[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must Be Germane]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7389-7447]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must Be Germane

    The requirement of germaneness pertains to the relationship between 
an amendment and the particular proposition sought to be amended. For 
example, the issue has been raised with respect to an amendment to a 
particular part of a bill,(18) amendments to amendments 
(19) and amendments affecting specified provisions of 
existing law where the bill itself amends such law.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, Sec. 18, infra, discussing amendments offered to 
        a particular paragraph, section, or title of a bill.
19. See Sec. 21, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 35-42, infra, for discussion of issues of germaneness 
        as affected by the relation of the bill or amendment to 
        existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is well established that the subject matter of an amendment must 
relate to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.(1) 
If offered to a specific section of a bill, the amendment should be 
germane to that section. If the amendment is offered as a new section 
or title, its germaneness may depend upon its appropriateness at that 
point in the bill at which it is offered,(2) or, if diverse 
portions of the bill have been read or the bill is open to amendment at 
any point, may depend upon its relationship to the bill as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 18.7, infra.
            On one occasion, the Chairman remarked, in the course of 
        ruling on the propriety of an amendment to a supplemental 
        appropriation bill that, ``If the amendment is germane to any 
        part of the bill, it is germane at the point at which it has 
        been offered.'' See Sec. 15.3, infra. The Chairman probably 
        intended his remarks to have reference only to the particular 
        context in which he made his ruling.
 2. See Sec. 19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule of germaneness applies to the relationship between a pro

[[Page 7390]]

posed amendment and the pending bill to which offered and not to the 
relation between such amendment and an existing title of the United 
States Code which the pending bill seeks to amend.(3) At the 
same time, whether an amendment affecting existing law is germane may 
depend upon the extent to which it proposes to change such law, and in 
some instances upon whether the bill under consideration so vitally 
affects the whole law as to bring the entire act under 
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 18.7, infra.
 4. See Sec. 35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a perfecting amendment to text is offered pending a vote on a 
motion to strike out the same text, the perfecting amendment must be 
germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion to strike 
out.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers 
the relationship of the amendment to the bill as it may have been 
modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time the amendment is 
offered.(6) Thus, where matter has been stricken from a 
bill, an amendment that might have been germane to such matter may be 
ruled out as not germane to the bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 12.10, 19.14, 35.8, and 35.49, infra.
 7. See Sec. 35.32, infra. As to principles applicable where it is 
        sought to amend a Senate amendment which strikes portions of a 
        House bill, see Sec. 27.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment that might be considered germane if offered at the end 
of the reading of the bill for amendment may not be germane if offered 
during the reading, before all the provisions of the bill are before 
the Committee of the Whole for consideration.(8) Thus, on 
one occasion, during consideration of a bill relating to procurements 
by the Department of Defense, an amendment concerned with duties of the 
Comptroller General in connection with defense contracts was at first 
ruled out as not germane to the part of the bill to which offered, 
since at that point in the reading of the bill no reference had been 
made to any agency of government other than the Department of 
Defense.(9) Subsequently, however, when the scope of the 
bill had been broadened by additional paragraphs passed in the reading, 
a similar amendment was held to be in order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
 9. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
10. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title of a bill is not determinative on the question of whether 
a proposed amendment is germane to the bill.
    An amendment may be germane to more than one portion of a 
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 2.2, infra.

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

[[Page 7391]]

    The general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that an 
amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
preceding it.(12) Each precedent should be examined 
separately to determine the structure of the bill to which the new 
section or paragraph is offered. See, for example, the proceedings of 
June 19, 1939, (13) where an amendment offered as a new 
section to a tax bill (to a title dealing with transfers of 
securities), was held not germane, since there was already a section 
dealing with the subject matter to which the amendment would have been 
germane (in a preceding title) and this section had been passed in 
reading for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935.
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment need only be germane to the pending portion of a bill 
as that portion has been perfected by prior amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute must be 
germane to the portion of the substitute to which 
offered.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the proceedings of Dec. 14, 1973, relating to H.R. 11450 (the 
        Energy Emergency Act), as discussed in Sec. 41.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to that 
substitute, and not to the original bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 21.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment must be germane to the title of the bill to which 
offered.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See, for example, the proceedings of Sept. 19, 1986, relating to 
        H.R. 2482, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
        amendment of 1986, discussed in Sec. 4.76, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment adding a new title to a bill being read for amendment 
by titles must be germane to the titles considered up to that 
point.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  See, for example, the proceedings of Oct. 18, 1979, relating to 
        H.R. 3000, the Department of Energy Authorization Act for 
        fiscal 1980 and 1981, discussed in Sec. 10.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section at the 
end of a bill is its relationship to the entire bill as 
perfected.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings of Aug. 2, 1978, relating to H.R. 12514, the 
        International Security Assistance Authorization for fiscal 
        1979, discussed in Sec. 19.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of the germaneness of an amendment is its relationship to 
the pending text of the bill as

[[Page 7392]]

already amended in Committee of the Whole, and cannot be based upon the 
hypothetical adoption of other amendments not yet 
offered.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, the proceedings of July 8, 1987, relating to H.R. 
        2342, the Coast Guard Authorization for fiscal 1988, discussed 
        in Sec. 4.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness to a pending title of a bill is the 
relationship of the amendment and the law being amended therein to the 
law being amended by that title, and not to other portions of the bill 
not then pending for amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
        Housing and Community Development Act, discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
        infra.

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

Amendment Germane to More Than One Portion of Bill

Sec. 2.1 To the last title of a general appropriations bill, containing 
    general provisions applying to funds carried throughout the bill, 
    an amendment limiting the use of funds by an agency funded in a 
    previous title of the bill was held germane.

    An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular agency 
funded in a general appropriations bill may be germane if offered at 
more than one place in the bill; thus, the amendment may be offered 
when the paragraph carrying such funds is pending, or to any general 
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies 
funded by the bill. An illustration of this principle can be found in 
the proceedings of July 16, 1979,(2) during consideration of 
H.R. 4393, Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:

            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order. We have 
    already passed that place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment [is] only a limitation 
    of

[[Page 7393]]

    spending and adds a new section to the bill. I would maintain that 
    it is in order and it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an appropriate 
    point in the bill and is germane to the general provisions title 
    and the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 2.2 To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws on 
    a general subject, an amendment to another law relating to that 
    subject is germane; thus, to a title of an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute amending several diverse educational assistance 
    laws, an amendment affecting laws relating to federal impact school 
    assistance was held germane, even though that subject matter had 
    been contained in another title already passed in the reading for 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 27, 1974,(4) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8508, 8509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

                     amendment of emergency school aid act

            Sec. 901. (a) Section 706(a) of the Emergency School Aid 
        Act is amended (1) by striking out paragraph (3), (2) by 
        striking out the period at the end of paragraph (1)(D) and 
        inserting, ``; or'' and (3) by adding at the end of such 
        paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(E) which will establish or maintain one or more 
        integrated schools as defined in section 720(7) and which--
            ``(i) has a sufficient number of minority group children to 
        comprise more than 50 per centum of the number of children in 
        attendance at the schools of such agency, and
            ``(ii) has agreed to apply for an equal amount of 
        assistance under subsection (b).''. . .
            Sec. 902. (a)(1) Sections 134(b) (as redesignated by 
        sections 109 and 110(h) of this Act), 202(a)(1), and 302(a)(1) 
        of the Act are each amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''. . 
        . .
            (b)(1) Section 612(a)(1) of the Education of the 
        Handicapped Act is amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''
            (2) Sections 612(a)(2) and 613(a)(1) of the Education of 
        the Handicapped Act are each amended by striking out ``the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Huber [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7394]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Huber to the committee substitute; 
        Page 131, immediately after line 15, insert the following new 
        section:

                          amendment to public law 874

            Sec. 906. Section 403(3) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(3) The term `parent' means any parent, stepparent, legal 
        guardian, or other individual standing in loco parentis, whose 
        income from employment on Federal property is more than 50 
        percent of the total combined income of such individual and the 
        spouse of such individual.''.

    Points of order against the amendment were reserved and 
subsequently discussed by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, and Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan:

        Mr. Perkins: I insist on the point of order. This is an impact 
    amendment and we have already passed that title.
        The Chairman: Is that the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan?
        Mr. Ford: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist on the point of order. I 
    did not press the point of order before the gentleman had an 
    opportunity to explain what he was trying to do. I think his 
    motives are fine, but I disagree with the result it would have. I 
    wanted him to have an opportunity to do that; but clearly his 
    amendment comes too late, since we have already concluded title III 
    of the act which dealt with impact aid.
        The amendment the gentleman now offers is not a peripheral or 
    general amendment. It is a substantive amendment of the definition 
    of a child qualifying for impact aid under the basic act covered in 
    title III of this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair holds that while an examination of the amendment 
    shows it would have been more appropriately offered to another 
    title of the bill, the Chair does observe that the title which is 
    under consideration is referred to as Miscellaneous Amendments and 
    it amends several other acts, the Emergency School Aid Act, the 
    Education of the Handicapped Act and others; so in view of these 
    circumstances, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

Accompanying Report Not Relied on in Determining Germaneness

Sec. 2.3 In determining the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers its relationship to the text to which offered and does 
    not rely on accompanying report language not contained in the 
    pending text.

    The proceedings of Oct. 6, 1978, relating to H.R. 13750, the Sugar 
Stabilization Act of 1978, are discussed in Sec. 4.73, infra.

