army appropriation 
bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the 
Clerk read this paragraph:

  For construction and repair of quarters for hospital stewards at 
military posts already established and occupied, $15,000.

  Mr. C. B. Hudspeth, of Texas, offered an amendment as follows:

  The sum of $10,000 for the erection of a natatorium adjoining the 
Government base hospital at Fort Bliss, Tex., now in course of 
construction. The said natatorium to be a part of said plant.

  Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, raised the question of order 
that the amendment while germane to the bill was not germane to the 
particular paragraph to which it was proposed.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
  2927. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill under 
consideration.
  On February 2, 1909,\4\ the Army appropriation bill was being read 
for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1236.
  \3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1732.
                                                            Sec. 2928
  The last paragraph of the bill having been read, Mr. John J. 
Fitzgerald, of New York offered the following amendment to be inserted 
as a new section at the end of the bill:

  No part of any appropriation made herein shall be expended in the 
purchase of powder except powder for small arms at a price not in 
excess of 64 cents per pound.

  Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
amendment should have been offered when the paragraph relating to the 
purchase of powder was under consideration, and was not now in order.
  The Chairman \1\ said:

  It seems to the Chair that the rule is well settled that an amendment 
offered, or a provision made, must be germane to the portion of the 
bill then under discussion. Specific appropriation has been made for 
the manufacture and purchase of powder, and that has been passed, and 
since then specific appropriations have been made for many other 
subjects. It seems to the Chair, under the procedure of the House, that 
the point made that this amendment now offered is not in order is well 
taken, and the Chair must sustain the point of order.

  2928. On February 18, 1933,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union was considering the District of Columbia 
appropriation bill, when that portion of the bill dealing with 
compensation for personal services under the Board of Public Welfare 
was reached.
  The Clerk read:

  For personal services, $105,580.

  Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York offered this amendment:

  To enable the Board of Public Welfare to provide for the relief of 
all needy persons not otherwise provided for by appropriations herein 
made to such board, $625,000, payable wholly from the revenues of the 
District of Columbia.

  Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to this portion of the bill, and if 
admissible should be appropriately offered when the section of the bill 
providing for relief was reached.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
  2929. On May 24, 1910,\4\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was 
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  When the section of the bill devoted to items relating to the 
Executive was reached, Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, offered 
the following amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph.

                            bureau of labor

  To enable the Commissioner of Labor to ascertain at as early a date 
as possible the cost of producing articles at the time dutiable in the 
United States in leading countries where such articles are produced by 
fully specified units of production and under a classification showing 
the different elements of cost, or approximate cost, of such articles 
of production, including the wages paid in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James B. Perkins, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 4433.
  \3\ Anning S. Prall, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6819.
Sec. 2930
such industries per day, week, month, or year, or by the piece; and 
hours employed per day; and the profits of the manufacturers and 
producers of such articles; and the comparative cost of living, and the 
kind of living. * * * what articles are controlled by trusts or other 
combinations of capital, business operations, or labor, and what effect 
said trusts, or other combinations of capital, business operations, or 
labor have on production and prices, $100,000, to be immediately 
available.

  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the 
proposed new section pertained to the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
provision for which was made later in the bill, and that the amendment 
was not germane to the pending section.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  In making up any appropriation bill it is essential, in the interests 
of those who watch the proceedings of the House and in the committee, 
that there be some order observed in an appropriation bill. Hence, 
under the rules, any amendment that is offered must not only be 
germane, but germane to that portion of the bill. In the sundry civil 
appropriation bill for many years it has been the custom--and it seems 
to the Chair a very proper one--to arrange items, as far as 
practicable, under the head of the different departments of the 
Government, commencing after some item for the Executive with the 
Treasury Department, and running down according to the date of the 
creation and priority of the department, and in that way the Department 
of Commerce and Labor is reached in the bill.
  It seems to the Chair that it would be not only inappropriate, but 
out of order, to offer an amendment relating to some provision in the 
bill under the head of Department of Commerce and Labor at some other 
place in the bill. That seems too clear for argument, and it seems to 
the Chair than an item not relating to any matter of the bill, but 
germane to the bill and also germane to the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, should be offered at that part of the bill.
  The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

  2930. An amendment inserting an additional section should be germane 
to the portion of the bill to which offered.
  The motion to return to a portion of a bill passed in reading for 
amendment is not privileged and a paragraph or section so passed may be 
again taken up by unanimous consent only.
  On January 19, 1909,\2\ the urgent deficiency appropriation bill was 
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
Union.
  After the Clerk in reading the bill for amendment had passed the 
section of the bill making appropriation for the Department of 
Agriculture Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, asked unanimous consent 
to return to that section for the purpose of considering an amendment 
which he proposed to offer as follows:

  To supply deficiency in the quota of vegetable and other valuable 
seed authorized to be furnished each Senator and Representative, the 
sum of $30,000, which the Secretary of Agriculture is required to 
purchase.

