[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§ 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7752-7805]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test

    In determining whether an amendment is germane, it is often 
useful--especially when the amendment is in the nature of a substitute 
for the pending text--to consider whether its fundamental purpose is 
related to the fundamental purpose of the bill to which offered.
    The Speaker or Chairman considers the stated purposes of a bill and 
the amendment, although not the motive or intent of the proponent of 
the amendment which circumstances might suggest, in ruling on the 
germaneness of a proposed amendment.(25) If the purpose or 
objective of an amendment is different from that of the bill to which 
it is offered, the amendment may be held not to be germane. For 
example, it is generally held that, to a proposal to authorize certain 
activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the advisability of 
undertaking such activities is not germane.(26) An amendment 
offered to a revenue bill is not germane if it proposes a tax for any 
other purpose than that of raising revenue.(27) Moreover, to 
a bill relating to the minting and issuance of public currency, 
amendments providing for minting a coin for a private purpose 
(28) or for a commemorative or collector's coin 
(29) have been held to be not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. See Sec. 3.45, supra, and Sec. 5.5, infra. See also, generally, 
        Sec. 6, infra, which discusses amendments that contemplate 
        methods different from those of the bill to be used in 
        achieving the objectives of the bill.
26. See Sec. 5.29, infra.
27. See Sec. 5.11, infra.
28. See Sec. 5.27, infra.
29. See Sec. 5.28, infra.
30. See Sec. 5.8, infra, and Sec. 6, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, the fact that a provision in a bill and a 
proffered amendment to that provision have a common purpose or 
objective is not conclusive as to the amendment's germaneness, 
especially where the two approaches are dissimilar.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. See Sec. 5.8, infra, and Sec. 6, generally.

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

[[Page 7753]]

                          -------------------Amendment Elaborating on 
    Methods of Accomplishing Results Contemplated by Bill, and Adding 
    Incidental Conditions or Exceptions

Sec. 5.1 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute which was more detailed in its provisions but which 
    sought to achieve the same result was held germane, where the 
    additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
    construed to be merely incidental conditions or exceptions that 
    were related to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Bill Requiring Preservation of Election Returns--Amendment To Provide 
    for Court Appointment of Voting Referees

Sec. 5.2 To a bill to enforce constitutional voting rights by requiring 
    preservation of federal election returns, an amendment to provide 
    for court appointment of voting referees to insure protection of 
    voters' rights was held to be germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 45.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Enforce Right to Vote--Amendment To Protect First Amendment 
    Rights That Might Affect Voting Rights

Sec. 5.3 To a bill to enforce the right to vote as guaranteed by the 
    15th Amendment to the Constitution, an amendment to protect freedom 
    of speech and other First Amendment rights whose abridgment might 
    affect exercise of voting rights, was held germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965,(2) the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6400 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16263, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) Whenever any person acting under color of law has engaged . 
    . . in any . . . practice that . . . threatens . . . the exercise 
    by any other person, in connection with voting, of his right of 
    freedom of speech or of the press, or his right peaceably to 
    assemble . . . the Attorney General may institute . . . a civil 
    action . . . for preventive relief. . . .

[[Page 7754]]

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    subject matter of H.R. 6400 deals exclusively with voting rights. 
    The amendment proposed deals with rights under the first amendment 
    to the Constitution. . . . It is very obvious that this violates 
    the rule of germaneness. Although we are dealing with 
    constitutional rights, specifically the right to vote under H.R. 
    6400, the rule is that one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition even though the two may 
    belong to the same class.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to language in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] under paragraph (b) 
    where it is made quite clear by the phrase ``in connection with 
    voting'' that the purpose of this amendment deals only with the 
    voting aspect. In other words, with the 15th amendment.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .

Bill Establishing Commission To Study Voting Rights--Amendment Creating 
    Human Resettlement Commission

Sec. 5.4 To a bill establishing a commission to study deprivation of 
    voting rights and granting authority to the Attorney General to 
    institute legal proceedings to protect such rights, an amendment 
    creating a Commission on Human Resettlement, with authority to aid 
    those who wish to emigrate from any state that practices 
    segregation, was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary). See the proceedings at 103 
        Cong. Rec. 8838 et seq., 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1957.
 6. Id. at pp. 8860, 8861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: On 
    page 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
    following:

             Establishment of Commission on Human Resettlement

        Sec. 8. (a) The Commission is authorized, upon application 
    therefor, to grant a relocation loan in accordance with this Act to 
    any Negro living in any State in which racial segregation is 
    practiced, to enable such Negro to move to any State in which 
    racial segregation is not practiced.