Content of Bill, Not Title Headings, as Determinative

Sec. 2.4 The scope of a title of a bill is determined by the provisions 
    contained therein and not by the phraseology of the formal heading 
    of the

[[Page 7395]]

    title; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce entitled ``Conversion from Oil or 
    Gas to other fuels,'' but referring only to industrial conversion 
    from oil or gas to coal, an amendment adding a new section 
    increasing the authorization of the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to promote the practical application of fusion 
    energy (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on 
    Atomic Energy and not within the scope of the title of the bill), 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1975, (7) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (8) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the pending title of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 29333-35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            title vi--conversion from oil or gas to other fuels

        Sec. 601. Extension of authority to issue orders.
        Sec. 602. Extension of enforcement authority. . . .
        Sec. 606. Incentives to open new underground mines producing 
    low sulfur coal. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On page 338, after line 
        25, insert a new section.
            ``Sec. 607. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for 
        the Energy Research and Development Administration for a high 
        priority program exclusively geared to the practical 
        application of fusion energy.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    amendment comes to the wrong bill and to the wrong committee. The 
    authorization for nuclear research should come to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy and the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration. . . .
        I make my point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that this 
    amendment is out of order because the jurisdiction falls 
    exclusively with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also 
    reserved a point of order against the amendment.

[[Page 7396]]

        Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: . . . I would like to commend my good friend, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a 
    very well written amendment. Unfortunately, no hearings have been 
    held on it, and it has not been considered.
        I would point out to the body that the germaneness rule 
    requires that the character of the amendment be such that the 
    membership would have reasonably been apprised that amendments of 
    that sort might be placed before the body. Unfortunately, the 
    character of the amendment is such that it provides certain 
    authorities for ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency.
        Unfortunately, I do not think there is any way that anyone here 
    could have anticipated amendments dealing with adding authorities 
    or changing authorities within ERDA. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . In arguing the point of germaneness, I will 
    address myself first to the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. McCormack). . . .
        If we are going to debate on a point of order the merits of the 
    amendment, it is contrary to the clear indication in Deschler's 
    Procedure, one of which decisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, 
    which says that one does not look to the material content of the 
    general purposes of the bill to determine the specificity--there is 
    a good Watergate word--the specificity of the pending amendment.
        The gentleman says, ``This is the wrong church, the wrong pew. 
    It ought to go over here into another bill.''. . .
        Facetiously, let me say that we can make that comment about the 
    last 6 months and say that this bill before the committee has been 
    in the wrong committee and in the wrong place for the last 6 
    months.
        Let me say, however, that in Deschler's Procedure, both cases 
    that I cited yesterday in the Record clearly control the situation 
    here.
        I cannot think of anything more germane than this amendment to 
    the section of the bill that is talking about research and 
    development. It is actually authorizing moneys for that purpose. . 
    . .
        As to the point of the second gentleman, the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell), his contention again comes repetitiously as 
    yesterday. He talks about the sanctity of committee jurisdiction. 
    Deschler's Procedure and particularly that citation I quoted 
    yesterday clearly says that that shall not be a governing factor in 
    determining whether or not an amendment is germane to a pending 
    bill. The jurisdiction of a committee is not the controlling factor 
    with respect to germaneness. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

        The title of title VI is exceptionally broad, in the opinion of 
    the Chair.
        If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the 
    Chair believes that the arguments of the eloquent gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) might bear more weight. But it is the content 
    of the pending title and not its heading against which the 
    germaneness of the amendment must be weighed.
        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine with some care all 
    of title

[[Page 7397]]

    VI and also language on pages 17 and 18 of the committee report 
    which deals with title VI. The Chair will not read from those words 
    except to say that the Chair only refers to those words in that 
    they support his view that title VI actually deals with the 
    conversion from oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of the title 
    is quite narrow. The amendment therefore does not fit the rule of 
    germaneness despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Texas and 
    the Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane 
    to title VI and therefore sustains the various points of order.

Sec. 2.5 While the heading of a title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' 
    does not necessarily permit amendments to that title which are not 
    germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse provisions 
    in such title may permit further amendment which in effect need 
    only be germane to the bill as a whole.

    Where the final title of a foreign aid bill, as perfected, 
contained a variety of unrelated provisions such as effective dates for 
all the provisions of the bill, requirements that authority to make 
payments in the bill be subject to advance appropriations, delay of the 
submission date for a report on foreign service personnel, provisions 
relating to human rights reports, imposition of language requirements 
for personnel in the foreign service, and prohibition of foreign aid to 
certain countries, an amendment limiting the expenditure of funds 
authorized in each title of the bill to a certain percentage was held 
to be germane. Amendments offered on Apr. 10, 1979,(9) to 
Title VI of the bill H.R. 3324,(10) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 8032, 8034-37, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                              effective dates

        Sec. 601. The amendments made by titles I, II, III, and V and 
    the provisions of title IV shall take effect on October 1, 1979.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a technical amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

                            unified personnel system

            Sec. 602. Section 401(a) of the International Development 
        and Food Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by striking out 
        ``March 15'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1''.
            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        as of March 15, 1979. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after section 601, insert the following new section:

[[Page 7398]]

                            budget act requirements

            Sec. 603. (a) The authority to make payments which is 
        provided in sections 405(a), 406(a), 406(c), 407(e), 408(d), 
        and 412 of this Act shall be effective only to the extent that 
        the budget authority to make such payments is provided for in 
        advance by appropriation Acts.
            (b) Appropriations may not be made for the fiscal year 1979 
        under the authority of section 501(d). . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 46, after section 604, insert the following:

                foreign language and area knowledge requirement

            Sec. 605. The heads of affected departments and agencies, 
        in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall review every 
        personnel position in the U.S. Government involving service in 
        foreign countries which are authorized by this Act, the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and 
        Assistance Act of 1954, the Peace Corps Act, or the Arms Export 
        Control Act, whose incumbent should have a useful knowledge of 
        the language or dialect and the history and culture common to 
        such country. Each position reviewed and designated as 
        requiring language competence and area knowledge shall, within 
        two years after enactment of this Act, be filled only by an 
        individual with appropriate language and area knowledge. . . .

        [The Zablocki and Panetta amendments were adopted.]
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

            PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO VIETNAM, CAMBODIA, AND CUBA

            Sec. 602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated in 
        this Act shall be used for any form of aid or trade, either by 
        monetary payment or by the sale or transfer of any goods of any 
        nature, directly or indirectly, to the Socialist Republic of 
        Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba. . . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
    substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

            prohibition on assistance to vietnam, cambodia, and cuba

            Sec. 606. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act shall 
        not be used for any form of aid, either by monetary payment or 
        by the sale or transfer of any goods of any nature to the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba.

        [The Zablocki substitute was adopted, and the Ashbrook 
    amendment adopted as amended.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 46, line 7 after 
        Sec. 601 insert (a) and add the following new paragraph:

[[Page 7399]]

            ``(b) Provided, That, No more than 90 percent of the funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by each title of this act shall 
        be expended, excluding those funds authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 111, all of title II and section 302.''

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin listened to the 
    Clerk read the amendment, and I read the amendment, it appears that 
    the amendment provides a limitation on authorization of funds in 
    section 111, all of title II, and section 302.
        I believe the gentleman's amendment, therefore, is not in order 
    and is subject to a point of order since he is authorizing to be 
    appropriated by each title no more than 90 percent of the funds.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Chairman, but I am not quite sure on what 
    grounds the gentleman from Wisconsin made a point of order.
        He simply described the amendment. The amendment is germane to 
    title VI. Title VI clearly refers to the effective dates of all 
    titles, and this amendment simply has the effect, with three 
    exceptions, of cutting by 10 percent the amount of the funds made 
    effective on those dates.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a simple cut in funding. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland provides a 
    percentage limitation on funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
    bill now pending, with the exception of certain specified sections 
    of authorized funds. Title VI of the bill, entitled ``Miscellaneous 
    Provisions'' has by amendment already been substantially expanded 
    in its scope, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland need be germane only to the title as a whole, since the 
    bill is being read by title.
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, and the ruling of 
    the Chair, that the amendment is germane to title VI, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Where Bill Is Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 2.6 The test of the germaneness of an amendment is its 
    relationship to the pending portion of a bill to which offered, and 
    where a bill is by unanimous consent considered as read and open to 
    amendment at any point, the germaneness of an amendment thereto is 
    determined by its relationship to the entire bill rather than to 
    the particular section to which offered.

    A proposition amending the Postal Reorganization Act in several 
diverse respects, considered as read and open to amendment at any point 
by unanimous consent, was considered sufficiently

[[Page 7400]]

comprehensive in scope to admit as germane an amendment to another 
subsection of that Act to render the entire Postal Service operation 
subject to the annual appropriation process, although the section of 
the proposition to which offered contained an annual authorization only 
for a limited (public service) aspect of the Postal Service operation. 
The proceedings of Sept. 29, 1975,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 30761, 30764, 30767, 30768, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Postal Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
        for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1977, 1978, 
        and 1979, an amount equal to $35 multiplied by the number of 
        delivery addresses estimated by the Postal Service to be served 
        during the fiscal year involved. There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing 
        July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, an amount equal to 
        one-fourth the amount authorized under this subsection for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the 
    Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 12, strike out 
        line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 6, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title. . . .
            (b) Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service such sums as may be necessary as reimbursement 
        to the Postal Service for public service costs incurred by it 
        in providing a maximum degree of effective and regular postal 
        service nationwide, in communities where post offices may not 
        be deemed self-sustaining, as elsewhere. . . .