  Objection having been made to the request, Mr. Heflin moved to return 
to the section for the purpose of permitting amendment.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the 
motion was not privileged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1121.
                                                            Sec. 2931
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The Chair sustains the point of order, because it is contrary to the 
practice of the House. The practice of the House is that to return to a 
section or paragraph can only be done by unanimous consent. Unanimous 
consent was asked by the gentleman from Alabama and objection was made. 
Then the gentleman from Alabama moved that the committee return to that 
paragraph, whereupon the gentleman from Minnesota raised the point of 
order, which was sustained by the Chair.

  Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, called attention to an instance in 
which a motion by Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, to return to a 
paragraph in the reading of a bill had been entertained and agreed to.
  The Chairman differentiated:

  The Chair will say to the gentleman from Missouri, in response to the 
inquiry, that that was under different conditions. These conditions 
were that the reading of the bill had been completed; and the gentleman 
having the bill in charge moved that the committee rise and report; 
this was voted down. Under those circumstances, the Chair held that a 
motion to return to a paragraph was out of order, but the committee 
reversed this decision on appeal from the Chair.

  Mr. Heflin then proposed to offer the amendment as a new section.
  Mr. Tawney raised a question of order against the amendment.
  The Chairman ruled:

  For a long period of years it has been the ruling of the Chair that 
an amendment to be in order must be made in connection with the 
portions or the paragraph of the bill to which it is germane. This 
amendment would have been germane in connection with the paragraph 
under the head of the Department of Agriculture. It was not offered 
until the end of the bill.
  The Chair sustains the point of order.

  2931. An amendment should be germane to that portion of the bill to 
which offered.
  To a portion of a bill dealing with one class of Indian schools an 
amendment relating to an Indian school of another class was ruled not 
germane.
  On December 10, 1929,\2\ during the consideration of the Interior 
Department appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered this 
amendment:

  Concho, Okla.: For the construction of a shop building, $12,000; 
employees' cottages, $4,500: barn and implement shed, $3,000.

  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the portion of the bill to which offered 
and said:

  Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not 
germane at this place in the bill. the Concho School, as I understand, 
is cared for in the item on page 38, the maintenance; the school 
buildings are provided for on page 40.
  The committee has taken a great deal of care to properly classify 
items. I know of no way the committee could classify more carefully. We 
first proceed with the general education items for day schools on the 
reservations. First there is the maintenance; next care of school 
buildings; and then we proceed for a number of pages to take care of 
boarding schools that are not on the reservations. Then over at the 
last are brought in those items that could not be taken care of in the 
preceding items, the item, for instance, of the Osage children. That is 
not out of the Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David J. Foster, of Vermont, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 416.
Sec. 2932
of the United States; it is out of the Osage funds. The item 
immediately before us, while it is out of the Treasury of the United 
States--and I want to emphasize this to the Chair--is not for the 
maintenance of schools by the Federal Government, but is its 
contribution to the maintenance of schools that are conducted by the 
State of Utah or subdivisions thereof. The bill is very carefully 
arranged, but it amendments like this can prevail, and we can have on 
page 40 an item for boarding schools on Indian reservations and for 
their building and repair and expansion of plants, and then 10 pages 
later one particular reservation boarding school have its plant 
provided for, Members of this House will not know where to look to find 
the things they are interested in.
  That is the reason for the parliamentary rule, and that is the reason 
why it ought not to be in order for this amendment to be inserted over 
here in connection with items for the payment of tuition or 
appropriations from tribal funds or appropriations to carry on State 
and county schools where Indians attend. There is a place for it. That 
is on page 40, relating to reservation Indian boarding schools provided 
for out of the Treasury of the United States, where their physical 
needs are set forth.

  The Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The Chair is very greatly impressed with the earnest argument of the 
gentleman from Michigan as to the necessity of order and procedure in 
the consideration of a bill, and, of course, has no purpose to consider 
lightly the determination of an important point of order.
  Since the debate began the Chair has considered all the various 
paragraphs and finds that they are not as indiscriminate as they appear 
to be. It is true, as the gentleman from Michigan states, that the 
paragraph beginning on line 16 on page 40 was doubtless intended to be 
exclusive in the matter of constructing and repairing buildings at 
certain schools and like institutions, including the purchase of land 
and the installation of apparatus and equipment. It would be exclusive 
as to schools of a certain class, reservation, day or boarding school 
maintained out of the Federal funds.
  What kind of school is this? It is a reservation boarding school 
maintained but of Federal funds.
  On that statement the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of 
order. In addition, the amendment is clearly not germane to the 
paragraph immediately preceding it, even though it relates to the 
general subject matter of the education of Indians.