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(7) The Chairman,(8) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8861.
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

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

[[Page 7755]]

        The Chair finds that the bill under consideration provides for 
    the securing and protecting of the civil rights, whereas the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama provides for the 
    creation of a Commission on Human Resettlement which deals more 
    with economic benefits than with civil rights.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Extending Civil Rights Commission--Amendment Authorizing 
    Relocation Loans for Those Wishing To Emigrate From State 
    Practicing Secregation

Sec. Sec. 5.5 To that title of a civil rights bill extending the life 
    of the Civil Rights Commission and further delineating its duties 
    with respect to the investigation of violations of constitutional 
    rights, an amendment authorizing the Commission to make relocation 
    loans to those who wish to emigrate from any state that practices 
    segregation was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(9) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, offered an 
amendment whose purpose he explained as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 2298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill that I introduced which now is before us in the form 
    of an amendment to the Civil Rights Commission would simply provide 
    that if any Negro living in a State where local laws . . . and 
    traditions made him unhappy, he would be entitled to receive, from 
    a Human Resettlement Commission that my bill would have created, a 
    . . . Government loan, in an amount sufficient to permit him and 
    the members of his family to move to any State of his choice. And 
    it would be the duty of that Commission--and under my amendment the 
    duty of the Civil Rights Commission--to assist him. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment . . . is not germane to the title 
    under consideration. This title concerns the investigators, the 
    factfinding body called the Civil Rights Commission.

    The Chairman, Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, viewing the amendment 
as one ``that would have for its purpose the setting up of what might 
be described generally as a Human Resettlement Commission,'' sustained 
the point of order.(11) He relied in part on a

[[Page 7756]]

prior similar ruling,(12) which he described as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 2299.
12. See Sec. 5.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It has been called to the Chair's attention that on June 11, 
    1957, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Forand, of 
    Rhode Island, in ruling on a similar amendment to a bill providing 
    for establishing a Commission to study deprivation of voting rights 
    and granting authority to the Attorney General to institute or 
    intervene in legal proceedings to protect voting rights, an 
    amendment providing for creating a Commission on Human 
    Resettlement, similar to the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Alabama, with authority to make loans to Negro citizens for 
    emigration from any State practicing segregation, was held by that 
    chairman not to be germane.

Bill Requiring Balanced Budgets To Be Submitted by President and Voted 
    on by Congress--Amendment Requiring Joint Resolutions Rather Than 
    Concurrent Resolutions in Other Phases of Budget Process

Sec. 5.6 To a bill requiring balanced budgets to be submitted by the 
    President and voted upon by the Congress as alternatives to deficit 
    budget concurrent resolutions, a motion to recommit converting the 
    entire budget process from a concurrent resolution to a joint 
    resolution, thereby changing the Congressional budget resolution to 
    a law requiring the signature of the President for all purposes of 
    enforcement of the Budget Act was held not germane as having a 
    broader fundamental purpose, requiring Executive Branch approval of 
    all budget resolutions and not merely those submitted in balance.

    During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1990 
(13) in the House on July 18, 1990,(14) it was 
held that to a proposition changing procedures relating to one aspect 
of the Congressional budget process to require consideration of 
balanced budgets, an amendment changing other procedures to require 
Presidential approval of any budget resolution, thereby involving the 
Executive Branch in enforcement of all Budget Act procedures and 
sanctions, went beyond the fundamental purpose of the proposition to 
which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 5258.
14. 136 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the bill (H.R. 5258) to require that the President transmit to 
    Congress, that

[[Page 7757]]

    the congressional Budget Committees report, and that the Congress 
    consider a balanced budget for each fiscal year, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The text of H.R. 5258 is as follows:

                                   H.R. 5258

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

               TITLE I--AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
    sec. 101. submission of balanced budget by the president.

            Section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
        inserting at the end the following new subsection:
            ``(g)(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), any budget 
        submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) for the 
        ensuing fiscal year shall not be in deficit.
            ``(2) For any fiscal year with respect to which the 
        President determines that it is infeasible to submit a budget 
        in compliance with paragraph (1), the President shall submit on 
        the same day two budgets, one of which shall be in compliance 
        with paragraph (1), together with written reasons in support of 
        that determination.''.