[[Page 7401]]

        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, I raise (a) point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of clause 7, rule XVI of the rules of the House, which provides in 
    part that--

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 8603, is narrow in scope 
    since it relates only to the following specific subject matters.
        First, it provides authorization for increased public service 
    appropriations by changing the statutory formula currently in 
    existence.
        Second, it would limit the amount of the next temporary rate 
    increase and would establish new procedures and limitations for the 
    implementation of other future temporary postal rates.
        Third, it would amend the law with respect to the Postal Rate 
    Commission by changing its procedures to expedite rate and 
    classification cases; by subjecting the Commissioners to Senate 
    confirmation; and by expanding the powers of the Chairman in 
    administering the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) to section 2 of the bill. The gentleman's point of order 
    relates, in the Chair's judgment, primarily to the germaneness 
    based upon the scope of the gentleman's amendment and as it relates 
    to the scope of the bill, which bill is open to amendment at any 
    point.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) actually amends section 2(a) of the bill, although 
    section 2(a) of the Postal Act is not amended in the bill before 
    the Committee here this afternoon.
        The Chair notes, however, as conceded by the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, there are several enumerated purposes which touch 
    upon many different ramifications and aspects of the postal law. 
    These purposes are diverse in nature.
        Since all of the bill is before the Committee at this point, 
    the Chair, reluctantly, comes to the conclusion that the position 
    of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) in his point of order 
    is not well founded and, therefore, the Chair must overrule the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York.

Sec. 2.7 Where a bill is by unanimous consent being considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an amendment 
    to a portion of that bill may be judged by its relationship to the 
    bill as a whole rather than merely to the section of the bill to 
    which offered; thus, to a bill open to amendment at any point 
    containing protections of the rights of mentally ill 
    institutionalized persons and also a separate title promoting 
    support groups for persons suffering a certain memory disorder (Alz

[[Page 7402]]

    heimer's disease) whether or not institutionalized, an amendment 
    expanding the bill's protections to include non-institutionalized 
    mentally ill persons who are in need of such institutionalization 
    was held germane to the bill as a whole, since the bill already 
    covered some persons who were not confined.

    On Jan. 30, 1986,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4055, relating to protection of and advocacy 
for mentally ill persons. Pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, 
the bill was being considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point. The bill stated in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 132 Cong. Rec. 1045-52, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Id. at p. 1045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (4) The term ``neglect'' means a negligent act or omission by 
    any person responsible for providing services in a hospital nursing 
    home, board and care home, or community facility for mentally ill 
    individuals which caused or may have caused injury to a mentally 
    ill individual or which placed a mentally ill individual at risk of 
    injury, and includes the failure--
        (A) to establish or carry out an appropriate individual program 
    plan or treatment or discharge plan for a mentally ill individual,
        (B) to provide adequate nutrition, clothing, or health care for 
    a mentally ill individual. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McKinney: Page 4, strike out lines 
        10 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(A)(i) in the case of individuals who need to be placed 
        in inpatient mental health facilities, to place such 
        individuals in optimum therapeutic settings and to provide 
        mental health treatment and related support services 
        appropriate to such individuals level of functioning.
            ``(ii) in the case of residents of public inpatient mental 
        health facilities who have been inappropriately placed in such 
        facilities, to discharge such residents, and, to the extent 
        appropriate, to place them in optimum therapeutic setting and 
        to provide mental health treatment and related support services 
        appropriate to such individuals' level of functioning.
            ``(iii) in the case of individuals who are discharged from, 
        or are in need of placement in, inpatient mental health 
        facilities, to inform them of available community-based 
        facilities and programs providing mental health treatment and 
        related support services and to provide them access to a 
        sufficient number of adequately staffed and adequately funded 
        community-based facilities and programs providing mental health 
        and related support services, and
            ``(iv) to otherwise establish or carry out an appropriate 
        individual program plan or treatment or discharge plan for a 
        mentally ill individual,
            Page 4, insert after line 21 the following:
            For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A), 
        the term ``opti

[[Page 7403]]

        mum therapeutic setting'' means the environment that is least 
        restrictive of an individual's personal liberty and where the 
        care, treatment, habilitation, or rehabilitation is 
        particularly suited to the level of services necessary to 
        properly implement an individual's treatment, habilitation, and 
        rehabilitation. The optimum therapeutic setting for an 
        individual may be a licensed and properly operated State 
        hospital or other public residential care facility.

    A point of order was made against the amendment on the grounds that 
it sought to broaden the coverage of the bill to include a class of 
persons not within the scope of the proposition sought to be amended. 
The Chair,(17) however, overruled the point of order, 
stating that the bill as a whole was broad enough to encompass the 
class of persons that was the subject of the amendment. Title II of the 
bill stated in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 1047, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      TITLE II--FAMILY SUPPORT GROUPS
    sec. 201. alzheimer's disease.

        (a) Family Support Groups.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
    Services (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
    ``Secretary''), acting through the National Institute of Mental 
    Health, the National Institutes on Health, the National Institute 
    on Aging, and the Administration on Aging, shall promote the 
    establishment of family support groups to provide, without charge, 
    educational, emotional, and practical support to assist individuals 
    with Alzheimer's disease or a related memory disorder and members 
    of the families of such individuals. Such groups shall be 
    established in university medical centers and in other appropriate 
    health care facilities which receive Federal funds from the 
    Secretary and which conduct research on Alzheimer's disease or 
    provide services to individuals with such disease.

    The point of order, made by Mr. William E. Dannemeyer, of 
California, and the ensuing discussion and ruling thereon, were as 
follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 1051, 1052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, the bill in the form before us 
    deals with people in mental health facilities in the States of the 
    Union, people who are already there. This amendment, offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. McKinney], deals with people who 
    are not in mental health facilities but people who may be eligible 
    to be there, a completely different subject. The discussion of 
    whether or not somebody should be in a mental health facility is a 
    subject and an issue that is separate and distinct from the status 
    and the custody and the care of those who are already located in a 
    mental health facility. It is on that distinction that I think the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut is subject to a point 
    of order which should be sustained. . . .
        Mr. McKinney: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, I 
    would suggest that in fact my amendment

[[Page 7404]]

    simply changes some language in the existing bill and that I very 
    appropriately state that optimum therapeutic care is as important 
    for the person on the sidewalk as it is for the person in the 
    institution. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair, in reviewing the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Connecticut [Mr. McKinney], would observe that, basically, the 
    gentleman's effort is to broaden the definition of ``neglect'' and 
    to make that somewhat more elaborate.
        It still pertains to persons needing inpatient mental health 
    facilities, in any event.
        So the Chair would have to conclude that the amendment only 
    covers a class already covered by the bill as a whole and that the 
    amendment is germane.

New Title Germane to Bill as a Whole Though Subject is Within Another 
    Committee's Jurisdiction

Sec. 2.8 While ordinarily an amendment waiving provisions of law within 
    another committee's jurisdiction is not germane to a bill reported 
    by a different committee, where the bill as amended already 
    contains diverse provisions relating to the subject of the 
    amendment, a waiver of other provisions of law on that subject may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture relating to registration of pesticides but also 
    including provisions on liability under other federal law and on 
    judicial review of regulations and pesticide use, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title included in a motion to recommit waiving 
    any other law otherwise requiring payment of attorneys' fees for 
    civil actions brought under the law being amended was held germane 
    to the bill as a whole, committee jurisdiction no longer being the 
    exclusive test of germaneness since the bill as a whole and as 
    amended contained matters within another committee's jurisdiction.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(20) during consideration of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1) in 
the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Steny A. Hoyer, of Maryland, overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 24741, 24742, 24746, 24747, 24769, 99th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 1. H.R. 2482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 811. review of regulations.

[[Page 7405]]

        Section 16 (7 U.S.C. 136n) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following:
        ``(e) Review of Regulations.--
        ``(1)(A) Any regulation issued under this Act and first 
    published in the Federal Register in final form after the effective 
    date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
    Amendments of 1986 shall be reviewable only as provided by this 
    subsection. Any person may obtain judicial review of the regulation 
    by filing a petition for review in the United States court of 
    appeals for the circuit wherein the person resides or has its 
    principal place of business or in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any petition under 
    this paragraph for review of a regulation shall be filed within 120 
    days after the date of promulgation of the regulation as designated 
    by the Administrator in the Federal Register.''. . .
    sec. 821. liability.

        (a) Pesticide Use.--An agricultural producer shall not be 
    liable in any action brought after the effective date of this Act 
    under any Federal statute for damages caused by pesticide use 
    unless the producer has acted negligently, recklessly, or 
    intentionally. Proof that the agricultural producer used the 
    pesticide in a manner consistent with label instructions shall 
    create a rebuttable presumption that the agricultural producer did 
    not act negligently. . . .

    An amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Roberts: Section 821(a) of the text of 
    H.R. 5440 (the Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
    2482), is amended (page 138, lines 2 through 10) to read as 
    follows:
        sec. 821. liability for lawful application.

            (a) Pesticide Use and No Private Right of Action.--(1) 
        Liability under Federal environmental statutes for the costs of 
        response or damage incurred with respect to a release or 
        threatened release into the environment of a pesticide shall, 
        in any case where the application was in compliance with label 
        instructions and other applicable law, be imposed on the 
        registrant or other responsible parties, not the agricultural 
        producer, unless the producer has acted negligently, 
        recklessly, or with the intent to misuse such pesticide. There 
        shall be a rebuttable presumption that the application was in 
        compliance with label instructions and otherwise lawful. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Bedell as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7406]]

            Mr. Marlenee moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2482 (as 
        amended by H.R. 5440) to the Committee on Agriculture with the 
        instructions that it adopt the following amendment and 
        forthwith report it back to the House:
            Amendment to the text of H.R. 5440 (the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to H.R. 2482), after page 163, line 21, 
        insert the following new title:

                     TITLE XII--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS

                       fees and expenses in civil actions

            Sec. 1201. The Act is amended by inserting the following 
        new section after section 31:
            ``Sec. 32. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
        attorneys fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil 
        action brought under section 3(a) of this Act for failure to 
        meet deadlines.''. . .