  2932. While an amendment offered as a separate paragraph must be 
germane to that portion of the bill to which proposed, it is sufficient 
if offered to that portion of the bill relating to the department of 
government under which it properly belongs and the fact that it is not 
intimately related to the paragraphs immediately preceding or 
immediately following does not render it subject to a point of order.
  An amendment making appropriation for the bureau of mines is not 
germane to provisions for the public land service of the United States 
Geological Survey carried in the bill to which proposed, but the three 
are under the Department of the Interior and as the last two were not 
intimately related the first was held in order for insertion between 
the other two and to be germane to that portion of the bill.
  On May 31, 1910,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was under 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  After the section of the bill providing for Public Land Service had 
been read and before the following section relating to the Geological 
Survey of the United States had been taken up, Mr. Albert Douglas, of 
Ohio, offered as a new section to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 7164.
                                                            Sec. 2933
be inserted between the two an amendment making provision for the 
Bureau of Mines.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to that part of the bill.
  After debate, the Chairman \1\ ruled:


  The gentleman from Ohio offers an amendment, which has been reported, 
to come in immediately preceding the heading ``United States Geological 
Survey,'' and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
headed ``Bureau of Mines.''
  The point of order is first made that the amendment is not in order, 
being offered at this place in the bill, on the ground that it is not 
germane to the provisions of the bill at this point.
  The bill is divided into different parts, relating to a certain 
extent, at least, to the different departments of the Government. 
Beginning on page 92 of the bill, under the heading in large capital 
letters, reading ``Under the Department of the Interior,'' is a 
subheading ``Public buildings,'' in capital letters. On page 94 is 
another subheading in capital letters, ``Public lands service.'' On 
page 99 is another heading in capital letters, ``Surveying the public 
lands,'' and on page 101 is a heading in capital letters, ``United 
States Geological Survey.''
  All of these branches of the service are under the heading 
``Department of the Interior,'' and are all under the Department of the 
Interior. The gentleman from Minnesota has insisted that the items 
under ``Public lands service'' and those under ``United States 
Geological Survey'' relate to surveying the public domain, but it seems 
to the Chair that, even if the Chair were captious about it, that these 
two branches of the service are under different bureaus or divisions of 
the Department of the Interior which are in no way closely related, 
except as other bureaus may be related, and it seems to the Chair 
wholly for the Committee of the Whole to determine whether it prefers 
the provision in one place or in another part of the bill, the 
amendment being germane to these provisions of the bill under 
consideration. This item is offered an as amendment under the head of 
``Bureau of Mines,'' to come in between the items ``Public lands 
service'' and ``United States Geological Survey,'' all three being in 
the same department. That part of the point of order the Chair 
overrules.
  In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is in order at this place 
in the bill.


  2933. Amendments proposing new paragraphs should conform in 
germaneness to the section of the bill to which proposed.--On March 21, 
1930,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was 
considering the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the transportation of 
persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor carriers operating 
on the public highways.
  When that portion of the bill relating to mergers of interstate 
carriers was reached, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed 
an amendment inserting provisions of the United States Code relating to 
hours of labor.
  Mr. James S. Parker of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order at this place in the bill.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and said:


  The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman's amendment would have 
been germane to subdivision 2 of section 2, but the Chair is of the 
opinion that the amendment is not germane at the place offered and, 
therefore, sustains the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5878.
  \3\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
Sec. 2934
  2934. An amendment must be germane to the portion of the bill to 
which offered but when proposed as a separate paragraph is not required 
to be germane to the paragraph immediately preceding it.
  On January 28, 1921,\1\ while the diplomatic and consular 
appropriation bill was being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, the Clerk read the section of the bill 
providing for salaries of ambassadors and ministers.
  Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, offered the following 
amendment to be inserted as a new paragraph:


  For ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Turkey, $10,000.


  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the paragraph just read which it was 
proposed to immediately follow:
  After debate the Chairman \2\ held:


  The point of order made by the gentleman from Texas as he states it 
himself regards the amendment as an amendment to the paragraph. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts offers his amendment in a separate 
paragraph.
  The only question is as to whether or not it is properly with this 
branch of the bill. Is it within this title of ``Salaries of 
ambassadors and ministers''? Of course, it is. The ambassador paragraph 
already passed was not necessarily exclusive. It was perfectly proper 
that an amendment should have been offered to that, or its proper to 
offer it as a separate paragraph, because of the fact that in the prior 
paragraph the salary is fixed at $17,500 for all of the countries 
therein enumerated. In this case provision is made for an ambassador, 
but the salary is limited to $10,000. Therefore, the point of order 
made by the gentleman from Texas is not sustained.


  In response to an inquiry from Mr. Blanton the Chairman added:


  A separate paragraph is certainly not a part of the paragraph that 
precedes it.


  2935. The rule on germaneness does not necessarily require that an 
amendment offered as a separate section be germane to the preceding 
section of the bill or to any other particular section of the bill, but 
it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject matter of the bill 
as a whole.
  On September 29, 1919,\3\ while the bill (H. R. 9521) to regulate the 
preservation and distribution of cold storage foodstuffs was under 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:


  No person shall receive in commerce any article of food for cold 
storage or transport any article of food in commerce in any 
refrigerator vehicle, if such person has refused inspection, when 
requested under this act, of such warehouse or refrigerator vehicle; 
nor shall any person ship in commerce any article of food if he has 
refused inspection of such article of food when requested under this 
act.