            TITLE II--AMENDMENT TO CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974
    sec. 201. reporting of balanced budgets by committees on the budget 
    of the house of representatives and senate.

            Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
        amended by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
            ``(j) Reporting of Balanced Budgets.--
            ``(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), the concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for a fiscal year referred to in 
        subsection (a) as reported by the Committee on the Budget of 
        each House shall not be in deficit. . . .
    sec. 202. procedure in the house of representatives.

            Section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
        amended by inserting at the end the following:

            ``(8)(A) If the Committee on Rules of the House of 
        Representatives reports any rule or order providing for the 
        consideration of any concurrent resolution on the budget for a 
        fiscal year, then it shall also, within the same rule or order, 
        provide for--
            ``(i) the consideration of the text of any concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for that fiscal year reported by the 
        Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
        pursuant to section 301(j); and
            ``(ii) the consideration of the text of each concurrent 
        resolution on the budget as introduced by the Majority Leader 
        pursuant to subparagraph (B);
    and such rule or order shall assure that a separate vote occurs on 
    each such budget.

            ``(B) The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives 
        shall introduce a concurrent resolution on the budget 
        reflecting, without substantive revision, each budget submitted 
        by the President pursuant to section 1105(g) of title 31, 
        United States Code, as soon as practicable after its 
        submission.''.
    sec. 203. procedure in the senate.

        Section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
    amended by inserting at the end the following:

[[Page 7758]]

            ``(7) Notwithstanding any other rule, it shall always be in 
        order in the Senate to consider an amendment to a concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for a fiscal year comprising the text 
        of any budget submitted by the President for that fiscal year 
        as described in section 1105(g)(1) of title 31, United States 
        Code, and, whenever applicable, an amendment comprising the 
        text of any other budget submitted by the President for that 
        fiscal year as described in section 1105(g)(2) of title 31, 
        United States Code.''. . . .

        Mr. [Willis D.] Gradison [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gradison moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 5258)) to the 
        Committee on Rules and the Committee on Government Operations 
        with instructions to report the same to the House forthwith 
        with the following amendment:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
        following:
    sec. 101. amendments changing ``concurrent'' to ``joint'' 
    resolutions.

            (a) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the 
        Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
        amended by striking ``concurrent'' in the items relating to 
        sections 301, 303, and 304 and inserting ``joint''.
            (b) Paragraph (4) of section 3 of such Act is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(4) The term ``joint resolution on the budget'' means--
            ``(A) a joint resolution setting forth the congressional 
        budget for the United States Government for a fiscal year as 
        provided in section 301; and
            ``(B) any other joint resolution revising the congressional 
        budget for the United States Government for a fiscal year as 
        described in section 304.''.
            (c) Sections 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 308, 310, 311, and 
        401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et 
        seq.) are amended by striking ``concurrent resolution'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``joint resolution''. . . .

        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Gradison] is out of order. It goes beyond the scope of the Budget 
    Act. It is entirely out of the scope of what we are dealing with. 
    It requires a complete revision of the Budget Act in that we ask 
    the President to sign it. . . .
        Mr. Gradison: . . . Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit the 
    bill, H.R. 5258 with instructions to amend the bill by striking out 
    all after the enacting clause and inserting language changing the 
    concurrent budget resolution to a joint resolution in the Budget 
    Act, is a germane amendment to the underlying bill. For an 
    amendment to be germane it must be akin to or relevant to the 
    subject matter of the bill. An amendment must not be on a subject 
    different from the bill under consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5258 amends the 1974 Congressional Budget Act 
    in several instances. The bill required reporting by the Committee 
    on the Budget of balanced budgets unless a report is made stating 
    why a balanced budget is not possible. The bill further changes