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the motion to recommit that the motion is not germane 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Speaker, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        The title of the bill is for ``other purposes'' than amending 
    FIFRA.
        Other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by the 
    underlying FIFRA Act are the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.
        The bill authorizes a program and funding for the pesticide 
    program. It also adds a new program, reregistration, new section 
    3(a) of FIFRA. Both this section and the bill relate to fees and 
    funding for the Reregistration Program. Some of that funding for 
    the Reregistration Program will come from fees assessed against 
    registrants (see page 42 of H.R. 5440) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds.
        My amendment would state how some of those funds could not be 
    utilized, and I submit does not violate the rules of the House on 
    that germaneness.
        The bill (title VIII) is rife with references to courts and 
    court review. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee] is 
    not germane. Volume III, section 2709 of Cannon's Precedents 
    indicates that it is not in order to include in a motion to 
    recommit instructions to insert an amendment not germane to the 
    section of the bill to which offered. While an earlier version of 
    this amendment was held not germane when offered as an amendment to 
    title I of the bill being read title by title, this amendment 
    proposes to add a new title at the end of the bill limiting the 
    award of attorneys' fees in certain civil actions brought under 
    section 16 of the FIFRA law. The test of germaneness is now 
    properly measured against the bill taken as a whole. The Chair 
    notes that section 202 of the bill deals with civil actions against 
    the United States for just compensation, and that the bill 
    extensively amends other sections of the FIFRA law in titles VIII 
    and IX. In the opinion of the Chair, since the bill already deals 
    with issues relating to adminis

[[Page 7407]]

    trative procedure and judicial review of actions taken under this 
    act, the amendment is germane to the bill as a whole, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Amendment Adding New Section at End Required To Be Germane to Perfected 
    Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, as 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(2) during consideration of the 
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, ruled 
that to a bill authorizing the imposition of rationing plans by the 
President to conserve energy, providing mechanisms to avoid energy 
marketing disruptions, and broadened by amendment to provide for 
monitoring of middle distillates and supplies of diesel oil, an 
amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside program to 
provide middle distillates for agricultural production was germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 21964-68, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. S. 1030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Page 50, 
    after line 2, insert the following new section:

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish and 
    maintain a data collection program for monitoring, at the refining, 
    wholesale, and retail levels, the supply and demand levels of 
    middle distillates on a monthly basis in each State.
        (b) The program to be established under subsection (a) shall 
    provide for--
        (1) the prompt collection of relevant demand and supply data 
    under the authority available to the Secretary of Energy under 
    other provisions of law;
        (2) making such data available to the Congress, as well as to 
    appropriate State agencies and the public in accordance with 
    otherwise applicable law, beginning on the 5th day after the close 
    of the month to which it pertains, together with projections of 
    supply and demand levels for the then current month; and
        (3) the review and adjustment of such data and projections not 
    later than the 15th day after the initial availability of such data 
    and projections under paragraph (2).
        (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``middle 
    distillate'' has the same meaning as given that term in section 
    211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
    the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 7408]]

        (d) The program established under this section shall not 
    prescribe, or have the effect of prescribing, margin controls or 
    trigger prices for purposes of the reimposition of price 
    requirements under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973.
        Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Tauke), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following amendment: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, insert 
    the following new section:

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has impaired or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and

[[Page 7409]]

        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.
        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is: Does 
    this bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-
    asides of other petroleum products?
        The answer to that question is a resounding no. The 
    legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing relating to set-
    aside of petroleum products or matters relating to set-aside of 
    petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane. I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal 
    with a number of set-aside matters which are not included in the 
    proposal before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such 
    as the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. The legislation deals 
    with the term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 
    211.51 of title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the 
    Commerce Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are

[[Page 7410]]

    considering, we have taken great pains during the past several 
    hours to provide specific consideration for certain businesses that 
    are part of our economy. We considered, for example, nursing homes 
    and health institutions. We have considered with the last amendment 
    of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host of other special 
    businesses in this country. This is a special consideration for the 
    agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that this amendment be considered a part of this 
    measure. . . .
        Mr. [Charles] Pashayan [Jr., of California]: The point of 
    order, I believe, has something to do with the substance of the 
    amendment as it relates to the bill. The point I am making is that 
    although this is dealing with the set aside, that is only the form. 
    The substance, in fact, relates to the bill, because it is the only 
    way agriculture can be protected under the bill; whereas other 
    businesses do not need set asides and that is the only way we can 
    protect agriculture, so I do think it relates to the substance of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    before us deals with EPCA in the rationing section and adds a 
    section on conservation.
        Now, EPCA stands for the Emergency Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act. It is in the conservation parts of this bill that 
    we have the Tauke amendment offered.

        The Department of Energy regulations, based on the Emergency 
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act, include those DOE regulations 
    based on that act, include set aside programs for energy 
    conservation or energy usage; so it seems to me that the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly germane in that he is dealing 
    with set asides as a method of conservation, but from the 
    standpoint of concern about the agricultural community and whether 
    or not the agricultural community will have adequate energy to meet 
    its needs in the interests of the society. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard in favor of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out briefly that this 
    is, unlike the other amendments we have had which deal with 
    hospitals, nursing homes and the whole other host of special 
    interests sought to be protected, those all sought to be protected 
    under conservation plans that might be put forward under this bill 
    and the limitation of Presidential powers to put forward such 
    plans.
        This amendment is quite different. It seeks to set up an 
    allocation plan specifically to set aside certain amounts of fuel 
    for agriculture.
        Therefore, it seems to me quite different from anything else in 
    this bill. It is unrelated and I believe it clearly is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . One other point that omitted my 
    attention until

[[Page 7411]]

    the staff drew it to my attention, and it is that the very 
    rationing part of this bill was added as an amendment to the basic 
    legislation in the subcommittee. Therefore, making the legislation 
    quite broad in its approach and for that reason of breadth and for 
    the reason that we accepted that rationing amendment or that 
    rationing portion as an amendment in the subcommittee, it seems to 
    me that the offering of the gentleman from Iowa is very appropriate 
    in the full House at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The [test of the germaneness of a new section is its 
    relationship] to the bill as read to this point and in that case we 
    have a bill at this point in which section 2 deals with rationing.
        Section 3 deals with conservation and market disruption, 
    specifically the purpose which the gentleman from Indiana pointed 
    out on page 24 which establishes mechanisms to alleviate 
    disruptions in gasoline and diesel oil markets; in addition to 
    which, a new section 4 has been agreed to by the committee which 
    provides for the monitoring of middle distillates and supply of 
    diesel oil.
        Therefore, the scope of the bill as read to this point is 
    significantly broadened and it is now considerably more diverse 
    than any one section thereof.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane.

Senate Amendment Adding New Section to House Bill Must Be Germane to 
    Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.10 The test of the germaneness of that portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adding a new section to a 
    House bill is the relationship of that section to the subject of 
    the House bill as a whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(6) during consideration of a 
conference report on H.R. 2166 (Tax Reduction Act of 1975), it was held 
that to a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
business tax credits, a part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits for new 
home purchases and amending a portion of the law amended by the House 
bill was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes,

[[Page 7412]]

    to increase the low income allowance and the percentage standard 
    deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned income, to 
    increase the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and for 
    other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
    agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
    follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
    Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:
    ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.

[[Page 7413]]

        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. 
    As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the 
    test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between 
    the new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
    whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 2.11 Where conferees report a conference substitute, in

[[Page 7414]]

    cluding provisions of the House bill and of the Senate amendment in 
    conference, the test of germaneness to be applied when a point of 
    order is raised under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, is the relationship of 
    the language derived from the Senate amendment to the House-passed 
    bill as a whole, and not to a portion of that bill.

    To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual and 
business tax credits, a new section of a Senate amendment in the nature 
of a substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits of 
controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the use of 
foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income was held germane. 
The portion of the conference substitute in question on Mar. 26, 
1975,(8) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 602. Taxation of Earnings and Profits of Controlled Foreign 
                    Corporations and Their Shareholders.

        (a) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Exception to Requirement of 
    Current Taxation of Subpart F Income.--
        (1) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Provisions.--Section 963 
    (relating to receipt of minimum distributions by domestic 
    corporations) is hereby repealed.
        (2) Certain Distributions by Controlled Foreign Corporations to 
    Regulated Investment Companies Treated as Dividends.--Subsection 
    (b) of section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of 
    regulated investment company) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new sentence:
    ``For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as 
    dividends amounts included in gross income under section 
    951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the taxable year to the extent that, under 
    section 959(a)(1), there is a distribution out of the earnings and 
    profits of the taxable year which are attributable to the amounts 
    so included.''. . .

    The pertinent part of the statement of the managers was as follows:

    limitation on foreign tax credit for taxes paid in connection with 
                         foreign oil and gas income

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.

[[Page 7415]]

        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
         Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders, in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.
        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is very 
    clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
    and for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also Sec. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germaneness of Amendment in Nature of Substitute Determined by 
    Relationship to Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.12 The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole 
    and is not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental 
    portion of the amendment which if offered separately, might not be 
    germane to the por

[[Page 7416]]

    tion of the bill to which offered.