  To this paragraph Mr. Niels Juul, of Illinois, offered the following 
amendment:


  Nor shall any person ship in commerce any poultry or game if the 
entrails of such game were not removed prior to the time of being 
received for cold storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2173.
  \2\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6112.
                                                            Sec. 2936
  Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, raised the question of order as to 
the germaneness of the proposed amendment.
  After debate the Chairman\1\ held:

  Members of the committee will recognize that the point of order does 
not involve the merits of an amendment. The rules as to germaneness 
require that an amendment must not only be germane to the bill but to 
the section to which it applies. This provision that is sought to be 
amended refers to inspection, while the amendment refers to the 
conditions of shipment. Therefore the amendment is not germane to the 
provision, and the point of order is sustained.

  Whereupon, Mr. Juul proposed that the same amendment be inserted as a 
new section.
  Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section of the bill which it was 
proposed to follow.
  After extended discussion the Chairman ruled:

  The Chair stated in the preceding ruling that the rule governing 
germaneness of amendments required that amendments be not only germane 
to the bill but to the section under consideration. This amendment is 
offered as a new section and stands not in the same relationship as if 
it were an amendment to the section itself. The ruling referred to some 
time ago referred to the question of whether when debate had been 
closed on a section and all amendments thereto it would cover a new 
section that was added or sought to be added, and the ruling of the 
Chair was to the effect that it would. However, the Chair does not 
think that that is on a parity with this. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois is germane to the bill if added as a new 
section. It is not a part of the preceding section and does not need to 
be germane to it, and therefore the Chair overrules that point of 
order.

  2936. An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane not only to 
the bill but to the Senate amendment to which offered.
  On August 16, 1921,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering Senate amendment No. 32 to the bill (H. R. 
7294) supplemental to the national prohibition act, when Mr. Andrew J. 
Volstead, of Minnesota, moved to strike out the amendment and insert in 
lieu thereof the following substitute:

  Sec. 6. That no officer, agent, or employee of the United States, 
while engaged in the enforcement of this act, the national prohibition 
act, or any law in reference to the manufacture or taxation of, or 
traffic in, intoxicating liquor, shall search any private dwelling 
without a warrant directing such search, and no such warrant shall 
issue unless there is reason to believe such dwelling is used as a 
place in which liquor is manufactured for sale or sold. The term 
``private dwelling'' shall be construed to include the room or rooms 
occupied not transiently but solely as a residence in an apartment 
house, hotel, or boarding house. Any violation of any provision of this 
paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000 or 
imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both such fine and 
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

  Mr. Hallett S. Ward, of North Carolina, proposed to add the following 
to the substitute:

  No execution or other process shall be levied on the property of any 
person for collection of penalties or forfeitures alleged to have been 
incurred by violation of this act or the national prohibition act until 
such person shall be duly convicted or shall plead guilty to the charge 
for which penalty or forfeiture shall arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5080.
Sec. 2937
  Mr. Volstead having made the point of order that the amendment was 
not germane to the substitute, Mr. Ward took the position that it was 
sufficient if the amendment was germane to the original bill.
  After further debate the Chairman\1\ held:

  The committee is considering the Senate amendments and particularly 
this amendment which relates to search and seizure and limits the 
powers of Government officials in relation to search and seizures. It 
appears to the Chair that any amendment offered which is not germane to 
the subject covered by this amendment, even though it might be 
legitimate to the bill as a whole, is not in order, and the Chair 
sustains the point of order made.

  2937. To a bill amendatory of existing law in one particular a 
proposition to amend the law in another particular is not germane.
  To a bill amending a section of a law designating and defining the 
constituent ingredients of oleomargarine an amendment proposing a tax 
on oleomargarine was held not to be germane.
  On February 6, 1930,\2\ the bill (H. R. 6) to amend the definition of 
oleomargarine contained in the act entitled ``An act defining butter, 
also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, 
importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,'' approved August 2, 
1886, as amended, was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.
  The Clerk read:

  Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the act entitled ``An act 
defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the 
manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,'' 
approved August 2, 1886, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
  ``Sec. 2 That for the purposes of this act certain manufactured 
substances, certain extracts, and certain mixtures and compounds, 
including such mixtures and compounds with butter, shall be known and 
designated as `oleomargarine,' namely: All substances heretofore known 
as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine, 
and neutral; and all mixtures and compounds of oleomargarine, oleo, 
oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, and suine, and neutral.''

  Mr. Jeremiah E. O'Connell, of Rhode Island, offered an amendment 
proposing a new paragraph imposing a tax of 2 cents per pound on 
oleomargarine.
  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane and said:

  There is a specific decision bearing exactly on this point, but I 
have not been able to find it at the moment; but when the House had 
before it a proposition for measuring boats in the Panama Canal Zone 
and an amendment was offered intended to repeal the charging of all 
tolls, that amendment was immediately ruled out of order on the ground 
that it tended to change the general provisions of the act and was not 
germane to the provision before the House at that time.
  I think that is certainly on all fours with the proposition of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island. The proposition of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island is not germane to the proposition pending before the House 
at this time and is subject to a point of order.