[[Page 7759]]

    the procedure by which budget resolutions are considered in the 
    House, requiring the Committee on Rules to make in order the 
    President's budget for a vote in the same rule providing for 
    consideration of the budget resolution reported by the Committee on 
    the Budget.
        Mr. Speaker, amending the Budget Act to require that the 
    concurrent budget resolution be made a joint resolution, as 
    provided in this motion to recommit, is relevant to the Budget Act 
    changes made by the underlying bill. The bill itself changes 
    consideration of the budget resolution to include a vote on the 
    President's budget. The amendment made in my motion to recommit 
    with instructions would provide additional changes to the Budget 
    Act to further bring the President into the existing procedures. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, if I may be 
    heard on my point of order, I believe that the motion of the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gradison) is not germane because it amends 
    the table of contents to make it a joint resolution. This is the 
    only way it can be done, and in effect it affects all budget 
    resolutions, not just the Balanced Budget Act, H.R. 5258. . . .
        Mr. Gradison: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue, with the 
    Chair's indulgence, the point just made.
        Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the bill before us amends 
    all budget resolutions and that it requires the Committee on Rules, 
    in bringing any budget resolution to the floor, to include four 
    choices which may be in addition to other budget resolutions which 
    may be brought to the floor for consideration. So, I frankly am 
    confused by the point raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Conyers) because it seems that the criticism which he is levying 
    against my motion to recommit would apply equally to the measure 
    before us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will apply the fundamental 
    purpose test of germaneness to this motion. The underlying 
    legislation is described primarily in the second paragraph of page 
    2 of the Rules Committee report filed with the bill.
        The intention of the motion to recommit and the instructions 
    contained therein would, in the opinion of the Chair, change 
    fundamentally the purpose of the bill before the House to include 
    the President, as well as the Congress, in the entire congressional 
    budget process, including all procedures and sanctions resulting 
    therefrom.
        For that reason it fails the test of germaneness, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill To Provide Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Ceiling--Amendment 
    Construed as Temporary Rather Than Permanent Change in Law

Sec. 5.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text of 
    a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment which in form

[[Page 7760]]

    amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact be understood 
    to be a temporary change in law, in light of prior legislative 
    treatment of the subject in question (the statutory ceiling on 
    public debt), and thus could properly be offered to a bill whose 
    fundamental purpose was to provide a temporary increase in the 
    statutory ceiling on the debt.

    The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.

Bill To Increase Debt Limit--Amendment Authorizing Issuance of Non-
    Interest-Bearing Obligations and Directing Purchase Thereof

Sec. 5.8 To that section of a bill repealing certain provisions of law 
    and amending the Second Liberty Bond Act to increase the debt 
    limit, an amendment authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    issue non-interest-bearing obligations and directing the Board of 
    Governors of the Federal Reserve banks to purchase such obligations 
    at par value was held to be not germane.

    On Feb. 10, 1941, the Public Debt Act of 1941 (16) was 
under consideration. The bill stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 2959 (Committee on Ways and Means).
17. See 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
    amended, is further amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 21. The face amount of obligations issued under the 
        authority of this act shall not exceed in the aggregate 
        $65,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.

        (b) The authority granted in the following provisions of law to 
    issue obligations is terminated:
        (1) Section 32 of the act entitled ``An act to provide ways and 
    means to meet war expenditures, and for other purposes,'' approved 
    June 13, 1898, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 31, sec. 756). . 
    . .
        (c) Section 301 of title III of the Revenue Act of 1940 (54 
    Stat. 526) creating a special fund for the retirement of defense 
    obligations) is repealed.

    An amendment was offered (18) as described above. The 
proponent then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: . . . This amendment is 
    prepared in a way that will allow the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    issue non-interest-bearing obligations and turn them over to the 
    Federal Reserve Banking System and receive in return therefor 
    credit which is used today in the same

[[Page 7761]]

    way and manner as the interest-bearing bonds are issued.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment . . . on the ground it is not 
    germane. . . . I concede the first part of the amendment . . . 
    would be in order, but [the principle is well established] that if 
    any part of the amendment is subject to a point of order . . . the 
    entire amendment is subject to a point of order.
        . . . [The latter part of the amendment] clearly places upon 
    the Federal Reserve bank a mandatory duty and responsibility which 
    is not embraced within the provisions of the bill. . . . Indeed, 
    such a provision as that should properly, and would have to, come 
    from the Banking and Currency Committee. It would not be within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clarence A. Cannon (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fact that an amendment and the provision in the bill to 
    which the amendment is offered have a common purpose and are 
    directed toward the same objective is not conclusive.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman deals with a subject to 
    which there is no reference in the text to which offered, and is, 
    therefore, not germane to the bill.