    On July 8, 1975,(11) the Committee of the Whole, during 
proceedings relating to H.R. 49 (a bill concerned with national 
petroleum reserves on public lands), had under consideration amendments 
recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to establish national 
petroleum reserves on certain public lands and authorizing exploration 
for oil and gas on naval petroleum reserve number 4 with annual reports 
to Congress. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered 
which contained similar provisions and also required a task force study 
of the values and best uses for subsistence, scenic, historical, and 
recreational purposes, and for fish and wildlife, of the public lands 
in that naval petroleum reserve was held germane despite the inclusion 
of that incidental portion which, if considered separately, might not 
have been germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States (except lands in the National Park System, 
        the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
        System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, areas now 
        under review for inclusion in the Wilderness System in 
        accordance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 
        lands in Alaska other than those in Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4). . . .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve: Provided further, That 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall, through a Task Force, 
        including representatives of the State of Alaska, the Arctic 
        Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
        and the Office of National Petroleum Reserves established by 
        this Act, functioning cooperatively, study and review the 
        values and best uses of the public domain lands contained in 
        Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as subsistence lands for 
        natives, scenic,

[[Page 7417]]

        historical, recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for 
        other purposes, and, within three years, submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriate and, Provided further, that oil and gas 
        exploration within the Utukok River and Teheshepuk Lake areas 
        and others containing significant subsistence, recreational, 
        fish and wildlife, historical or scenic values, shall be 
        conducted in a manner so as to preserve such surface values.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .
        The bill, H.R. 49, authorizes as follows:

            To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish on 
        certain public lands of the United States national petroleum 
        reserves the development of which needs to be regulated in a 
        manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation, 
        and for other purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the bill in toto, nowhere will we 
    find in that bill language relating to subsection (f) of the 
    amendment submitted to us. I regret that I cannot give the Chair 
    the precise citation.
        I will state that the point of order goes to the section 
    relating to the words,

            Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        through a Task Force, including representatives of the State of 
        Alaska, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish 
        and Wildlife Service and the Office of National Petroleum 
        Reserves established by this Act, functioning cooperatively, 
        study and review the values and best uses of the public domain 
        lands contained in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as 
        subsistence lands for natives, scenic, historical, 
        recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for other 
        purposes, and, within three years submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, a fundamental rule of the House of 
    Representatives is that the burden of establishing the germaneness 
    of an amendment falls upon the offeror and does not fall upon the 
    Member challenging the germaneness. I would point out that nowhere 
    else in the bill is there a proviso for a provision for a study 
    involving groups, and nowhere in the title of the legislation is 
    there anything that would justify or authorize a study of the kind 
    that is set forth here in the amendment.
        As a matter of fact, nowhere in the amendment that was reported 
    by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the House of 
    Representatives is there anything which would relate to a study. A 
    study of the kind that is before us is totally different and alien.
        The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program of 
    national strategic reserves and for the development of the 
    petroleum reserves and not for the establishment of a study. It is 
    not for the establishment of a study relating to fish and wildlife 
    values, historical values, and matters of that sort.
        So since the burden falls upon the offeror of the amendment, 
    the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), I would point out that he 
    has assumed for himself a burden which is impossibly heavy, and 
    that is to provide a study of such sweeping import relating to 
    totally different matters than those which are contained in the 
    bill.

[[Page 7418]]

        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
    sustained.
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point is covered in rule XVI at 
    section 798c where it says as follows:

            . . . the test of the germaneness of an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to the 
        bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
        content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
        considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of 
        another committee.

        Mr. Chairman, I think that about settles the point.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neal Smith (Io.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proviso cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is on page 8 of the mimeographed form of the Melcher amendment.
        Had this proviso been presented separately, the germaneness 
    would have been measured against the portion of the Interior 
    Committee amendment to which offered. However, having been 
    presented as a part of an overall substitute, the Chair would rule 
    that the provision objected to is merely incidental to the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that under the precedent 
    cited by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), in section 
    798(b) of the Manual the amendment is germane to the text when 
    viewed as a whole.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Germaneness Determined by Form of Bill as Modified by Prior Amendment

Sec. 2.13 In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill as modified 
    by the Committee of the Whole.

    See, for example, the proceedings of Apr. 23, 1975, relating to 
H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act, 
discussed in Sec. 3.51, infra.

Germaneness Determined by Form of Bill at Time Amendment Offered

Sec. 2.14 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by its 
    relationship to the form of the bill at the time the amendment is 
    offered and is not affected by prior adoption of a special rule 
    permitting consideration of a nongermane committee amendment, where 
    the committee amendment has not yet been considered.

    The proceedings of Sept. 25, 1975, relating to H.R. 1287, a bill to 
amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 to halt the 
importation of Rhodesian chrome, are discussed in Sec. 31.23, infra.

[[Page 7419]]

Amendment to Amendment Must Be Germane Thereto

Sec. 2.15 The germaneness of an amendment to an amendment is determined 
    on the basis of the relationship between the two amendments.

    The proceedings of Oct. 2, 1975, relating to S. 2230, authorizing 
appropriations for the Board for International Broadcasting for 1976, 
and to Promote Improved Relations Between the United States, Greece and 
Turkey, are discussed in Sec. 8.23, infra.

Amendment Offered to Amendment in Nature of Substitute Must Be Germane 
    Thereto Rather Than to Bill

Sec. 2.16 The test of germaneness is the relationship between an 
    amendment and the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which 
    it is offered, and not between the amendment and the bill for which 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute has been offered.

    During proceedings relating to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and 
extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. 
An amendment to such amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture 
to establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
workers exposed to pesticide chemicals notwithstanding the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Education and Labor), and repealing certain work 
regulations promulgated under that Act, was held to be not germane, 
despite inclusion of a similar provision in the bill to which the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute had been offered. The 
proceedings of July 19, 1973, (13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, 
        title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary 
        standard prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas 
        where crops are produced or grown

[[Page 7420]]

        (such emergency standard to take immediate effect upon 
        publication in the Federal Register) if he determines (1) that 
        such agricultural workers are exposed to grave danger from 
        exposure to pesticide chemicals, as defined in section 201(q) 
        of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), 
        and (2) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect 
        such agricultural workers from such danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        [Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        [Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Substitute Must Be Germane to Amendment for Which Offered

Sec. 2.17 The test of the germaneness of a substitute amendment is its 
    relationship to the amendment for which offered and not its 
    relationship to the pending bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) extending the Federal Energy Administra

[[Page 7421]]

tion Act, an amendment was offered which sought to change a provision 
of the bill relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: Page 10, line 4, strike 
        out ``September 30, 1979'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``December 31, 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu 
        thereof,
            `` `Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or offices of the Federal Government, or their 
        successors. The President, through the Director of the Office 
        of Management and Budget, shall file, 12 months before the 
        termination of this Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, 
        to provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of the 
        Federal Energy Administration to such departments, agencies or 
        offices. Within 90 days after the submission of this plan and 
        program, either House of Congress may pass a resolution 
        disapproving such plan and program.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the

[[Page 7422]]

    filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the Speaker 
    of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to deal with 
    the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) goes solely to the question of the date of termination of 
    the FEA. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, now before the Committee, goes beyond that issue to 
    the question of reorganization of that agency. Therefore, it is not 
    germane as a substitute. The point of order would have to be 
    sustained; but the gentleman's amendment might be in order 
    following the Fithian amendment as a separate amendment to the 
    Committee proposal.

Sec. 2.18 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill; accordingly, where an amendment 
    denied eligibility for certain higher education assistance benefits 
    to persons refusing to register for military service, a substitute 
    denying benefits under the same provisions of law except to persons 
    refusing to register for religious or moral reasons was held 
    germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(18) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal 1983), Chairman Les 
AuCoin, of Oregon, held that to a proposition denying benefits to 
recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute 
denying the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others was 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50

[[Page 7423]]

        U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection (e) the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Education shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--

            ``(A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending, proof that such 
        person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Edu

[[Page 7424]]

        cation Act for periods of instruction beginning on or after 
        July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record 
    was a nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against 
    it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering, in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is germane to the 
    amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Sec. 2.19 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1982, relating to H.R. 6030, the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal 1982, are discussed in 
Sec. 29.11, infra.

Amendment to Substitute Need Not Affect Same Page and Line Numbers

Sec. 2.20 An amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the 
    same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be 
    germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the 
    subject matter of the substitute. Accordingly, to a substitute to 
    require that certain emer

[[Page 7425]]

    gency energy conservation plans (entailing the use of auto stickers 
    indicating certain days an auto would not be operated) be 
    established (1) only after consultation with state governors, and 
    (2) only after consideration of rural and suburban needs, an 
    amendment striking out and inserting language elsewhere in the bill 
    which also related to the use of auto stickers as part of the 
    energy conservation plans, was held germane to the two diverse 
    conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 
1979 (19) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1979,(20) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to a substitute and held that the 
amendment was germane to the substitute. The amendment and proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. S. 1030.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in suburban and 
        rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately served by 
        any public transportation system, through the geographical 
        coverage of the system, through exemptions under subsection 
        (c)(8), or through such other means as may be appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.

[[Page 7426]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.
        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions on the 
    entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. One is 
    a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other is a 
    special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Instructions in Motion to Recommit

Sec. 2.21 Instructions included in a motion to commit or recommit the 
    pending proposition must be germane thereto; to a concurrent 
    resolution expressing Congressional concern over certain domestic 
    policies of a foreign government and urging that government to 
    improve those internal problems in order to enhance better 
    relations with the United States, an amendment, contained in a 
    motion to commit with instructions, urging the President to 
    undertake specified diplomatic actions as a con

[[Page 7427]]

    sequence of that foreign government's policies, was held to be not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of July 12, 1978, relating to S. Con. Res. 95 
(expressing the sense of Congress regarding trials of dissidents in the 
Soviet Union), are discussed in Sec. 23.2, infra.