  The Chairman\3\ sustained the point of order and added:

  On October 1, 1919--Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, Record, page 
6225; Cannon's Precedents, section 9781--Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of New 
York, then Chairman of the Committee of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3189.
  \3\ Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2938
the Whole House on the state of the Union, made the decision to which 
the gentleman from new York has referred. In that case the Committee of 
the Whole was considering a bill amending the provisions of a law 
providing for the measurement of vessels to determine the tolls to be 
paid thereon. An amendment was proposed amending the existing law to 
the extent of repealing the provision dealing with tolls. The Chairman, 
in ruling on the point of order raised against the amendment, said:
  ``The bill provides certain rules for the measurement of vessels 
using the Panama Canal, but it does not provide for the payment of 
tolls. It merely establishes a standard of measurement for ships going 
through, and does not prescribe he amount of money which shall be paid 
by the ships themselves. * * * Therefore, it seems to the Chair that 
the two subjects, the subject matter of the bill and the subject matter 
of the amendment are not related, and the Chair sustains the point of 
order.''
  The Chair sees a very great similarity between the proposition ruled 
on by Chairman Hicks and the one presented to the Chair at this time.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island in effect 
amends the act of August 2, 1886, but in a different section from that 
under consideration in this bill. The bill before us amends section 2 
of the act of August 2, 1886, which pertains merely to definitions. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island seeks to impose a 
tax. The Chair does not think the amendment germane and sustains the 
point of order.

  2938. Where a bill proposes to amend an existing law in several 
particulars, no arbitrary rule can be laid down either admitting or 
excluding further amendments to the law not proposed in the pending 
bill, but the question of the germaneness of such additional amendments 
must be determined in each instance on the merits of the case 
presented.
  On June 10, 1921,\1\ the bill (H. R. 6611) for the establishment of a 
veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department was under consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  This bill proposed to amend severally a number of sections of the war 
risk insurance law.
  Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, proposed to amend the law in 
a manner not provided for by the pending bill by inserting the 
following as a new section:

  Sec. 21\1/2\. Section 401 of the war risk insurance act, as amended, 
is hereby further amended by adding at the end of said section the 
following language:
  ``Provided further, That any person in the active service who while 
in such service subsequent to the 6th day of April, 1917, and prior to 
the 6th day of October, 1917, because totally and permanently disabled 
without having applied for insurance shall be deemed to have been 
granted insurance in the sum of $10,000, payments thereafter to be made 
in accordance with existing laws and regulations.''

  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not in order because not germane to the bill.
  In support of the point of order, Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, said:

  Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit to the Chair an argument 
against the propriety of considering amendments to other sections of 
the war risk insurance act than those that are not included in the bill 
under consideration. I question very seriously whether under the rules 
of the House it is in order on a bill such as this, even though it 
presents amendments to various sections of the war risk insurance act, 
to present amendments like the one now proposed to this bill when such 
sections are not under consideration in the bill as reported. This is a 
large question that I do not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2415.
Sec. 2938
believe has been passed upon except once, to my recollection in the 
House. The question is, when a bill is presented like this one, 
amending, say, two, three, or four specific sections of a certain 
measure which contains perhaps a dozen sections, whether it is in order 
for any Member to offer an amendment to a section that has not been 
included for change. I take it that the reason for the rule of the 
House based on the relation of germaneness to the subject matter under 
consideration by the House is that it is founded on the idea that it is 
intended to dispatch the legislation under consideration, and for the 
further reason of protecting the House in the consideration of the 
proposed legislation by having the proposed legislation given 
consideration first by a committee as to whether it should be 
considered by the House at all. Otherwise there would be no logic in 
the rule which has been followed that when a Senate bill is presented 
to the House and referred to a committee for consideration, even that 
committee has no power to report any amendment except one that is 
germane to the bill, even though it may have authority to report 
legislation of a different character.
  I call the attention of the chairman to a specific ruling by Speaker 
Clark when this very question was up for consideration, in which the 
Speaker upheld the contention of those protesting against the 
innovation attempted here. The point was contested by Messrs. Sherley, 
Fitzgerald, and myself, and also on the other side in support by Mr. 
Crisp. The bill under consideration then was a Post Office 
appropriation bill in which the Committee on the Post Office and Post 
Roads had brought into the House substantive legislation amending three 
sections of the criminal code. When the bill came back into the House 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Randall, offered a motion to 
recommit that had relation to other sections of the criminal code but 
did not have any direct relation to the provision on which he sought to 
hang his amendment.
  The section of the criminal code that was amended and a part of the 
bill under consideration was section 215. That related exclusively to 
preventing the use of the mails for fraud. Mr. Randall offered an 
amendment to forbid the use of the mail by the sending of literature 
relating to liquor of any kind or any kind of advertisement relating to 
the sale of liquor. Although that amendment would have been in order to 
another section of the criminal code, but which, however, was not 
attempted to be reviewed and was not under consideration by the House 
in the amendments reported by the Committee on the Post Office and Post 
Roads, after elaborate argument by Messrs. Fitzgerald, Sherley, Crisp, 
and myself, the Speaker held that it was not germane to the subject 
matter under consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to indulge in this practice that when 
the committee brings in a bill amending say, two sections of a law that 
comprises 20 or 30 sections, that because there is an amendment of two 
sections it opens up for consideration every section in the original 
law, amendments to other sections which have no relation to the section 
attempted to be amended by the bill presented by the committee, then we 
put behind us that safeguard and protection which is necessary in 
legislation--that before legislation is considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union it must first be considered 
by a committee of the House.