Amendment Must Be Germane to Section to Which Offered--Amendment 
    Proposing To Change Same Section of Existing Law as Section to 
    Which Offered Ruled Out as Different Subject Matter

Sec. 2.22 To a section of a bill narrowly amending one section of 
    existing law dealing with procedural rules governing labor 
    elections and organization, an amendment changing the same section 
    of law to require promulgation of rules defining unfair labor 
    practices, a subject covered in another section of the law but not 
    addressed in the pending section of the bill, was held to be not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Labor Reform Act of 1977 (1) 
in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(2) the Chair, 
in sustaining a point of order against the amendment described above, 
reiterated the proposition that an amendment must be germane to the 
section of the bill to which it is offered. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 8410.
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 32507, 32508, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 19, after line 5, 
        insert the following new paragraph (c):
            ``(c) The Board shall within three months after the date of 
        enactment of the Labor Reform Act of 1977, issue rules or 
        regulations to implement the provisions of section 8(b)(1) 
        including rules which shall assure that no labor organization 
        shall threaten or impose an unreasonable disciplinary fine or 
        other economic sanction against any person in the exercise of 
        rights under the Act (including but not limited to the right to 
        refrain from any or all concerted activity or to invoke the 
        processes of the Board).

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleague and friend 
    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), although in some ways meritorious, is 
    offered to section 3 of the bill which amends section 6 of the 
    National Labor Relations Act, the rulemaking authority. Under 
    section 3, the Board is directed to make rules, first, that assure 
    equal access during representation campaigns, which we have done; 
    second, that define classes of representation cases; and three, 
    schedules governing the holding of elections.

[[Page 7428]]

        The amendment offered, in effect, changes section 8 of the act 
    relating to unfair labor practices. It is directed, therefore, at a 
    subject not contemplated in the bill and establishes a new unfair 
    labor practice, and is not germane to the committee bill or to 
    section 3. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I believe this does come under the general 
    rulemaking. It is in section 6. Furthermore, when we refer to 
    willful violations, on page 22, in section 7, this bill does refer 
    to unfair labor practices, and I think under the previous 
    precedents established, where we open up a section referring to 
    unfair labor practices, it is now not timely for the chairman to 
    say that this bill does not amend unfair labor practices. Section 7 
    clearly refers to unfair labor practices, as does my amendment to 
    section 3, and I would hope the Chair would overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has offered an amendment 
    that, while not directly amending section 8 of the act, would amend 
    section 6 of the act to direct the Board to promulgate regulations. 
    The amendment would really reach issues of substantive law, since 
    the regulations would conclusively pronounce that certain union 
    conduct shall constitute an unfair labor practice under section 8. 
    In such form, the amendment goes beyond the issue of implementing 
    rulemaking authority and deals directly with the question of 
    conduct which for the first time would constitute an unfair labor 
    practice beyond the period of initial stages of organizational 
    activity, a matter not addressed by the committee bill in section 
    3.
        The reference of the gentleman from Ohio to the provisions of 
    section 7 does not alter the fact that an amendment must be germane 
    to the pending section.
        For that reason, the Chair must sustain the point of order.

Germaneness Determined Without Reference to Subjects of Titles Not Yet 
    Read

Sec. 2.23 An amendment should be germane to the particular paragraph or 
    section to which it is offered without reference to the subject 
    matter of other titles not yet read.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
Housing and Community Development Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
infra.

Amendment Offered to Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 2.24 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a pending 
    amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not to 
    the bill to which that pending amendment has been offered; thus, 
    where a special rule

[[Page 7429]]

    waives points of order against the consideration of a designated 
    amendment which might otherwise not be germane if offered to a 
    bill, and does not specifically preclude the offering of amendments 
    thereto, germane amendments that are germane to that amendment may 
    be offered, and, if adopted, may not be subsequently challenged as 
    not coming within the coverage of the waiver.

    On July 22, 1975,(4) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (5) in the Committee 
of the Whole, it was held that where points of order have been waived 
against a specific amendment which has then been altered by amendment, 
a point of order will not lie against the modified amendment as not 
coming within the coverage of the waiver:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(1) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by Mr. 
        Krueger's amendment, strike the words ``(including development 
        or production from oil shale,'' and insert a comma after 
        ``gas''.
            In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(2) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 (as amended by Mr. Krueger's amendment) 
        strike the words ``oil shale,''.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order, and pending that I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: The parliamentary inquiry is what determines 
    germaneness of this amendment, if it is germane, to the Krueger 
    amendment? It would then be admissible at this time as germane, as 
    I understand it. In other words, the relation to the Krueger 
    amendment would determine germaneness in this instance, I would 
    assume.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman is asking whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado has to be germane, the 
    answer, of course, is ``yes''. Is the gentleman contending that it 
    is not germane?
        Mr. Eckhardt: No. The gentleman merely asks whether or not on 
    the question of germaneness with respect to this amendment, the 
    question is determined on whether or not this amendment is germane 
    to the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would permit me, I 
    should make

[[Page 7430]]

    a point of order now if I must do so or I will at such time as the 
    vote arises on the Krueger amendment on the ground that the Krueger 
    amendment is now outside the rule.
        If the Chair will recall, I queried of the Chair whether or not 
    the question of germaneness on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado was based upon its germaneness to the 
    Krueger amendment or if that were the standard. The Chair answered 
    me that it was. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Colorado was not subject to a point of order at that time and 
    I point out to the Chair that the question of germaneness rests 
    upon whether or not the amendment is germane to the amendment to 
    which it is applied.
        At that time it was not in order for me to urge that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado was not germane 
    because it was indeed germane to the Krueger amendment, but the 
    rule protects the Krueger amendment itself from a point of order on 
    the grounds of germaneness and specifically says that it shall be 
    in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the text of an amendment which is identical to the text of section 
    301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced and which was placed in the 
    Congressional Record on Monday and it is described.
        The Krueger amendment upon the adoption of the Schroeder 
    amendment becomes other than the identical amendment which was 
    covered by the rule. At this point the question of germaneness of 
    the Krueger amendment rests on the question of whether or not it is 
    at the present time germane to the main body before the House.
        It is not germane to the main body before the House because of 
    the--and I cite in this connection Deschler on 28, section 24 in 
    which there are several precedents given to the effect that an 
    amendment which purports to create a condition contingent upon an 
    event happening, as for instance the passage of a law, is not in 
    order. For instance 24.6 on page 396 says:

            To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic 
        energy facilities in various parts of the Nation, an amendment 
        making the initiation of any such project contingent upon the 
        enactment of federal or state fair housing measures was ruled 
        out as not germane.

        There are a number of other authorities in that connection, 
    that is, an amendment postponing the effectiveness of legislation 
    pending contingency.
        Now, with respect to the question of timeliness, the gentleman 
    from Texas could not have raised the point of order against the 
    Schroeder amendment because of the fact that the Schroeder 
    amendment was, in fact, germane to the Krueger amendment. It is 
    clearly stated that the test of germaneness must rest on the 
    question of the body upon which the amendment acts, and as I 
    queried the Chair at the time, I asked that specific question, 
    would the germaneness of the Schroeder amendment rest upon the 
    question whether it is germane to the Krueger amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I only state 
    that it seems to me that the rule makes the Krueger amendment in 
    order by its text, but it does not prohibit it being amended by 
    subsequent action of this

[[Page 7431]]

    body and that if the text had been changed by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Krueger) in its introduction, the point of order might 
    have been appropriate; but the point of order that is attempted to 
    prohibit this body from amending the text of the Krueger amendment 
    after it has been properly introduced and been made germane by the 
    rule would prohibit those others in the majority of this body from 
    acting on any perfection of the Krueger amendment. I do not think 
    that is the purpose of the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The rule under which the matter is being considered did in fact 
    make in order the so-called Krueger amendment, and any amendment to 
    that amendment which is germane to that amendment was thus, at the 
    same time, made in order. There was no need for special provision 
    to make amendments germane to the Krueger amendment in order, and 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is very 
    much to the point.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Modifying a Law Being Extended by Bill

Sec. 2.25 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended.

    On June 1, 1976,(7) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was offered which itself provided for 
termination of the agency and the transfer of certain of its functions 
to other agencies--matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of 
committees other than that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Schroeder:
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished.

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            (1) The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and 
        Analysis, Energy Conservation and Environment, and

[[Page 7432]]

        International Energy Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy 
        Research and Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior.
            (3) The functions of the Office Regulatory Programs 
        (including the Office of Private Grievances and Redress) shall 
        be transferred to the Federal Power Commission. . . .

    Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, made a point of order against the 
amendment:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment be germane to the bill which is before the House both 
    as to the place in the bill to which the germaneness question 
    arises, and the amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a 
    whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the sense of amendments which might be presented to 
    them. . . .
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . Committee 
    jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the original bill 
    is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute,

[[Page 7433]]

    which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee 
    jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government Operations 
    Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the germaneness 
    of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship 
    to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
    content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
    considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill continuing and 
    reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to the existing act 
    sought to be continued was held to be germane to the pending bill--
    VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. To a bill extending 
    an existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing further 
    modifications of that law may be germane--April 23, 1969; February 
    19, 1975.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the rules of 
    the House under rule X(i)(3) give the Committee on Government 
    Operations jurisdiction over the reorganizations in the executive 
    branch of the Government. The bill we have before us is an 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce bill. Therefore, the Schroeder 
    amendment is nongermane because it involves matter not before the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The title of the bill before us, both as it was originally 
    drawn and as it is amended, does only two things, and as amended it 
    reads:

            To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
        authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1977 to carry out the 
        functions of the Federal Energy Administration, and for other 
        purposes.

        The other purposes are not accomplished in the legislation or 
    the language of the bill. Therefore the bill before the House is a 
    bill to authorize funds for and extend the life of the Federal 
    Energy Administration. As such it merely extends with some 
    modification the authorities of the FEA.
        The Schroeder amendment on the other hand would completely 
    terminate those functions and transfer them to many other 
    Government agencies, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee and not a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the bill. Therefore it necessarily involves 
    reorganization of the executive branch functions and as such is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    . . .
        Again in 28, section 6.2 of Deschler's Precedents, it says:

            To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
        amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
        method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane.

        In other words, the effort to abolish and reorganize would not 
    be germane to a bill to merely authorize and mod

[[Page 7434]]

    ify certain functions within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    dealing with the bill on the floor. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: . . . The main point, Mr. 
    Chairman, is this: Are we or are we not in the Schroeder substitute 
    attempting to arrive at the disposition of this matter by carrying 
    out the functions of FEA in this authorization to appropriate and 
    carry out these functions by other means? Now, clearly, this is 
    brought out in rule XVI, section 789b, page 514, of the Rules of 
    the House of Representatives:

            . . . Thus to a proposition to accomplish a result through 
        regulation by a governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish 
        the same fundamental purpose through regulation by another 
        governmental agency. . . .

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) is not germane to 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 
    12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.

[[Page 7435]]

        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII, section 
    2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment germane 
    to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.
        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair, from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.26 To a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, 
    including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
    energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict 
    the manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action 
    proposals to Congress was held germane to the law being extended as 
    a limitation on discretionary authority conferred in that law, and 
    therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(9) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), it was held that to a bill 
continuing and reenacting an existing law, a germane amendment 
modifying the provisions of the law being extended was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7436]]

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

         limitation on discretion of the administrator with respect to 
                          submission of energy actions

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator shall not exercise the discretion 
        delegated to him pursuant to section 5(b) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 to submit to the Congress as 
        one energy action any amendment under section 12 of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which exempts crude 
        oil or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from both the allocation provisions and the pricing 
        provisions of the regulation under section 4 of such Act.''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I think at 
    least two, and perhaps more, basic principles of germaneness make 
    the Eckhardt amendment nongermane. The first one is this:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill (Cannon's Precedents, page 
        199).

        Mr. Chairman, the Dingell bill's fundamental purpose is to 
    authorize appropriations to the Federal Energy Administration Act 
    of 1974--section 1--and to extend the life of that Agency--section 
    2. These are the only two sections of the bill and the only 
    fundamental purpose of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a bill amending several sections of an act does 
    not necessarily bring the entire act under consideration so as to 
    permit amendment to any portion of the act sought to be amended by 
    the bill--Cannon's Precedents, page 201.
        The Dingell bill amends only two sections of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act, section 29, dealing with the authorization of 
    appropriations, and section 30, dealing with the termination date 
    of the act. The Eckhardt amendment does not apply to either one of 
    these sections.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to cite from Deschler's 
    Procedure 28, section 5.10 and section 5.11, as follows:

            An amendment repealing sections of existing law is not 
        germane to a bill citing but not amending another section of 
        that law, where the fundamental purposes of the bill and 
        amendment are not related.

        Then I cite section 5.11, Mr. Chairman, which says the 
    following:

            To a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute having as its fundamental purpose the funding of 
        urban highway transportation systems, an amendment broadening 
        that section to include rail transportation within its ambit is 
        not germane. . . .

        [T]he amendment is, in effect, a modification of the Energy 
    Petroleum Allocation Act, as amended by the Federal Energy Policy 
    and Conservation Act, rather than an amendment of the Federal 
    Energy Administration Act, the only legislation touched by H.R. 
    12169. . . .
        This is an amendment which directly modifies the provisions of 
    section 12 of EPAA--added by EPCA--which provides in subsection 
    (c)(1):

            Any such amendment which, with respect to a class of 
        persons or class of transactions (including trans

[[Page 7437]]

        actions with respect to any market level), exempts crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum product or refined 
        product category from the provisions of the regulation under 
        section 4(a) as such provisions pertain to either (A) the 
        allocation of amounts of any such oil or product, or (B) the 
        specification of price or the manner for determining the price 
        of any such oil or product, or both of the matters described in 
        subparagraphs (A) and (B), may take effect only pursuant to the 
        provisions of this subsection. . . .

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the production, 
    conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and allocation 
    of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection with only 
    those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act to restrict the discretion of the Administrator 
    in the method of submitting energy action proposals to Congress, a 
    function delegated to him by the President under the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973. Section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act directs the Administrator to prepare for and 
    conduct programs for production, conservation, use, control, 
    distribution, rationing, and allocation of energy in connection 
    with authorities transferred to him by law or delegated to him by 
    the President.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Texas would place a 
    specific restriction on the exercise of that discretion to perform 
    functions under other laws.

[[Page 7438]]

        On March 6, 1974, when the original Federal Energy 
    Administration Act was being considered for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered to section 5 of 
    the bill, the section of the act presently in issue. The amendment 
    would have prohibited the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    on domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in the bill, and Chairman Flynt ruled 
    that the amendment was germane as a limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred on the Administrator in that section and as a 
    limitation not directly amending another existing law.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration and to the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act which it extends, and overrules the point of 
    order.

Senate Amendment Striking Language in House Bill--Motion To Recede and 
    Concur With Amendment

Sec. 2.27 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a 
    House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is the relationship between the language 
    in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be 
    stricken by the Senate amendment.

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

Germaneness of Senate Amendment That Was Amended by House

Sec. 2.28 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a 
    portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate 
    amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the 
    bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed 
    bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by 
    unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter 
    germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the 
    original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness 
    point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so 
    modified in a conference report.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1983, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2973 (interest and

[[Page 7439]]

dividend tax withholding repeal), are discussed in Sec. 26.3, infra.

Amendments Stating Congressional Policy Offered to Substitute Providing 
    Humanitarian Assistance

Sec. 2.29 To a substitute providing humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to victims of war in South Vietnam, two amendments 
    containing Congressional foreign policy declarations with respect 
    to the roles of other nations in causing and ending that war were 
    held to go beyond the scope of the purpose of the bill and were 
    held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act, amendments 
expressing the sense of Congress relative to the causes of 
circumstances addressed by the bill's provisions, and including broad 
declarations of foreign policy, were ruled out of order as not germane, 
the bill being limited to relief for a specific situation. The first of 
the amendments was offered by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 11510, 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end of the substitute 
        and renumber accordingly; add the following new section:
            ``Sec. --. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement; and further, the 
        Congress views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet 
        Union and the People's Republic of China towards this 
        aggression as a critical test of good faith, and calls upon 
        them immediately to use their influence to end the aggression 
        by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; 
    that it includes information that does not have any indication that 
    it relates to the object of what is being done in the substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7440]]

        Mr. Bauman: . . . I would say that while this amendment may not 
    be pleasing to the 71 Members who voted against the Ashbrook 
    amendment, it goes to the very heart of the matter which is 
    contained in this bill, which deals with humanitarian aid and 
    evacuation procedures. By reason of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) it now includes the 
    problem of prisoners of war and missing in action and 
    accountability.
        In fact, it deals with policy in that matter. The scope of the 
    bill has broadened considerably, and it is all within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and deals 
    directly with the reason that this legislation must be offered 
    today and acted upon. In fact, that is the very reason for this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I seek 
    recognition on the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) does this: It intends to direct international 
    policy, to direct the State Department to provide general 
    provisions controlling the policy of the United States in matters 
    far beyond the Vietnamese question.
        The substitute on the floor does none of these things. It 
    essentially provides, in its major provisions, which are similar to 
    the committee bill, means by which certain persons may be removed 
    from Vietnam, that is, citizens of the United States and 
    dependents, persons entitled to come over because of their 
    connection with the U.S. nationals. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment, particularly the language, ``the Congress 
    views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet Union and the 
    People's Republic of China toward this aggression as a critical 
    test of good faith,'' does, in fact, go far beyond the scope of the 
    legislation before us.
        The point of order is sustained.

        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement.'' . . .

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the same 
    grounds I stated before. This amendment is not germane. This piece 
    of legislation raises issues which should not be dealt with in this 
    fashion. . . .

[[Page 7441]]

        Mr. Buchanan: . . . I have stricken from the original amendment 
    the language to which the Chair earlier referred. I believe all the 
    remaining language deals specifically with what the provisions of 
    this legislation do and why they are necessary. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        While it is true that the Chair did refer particularly to 
    certain language in the earlier amendment, the Chair does not 
    indicate that if that particular language had not been there, the 
    amendment would have been found to be in order.
        The language of the amendment still goes far beyond the scope 
    of the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 2.30 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims in Vietnam, perfected by amendment to 
    prohibit such assistance to specified groups, a further amendment 
    stating that the necessity for the relief provided has been caused 
    by the actions of the groups denied assistance was held germane as 
    an expression of foreign policy not extending beyond the purposes 
    of the perfected proposition.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and 
Evacuation Act. An amendment was offered by Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of 
Ohio, and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Insert new section 8 and 
        renumber following sections:
            ``Sec. 8. To insure that the assistance is provided to such 
        persons throughout South Vietnam no funds authorized in this 
        Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to aid the 
        Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) or the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall any funds authorized 
        under this Act be channeled through or administered by the DRV 
        or the PRG.'' . . .

        [The amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the

[[Page 7442]]

        military forces of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong now 
        engaged in military aggression against the people and 
        government of the Republic of Vietnam.

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . I object to this 
    amendment because it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: . . . (The amendment) does very much refer to 
    this legislation. It discusses the Paris peace agreements and the 
    necessity for the use of military forces. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that the present amendment is narrowly drawn. 
    It refers to the situation in Vietnam to which this substitute in 
    its perfected form is directed, and the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

New Title Dealing With Energy Used in Production of Beverage Containers 
    Offered to Energy Conservation Bill

Sec. 2.31 A bill of several titles dealing generally with energy use 
    and conservation and containing a title specifically dealing with 
    efficiency of energy-using consumer products and requiring energy 
    efficiency labeling of such products, was held sufficiently broad 
    in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a new 
    title dealing with energy use in the production of certain non-
    energy consuming products (beverage containers) and incorporating 
    the labeling requirements in the bill to demonstrate energy 
    production requirements of such products.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(15) it was demonstrated that the test 
of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being read 
by titles is the relationship between the amendment and the bill as a 
whole. The proceedings during consideration of the Energy Conservation 
and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      Part A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        Sec. 502. Average fuel economy standards applicable to each 
    manufacturer. . . .