  After further debate the Chairman \1\ said:

  It is always difficult to lay down a general rule with respect to 
admissibility of amendment which can be applied in every instance 
without question of doubt or without exception. The Chair is of opinion 
that, generally, it has been held that an amendment offered as a new 
section must be germane to the preceding section, but the Chair thinks 
that the rule is better stated by saying that the new section must be 
germane to the bill at the place at which it is offered. The Chair 
thinks that if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is in 
order at all, it is in order at the place at which he offered it.
  The next question that arises is whetter or not any amendment to 
section 401 of the war risk insurance act, which is not amended by the 
bill, as reported by the committee, is in order. The Chair confesses to 
having a considerable degree of difficulty with that question. The 
Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down that where 
several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by a 
committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of 
the bill not included in the bill reported by the committee, nor does 
the Chair think that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2939
opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every instance. 
The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be determined in 
every instance in the light of the facts which are presented in the 
case.
  In the particular case under consideration it appears that the 
committee has reported a bill which amends several sections of Title IV 
of the bill in various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can 
hold that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee is 
in order. The question, therefore, comes down to whether or not the 
particular amendment proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
germane to section 401, if any amendment to that section is permitted.
  The Chair thinks that the amendment proposed is clearly germane to 
that section, and the Chair thinks that the general character of the 
amendments proposed by the committee to various sections of Title IV is 
such that it is in order to amend section 401 in a germane way, even 
though that particular section is not dealt with by the committee or by 
the bill. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

  2939. A proposed amendment to existing law so comprehensive in its 
effect upon the law as to practically repeal it was held to admit as 
germane amendments providing an entirely different method for 
performing the functions of the original law.
  A Senate amendment under consideration in the House is treated for 
purposes of amendment as an original bill.
  On May 3, 1922,\1\ the House resumed consideration of Senate 
amendments to the District of Columbia appropriation bill with a point 
of order pending against an amendment offered on the preceding day to 
Senate amendment No. 1.
  The Senate amendment proposed to substitute for the current method of 
taxation in the District of Columbia, known as the ``half and half'' 
plan, under which half of the expenses of the District was paid by the 
District and half by the Federal government, a new system under which 
all expenses of the District would be paid from the Treasury.
  The pending amendment proposed by Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota, 
by way of a motion to recede and concur and against which a point of 
order had been lodged by Mr. R. Watson Moore, of Virginia, established 
a new fiscal system for the District and provided a new ratio in the 
propositions to be paid by the District and the Federal government.
  After further debate on the amendment the Speaker \2\ ruled:

  This question has occasioned the Chair considerable difficulty in 
coming to a decision, for there are very strong arguments on both 
sides, as has been illustrated to the Members who have listened to the 
debate.
  The Chair appreciates what has just been said, that if the Senate 
puts on a legislative provision it may prevent the legislative 
committee of the House from considering the proposition, and therefore 
is not the proper way to have it brought up. But, after all, that can 
not be prevented. That is still in the control of the House. If the 
House does not like that method of legislating, it may simply refuse to 
agree to the Senate amendment. But, after all, the Senate has a right 
to put on a legislative amendment if it desires, just as the House has 
that right, and when such a legislative amendment comes over to the 
House from the Senate the House is obliged to consider it, and it is 
just as properly before the House as if it had been reported from the 
House legislative committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6274.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2940
  It seems to the Chair that some of the arguments which have been 
presented as to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
to the Senate amendment have been a little confused, because it has 
been referred to as action by the conferees. It is not action by the 
conferees. It is a motion made by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Davis, as a Member of the House. Any other Member of the House might 
offer the amendment. Of course, the gentleman from Minnesota, being the 
chairman of the subcommittee, would have the first right to 
recognition; but the Senate amendment, being before the House, is 
subject to amendment by any Member of the House. There were two grounds 
stated for this point of order, first, that it was legislation, and, 
second, that it was not germane. The first point has not been insisted 
upon, and, of course, could not be, for there is no question that the 
whole Senate amendment is legislation. It is practically nothing but 
legislation. In fact, curiously enough, the Senate seems to have been 
so absorbed by the fact that it was legislation that it forgot to put 
on the appropriating clause. So that the Senate amendment is clearly 
legislation, and legislation of a very broad and sweeping character. It 
entirely changes the system under which taxation and appropriations in 
the District of Columbia have been made. It has always been on a 
proportional basis--half and half or some other ratio. This Senate 
amendment simply says at the outset that all expenses shall be paid out 
of the Treasury of the United States, and then it goes on to provide 
the details. That is a radical change, and, of course, it is 
legislation. Now, the Senate amendment comes before the House as an 
amendment to the first section of the House appropriation bill and it 
strikes out all of the House provision, and therefore, is a substitute. 
It seems to the Chair that this being a substitute and the matter being 
in the stage of disagreement any amendment can be offered which is 
germane either to this substitute or to the original House proposition, 
because it would be natural that a substitute should be offered which 
would bring the two House together, which would harmonize the two, 
which might contain part that was in one and part that was in the 
other, and yet the part that was in the original House bill might not 
be at all germane to the Senate amendment. But it seems to the Chair 
that it could hardly be argued that such an amendment was not germane, 
because the most natural amendment would be one tending to harmonize 
the provisions of the House and the provisions of the Senate and 
containing part of one and part of the other. Therefore, it seems to 
the Chair that, this being a substitute, anything is germane, and 
therefore in order, which is germane to either the original House 
section or to the Senate amendment.
  The question remains, Is this amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota a germane amendment? The Chair having considered it overnight 
confesses that the has had considerable difficulty. There are 
provisions in this amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
which do not directly touch anything detailed in the Senate amendment. 
But the Chair has come to the conclusion that the Senate amendment is a 
complete and sweeping revision of existing law. It covers the whole 
field of relationship between the District and the Government in the 
affairs of taxation and expenditures. It practically repeals the 
existing law and establishes a new basis and a new system. In doing 
that the question arises whether only amendments can be offered which 
are directly applicable to the specific provisions which are detailed 
in the Senate amendment, or is the whole field so open that amendments 
can be offered which, although not specifically mentioned in the Senate 
amendment, apply to the changes made by the Senate amendment and are 
incidental to its whole subject and purpose. It seems to the Chair that 
the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota contains such provisions 
only; that they are fairly incidental to the expressed purpose of the 
Senate amendment, and that the House has a right by amendment to adopt 
such incidental changes. The Chair therefore rules that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is germane and in order.

  2940. To a bill reenacting in modified form an existing law, an 
amendment proposing further modification of the law proposing to be 
reenacted was held to be germane.
                                                            Sec. 2941
  On June 10, 1921,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to 
establish a veterans' bureau.
  The Clerk read a section of the bill proposing to reenact with 
amendments section 210 of the war risk insurance act.
  Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, offered an amendment proposing additional 
modification of section 210 of the war risk insurance act proposed to 
be reenacted.
  Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, made the point of order that 
additional modification of the section of existing law was not germane 
to the pending bill.
  After debate the Chairman \2\ held:

  The Chair is quite willing to confess that he has had a good deal of 
difficulty in arriving at a general conclusion with respect to which 
the proposed bill opens up the war risk insurance act for amendment 
offered from the floor. The section under consideration amends section 
210 of the war risk act, which section deals with the administration of 
family allowances. The Chair thinks it would be rather an arbitrary 
ruling to hold that where the committee has reported an amendment to a 
section in a law no amendment can be considered to that section except 
an amendment to the amendment proposed by the committee. The Chair is 
of the opinion that where the committee proposes an amendment to a 
section of the law in the nature of a substitute an amendment which is 
germane to that section of the law and the amendment of the committee 
is in order. The chair thinks that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas is germane to the section of the law under 
consideration and the amendment proposed by the committee, and the 
Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

  2941. An act continuing and reenacting an existing law is subject to 
amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in the act.\3\
  The committee, overruling the decision of the Chair, held that an 
amendment germane to an existing law is germane to a bill proposing its 
reenactment.
  On March 12, 1928,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 2317) continuing for one year 
the power and authority of the Federal Radio Commission under the radio 
act of 1927, when a committee amendment was read proposing modification 
of the provisions of the law sought to be continued.
  Mr. Frederik R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill because it referred to the 
provisions of the law proposed for reenactment rather than to the terms 
of the bill before the committee.
  Mr. Wallace H. White, jr., of Maine, opposed the point of order and 
explained:

  The first section of this bill provides that all the powers and all 
the authority vested in the Federal Radio Commission by the act of 1927 
shall be vested in and exercised by the commission until March 16, 
1929. It proposes in that language to extend for the period of another 
year each and every one of the powers vested by the 1927 law in the 
Radio Commission, and it does that by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2398.
  \2\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \3\ Overruling sec. 5806 of Hinds' Precedents.
  \4\ First session, Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4585.
Sec. 2941
the general language as fully and effectually as though the portion of 
the 1927 law were set out seriatim.
  Now, paragraph 2 of section 9 of the 1927 law, one of the powers 
which, if it were not for this amendment, would be extended by that 
general language, is that the commission shall make such distribution 
of wave lengths, licenses, power, and periods of time for operation 
among the States and among the communities thereof as shall work out 
equitable service to those States and to those communities.
  That proposition is before us by the general language with which this 
act starts. It is as fully and completely before us as though recited 
word for word and letter for letter. This amendment to which the point 
of order is directed seeks to amend that specific section and that 
specific paragraph. It seems to me it is clearly germane, clearly 
within the authority of the House and the committee to deal with that 
specific power when we undertake to deal with all the powers.