       Part B--Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards for Consumer 
                      Products other than automobiles

        Sec. 551. Definitions and coverage.
        Sec. 552. Test procedures.
        Sec. 553. Labeling.

[[Page 7443]]

        Sec. 554. Energy efficiency standards. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer or any other malt 
        beverage, mineral water, soda water, or a carbonated soft drink 
        of any variety in liquid form which is intended for human 
        consumption. . . .
            (4) The term ``energy efficiency'' means the ratio 
        (determined on a national basis) of: The capacity of the 
        beverage container times the number of times it is likely to be 
        filled, to the units of energy resources consumed in producing 
        such container (including such container's raw materials) and 
        in delivering such container and its contents to the consumer.
            The Commissioner, in determining the energy efficiency 
        shall adjust any such determination to take into account the 
        extent to which such containers are produced from recycled 
        materials. . . .

                                    labeling

            Sec. 603. The provisions of section 553, except paragraph 
        (B) of subsection (a)(1), shall be applicable to beverage 
        containers as defined in section 601. In addition, if the 
        Commissioner determines that a beverage container achieves the 
        energy efficiency target described in section 604, then no 
        labeling requirement under this section may be promulgated or 
        remain in effect with respect to such type. . . .

               requirements of manufacturers and private labelers

            Sec. 605. The provisions of section 555 of this act with 
        respect to consumer products to which a rule under section 553 
        applies shall be applicable to beverage containers as defined 
        in section 601. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order [is] on the ground that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill before us. The amendment seeks to impose efficiency standards 
    on the manufacture of beverage containers. There is nothing in the 
    bill relating to beverage containers. The amendment seeks to change 
    efficiency standards imposed upon beverage containers themselves. 
    There is nothing in this bill relating to beverage containers.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, not only is the amendment not 
    germane to the bill but it also fails because it is not germane to 
    the bill as amended because as the Chairman recalls all references 
    to the efficiency standards have been removed from the bill with 
    respect to industrial processes. If the amendment were to be 
    offered relating to efficiency in manufacturing processes, it more 
    appropriately should have been offered in sections relating to 
    efficiency in manufacturing.
        Those have now been deleted, of course. The amendment is not 
    germane because it comes too late in the bill, for that matter, 
    after it has been considered and acted upon in the House.

[[Page 7444]]

        The amendment is very, very complex, setting up standards for 
    efficiency in a whole series of devices. With regard to the 
    mechanism we are under, this efficiency is judged and it goes into 
    a lengthy complex set of judgments that must be exercised by the 
    administrators with regard to this efficiency; but dealing solely 
    with the question of bottles and containers. As I pointed out, 
    there is no reference in the bill to bottles and containers. For 
    that reason, the amendment is not germane. . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . In Cannon's Procedures 
    of the House of Representatives, the rule of germaneness occurs at 
    section 794. It says that while the committee may report a bill 
    embracing different subjects, it is not in order during the 
    consideration of a bill to introduce a new subject. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the nature of the new subject in this 
    legislation, it seems to me, is embraced in section 604 of the 
    amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
    Jeffords], in which we are not dealing with the set of standards of 
    the operation of appliances as we were in the appliance section, or 
    automobiles, as we were in the automobile standards section; but 
    rather in the design of a nonenergy consuming product which the 
    author of the amendment seeks to prohibit with reference to its 
    possibilities of reuse. It gives the authority to the Secretary to 
    prohibit a product on the basis of its design. So we are, in 
    effect, impacting on the product with reference to the manufacture 
    of the product in some mechanical or energy-consuming way. That, it 
    seems to me, is a new direction or a new subject under the rule of 
    germaneness, as opposed to the other approaches which the bill as 
    reported out of the committee has taken. It is an area which I 
    rather doubt comes under the purview of our committee, in that the 
    purview of the committee relates to the consumption of energy as 
    such and the licensing of that energy and the pricing of it and so 
    forth. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I simply 
    wanted to add in regard to the standard . . . of looking to the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment in qualifying its germaneness, 
    that this particular amendment would seek to add for the first time 
    in the bill a class of product which does not in and of itself 
    consume an average annual per household energy factor, nor does it 
    consume in and of itself energy at all. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, never have I had an opportunity to 
    tell so many distinguished gentlemen that they are wrong at the 
    same time. First, let us go back to the basics here. What are we 
    concerned with when we talk about the germaneness? Let us look at 
    the legislative manual.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment is that it must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. What is the 
    fundamental purpose?
        Let us take a look at the title, ``Energy Conservation and Oil 
    Policy Act of 1975.'' Look what we are trying to do. We are trying 
    to conserve energy. Let us take a look at title III, with its broad 
    powers over the whole area of development of petroleum. There are 
    tremendous powers over the whole industry in allocation, 
    production, as to where the industry goes. . . .
        Let us get to the argument made by many, and that is it is 
    different be

[[Page 7445]]

    cause we are talking about energy consumed in the production of the 
    consumer product rather than the consumer himself.
        The FEA is not going to go around this country chasing after 
    people with electric toothbrushes to see whether they brush 
    properly or to see whether they are plugged in properly. They are 
    going to go to the manufacturer and say, ``You have a toothbrush 
    here that has to have a certain energy efficiency improvement.'' So 
    we are saying when the product is sold that particular beverage 
    container must consume less than a certain amount of energy. It is 
    identical in purpose. The bill does not try to go out and nail the 
    consumer. It gets to him by labeling. It says, ``Here is a consumer 
    product that uses less energy.'' My amendment will say, ``Here is 
    something that uses less energy.'' I see no difference whatsoever. 
    Its basic purpose and fundamental purpose is the same as the bill, 
    to conserve energy and conserve oil. How anybody can argue that 
    this is not germane is impossible for me to see.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, and the gentleman from Texas have made points 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chair would like to state that if the amendment had been 
    offered to title V, the arguments of many of the gentlemen would 
    have more significance.
        The amendment offered would add a new title to the bill 
    relating to energy conservation in the production of beverage 
    containers.
        The test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship 
    between the new title to be added by the amendment and the entire 
    bill.
        The Chair would state, initially, that he has reexamined the 
    precedents contained in section 6.13 and section 6.19 of chapter 28 
    of Deschler's Procedure, wherein an amendment prohibiting the 
    production of nonreturnable beverage containers was held not 
    germane to the Energy Emergency Act, and finds that the situations 
    are distinguishable.
        As noted, the germaneness is dependent upon the relationship 
    between the amendment in the form of a new title and the entire 
    bill to which offered.
        The 1973 bill was designed to regulate and promote the 
    production, allocation, and conservation of energy resources and 
    contained no reference to the production of consumer goods. In that 
    context, the nonreturnable container amendment was not germane.
        However, the bill now under consideration contains several 
    diverse titles, all relating to use, consumption, availability, and 
    conservation of energy.
        The Chair notes specifically the provisions of title V relating 
    to end use and energy consumption of certain consumer products.
        The Chair, therefore, believes that the bill is sufficiently 
    broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a 
    new title which is drafted in the form presented by incorporating 
    by reference certain standards in the bill, and which relates to 
    the conserva

[[Page 7446]]

    tion of energy by an industry engaged in the production of a 
    consumer product, specifically, beverage containers.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Changing Date of Termination of Agency Offered to Amendment 
    in Nature of Substitute Terminating Agency

Sec. 2.32 Where the Committee of the Whole had under consideration a 
    bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act and an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the Federal 
    Energy Administration on a date certain and transferring some of 
    its functions to other agencies, an amendment offered to such 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for purposes of changing 
    the date for termination of such agency was held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Strike out 
        ``That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following section:
            ``Sec. 1. Section 30 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by striking out `June 30, 1976' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof `September 30, 1977'.''
            On line 3 of section 2 insert after ``shall be abolished'' 
        the words ``effective September 30, 1977''.

    On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the words 
``effective September 30, 1977:''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment must be not only germane to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute and to the bill but it must be germane to the 
    particular part of the bill to which it is addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, if we will read the bill, we will observe there 
    are two parts. There is a section 1 and a section 2. Section 1 
    relates to authorizations for appropriations, and section 2 relates 
    to the extension of the life of the agency. The provisions relating 
    to the extension of the agency itself, we will observe, are in 
    section 2, which appears at page 10 of the bill, and while it might 
    be desirable to have the amendment that the gentleman offers set 
    forth as a policy from his point of view, the fact of the matter is 
    that the amendment should be offered to the later part of the bill, 
    section 2, printed at page 10, and not to the Schroeder amendment 
    as offered. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I recognize 
    what the

[[Page 7447]]

    distinguished subcommittee chairman is speaking about, but I would 
    call to his attention the fact that the extension of the life of 
    the Federal Energy Administration affects both section 1 and 
    section 2. Therefore, it seems to me that in the normal, orderly 
    process of the business of the House, we ought to offer this 
    amendment at the earlier time.
        We should note that the amendment that has been offered clearly 
    indicates that in section 1, section 30 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ``June 30, 
    1976,'' which is in section 1, and extending it to another date 
    which is 15 months hence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what we 
    now have to decide is whether or not we can proceed to debate a 
    matter which we can alter and come out halfway between the 
    Schroeder position and the Dingell position. That, it seems to me, 
    is not altogether unreasonable, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill and the Schroeder amendment is open to amendment at any 
    point. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) simply changes the date in the Schroeder amendment when 
    FEA is to be abolished. It simply provides for a change of date.
        The amendment is germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder). The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.