  Mr. Lehlbach argued:

  Is it germane? Fortunately, the Senate bill is short and we can 
examine it with a good deal of particularity. The radio act of 1927 
covered the field of radio and laid down permanent substantive law in 
accordance with which radio activities were to be governed and 
regulated, and it provided for an authority to carry out that permanent 
and substantive law. Certain of the functions of the commission created 
by that act to carry out some of these functions and to put into 
operation this permanent substantive law by limitation would expire on 
the 15th of March next. The Senate passed this legislation for what 
purpose? In section 1 it provides that the power and authority vested 
in the Federal Radio Commission should continue until March 16, 1929, 
and that is all that section 1 does. It does not in the slightest 
particle alter the substantive permanent law that is written into the 
radio act of 1927. Section 2 provides that these commissioners shall 
continue to receive a salary at the rate of $10,000 a year while they 
continue to exercise these functions. It does not in the slightest 
particular touch the permanent substantive law written in the act of 
1927. Section 3 provides that this commission during its functioning 
and for a few months thereafter, until January 1, 1930, shall not issue 
licenses under the act for more than six months and one year. It does 
not in any way alter the permanent substantive law with respect to the 
length of time for which licenses should be issued but merely restricts 
the functioning for a short period of time and leaves the law 
unchanged. That is all there is here. How an amendment that radically 
and vitally changes the substantive law on the subject of radio can be 
germane to such a proposition is more than I can see.

  Mr. Lehlbach then cited section 5806 of Hinds' Precedents in support 
of his position.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, answered:

  When I was informed that there would be a point of order interposed 
to the committee amendment, I made an examination of the precedents, 
and, of course, I found there, as one of the first, the case which the 
gentleman from New Jersey has cited, section 5806 of Hinds' Precedent. 
I will say very frankly that when I came in to analyze that decision 
and to analyze this situation more carefully than was done in a casual 
reading it occurred to me that it was a precedent that might be 
decisive of the question. But upon the examination of the Congressional 
Record itself and a reading of the precise thing that was in the 
resolution reported by the gentleman from Wisconsin I came to the 
conclusion that the case at bar can be clearly differentiated from the 
one which existed there. I have before me the Congressional Record of 
April 24, 1900, and I should like to read the resolution which had 
passed the Senate, and which was reported by the Committee on Insular 
Affairs and presented by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I read:
  ``That until the officer to fill any office provided for by the act 
of April 12, 1900, entitled `An act temporarily to provide revenues and 
a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' shall have 
been appointed and qualified, the officer or officers now performing 
the civil duties pertaining to such office may continue to perform the 
same under the authority of said act; and no officer of the Army shall 
lose his commission by reason thereof: Provided, That nothing herein
                                                            Sec. 2941
contained shall be held to extend the time for appointment and 
qualification of any such officers beyond the 1st day of August, 
1900.''
  Now, to that the House committee adopted certain amendments, which 
fell before the point of order, or rather would have fallen before the 
point of order but for the fact that later on the Speaker held that the 
point of order came too late.
  Those amendments that were proposed by the committee I shall not 
read, but there were two of them, and they went into section 32 of the 
act apparently passed in that session of Congress, and undertook to 
amend that section 32 by a very elaborate provision touching the 
question of franchise to be granted in Porto Rico.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the radio act of 1927 and I 
desire to read section 9 thereof, which is very brief and which it is 
proposed to amend here. I read:
  ``Sec. 9. the licensing authority, if public convenience, interest, 
or necessity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this 
act, shall grant to any applicant therefor a station license provided 
for by this act.
  ``In considering applications for licenses and renewals of licenses 
when and in so far as there is a demand for the same, the licensing 
authority shall make such a distribution of licenses, bands of 
frequency of wave lengths, periods of time for operation, and of power 
among the different States and communities as to give fair, efficient, 
and equitable radio service to each of the same.
  ``No license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station 
shall be for a longer term than three years and no license so granted 
for any other class of station shall be for a longer term than five 
years, and any license granted may be revoked as hereinafter provided. 
Upon the expiration of any license, upon application therefor, a 
renewal of such license may be granted from time to time for a term not 
to exceed three years in the case of broadcasting licenses and not to 
exceed five years in the case of other licenses.
  ``No renewal of an existing station shall be granted more than 30 
days prior to the expiration of the original license.''
  That is all of section 9.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, Senate bill 2317, the bill before the Committee of 
the Whole, is not merely an extension of the time of the Radio 
Commission. It contains positive, substantive matters of law changing 
the existing law which I have just read to the Chair. In the first 
place, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Maine, in the very 
first section of the act there is