Provision Extending for One Year Authorization for Revenue-Sharing--
    Amendment Extending Revenue-Sharing Program for Three Years

Sec. 5.9 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize appropriations 
    for only one year (and containing no provisions extending beyond 
    that year) an amendment to extend the appropriation or 
    authorization to another year is not germane; thus, to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute extending for one year the 
    entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing during fiscal year 
    1981 and containing conforming changes in the law which would not 
    effectively extend beyond that year, an amendment extending the 
    revenue-sharing program for three years was held broader in scope 
    and not germane.

    During consideration of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
Amendments of 1980 (1) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 
13, 1980, (2) it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an

[[Page 7762]]

amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship 
to said substitute, and not to the original bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 7112.
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: 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. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.
    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 105(c)(1) of 
        the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following: ``In addition, there 
        are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund 
        $4,566,700,000 to pay the entitlements of units of local 
        government hereinafter provided for the entitlement period 
        beginning October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1981.''. . 
        .

    An amendment was offered:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Horton: On page 1 of the 
        amendment of the gentleman from New York, strike out section 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
        of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
        ``In addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units of local government 
        hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for each of the entitlement 
        periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 1981, and 1982.''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time.
        The rule is quite clear on this matter. To admit such an 
    amendment would cause great confusion in the legislative process of 
    the House. It should be ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    to the amendment that I have offered deals with exactly the same 
    subject matter as in the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton). It does deal with a longer 
    time period, but it is the same time period exactly that is con

[[Page 7763]]

    tained in the legislation. It deals with other matters which are 
    contained in the general legislation, so I feel it is well within 
    the parameters of the bill it is trying to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in 
    the nature of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their fundamental purpose the 
    extension of local entitlements for only 1 year and do not thereby 
    open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear changes in the 
    revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Formula for Allotment of Funds to States for School Construction--
    Amendment Proposing Different Formula

Sec. 5.10 To a bill authorizing appropriations for allotment to the 
    states, under a specific formula, for school construction, an 
    amendment proposing a different formula was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to authorize federal assistance to states and local communities in 
financing school construction, the following amendment was offered: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 7535 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 11859, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: 
    Beginning on page 3, line 1, strike out everything through line 6 
    on page 10 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                      Authorization of Appropriations

        Sec. 101. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year beginning July 1, 1956, and for each of the three 
    succeeding fiscal years, an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
    of all income taxes collected . . . which shall be paid by the 
    Secretary of the Treasury . . . to the respective States . . . in 
    amounts equal to 1 percent of the amount of such revenue collected 
    in each such State or Territory, to be used for public schoolroom 
    construction as prescribed by the law of each State. . . .

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

        Mr. [Augustine B.] Kelley [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make

[[Page 7764]]

    the point of order that the amendment is not germane; that it 
    involves a taxation problem, and is not germane to this 
    legislation.

    The Chairman,(6) noting that the amendment merely 
provided another formula for apportionment of funds for schools, 
overruled the point of order. (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 7. For a similar ruling with respect to another amendment to the same 
        bill, see 102 Cong. Rec. 11756, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 
        1956 (ruling of Chairman Francis E. Walter [Pa.] on the 
        germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. Antonio N. Sadlak 
        [Conn.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenue Bill--Amendment To Permit States To Tax Federal Incomes

Sec. 5.11 To a bill to raise revenue for the federal treasury, an 
    amendment permitting states to tax federal incomes was held to be 
    not germane.

    On Mar. 8, 1938, during consideration of the Revenue Bill of 
1938,(8) an amendment was offered (9) as 
described above. Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, Clifton 
A. Woodrum, of Virginia, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9682 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 3048, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
10. Id. at p. 3049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of the pending bill is to raise revenue for the 
    Federal Treasury. Section (b) of the amendment . . . has for its 
    purpose conferring upon States the right to tax Federal incomes for 
    the purpose of raising revenue for the State.

    Citing the principle that, ``an amendment offered to a revenue bill 
proposing a tax for any other purpose than that of raising revenue is 
not germane,'' the Chairman sustained the point of order.

Omnibus Surface Transportation Authorization Bill--Amendment 
    Authorizing Funds for Highway Project With Ancillary Purpose of 
    Facilitating Completion of Flood-Control Project

Sec. 5.12 In determining the fundamental purpose of a bill and of an 
    amendment offered thereto, the Chair may examine the broad scope of 
    the bill and the stated purpose of the amendment and need not be 
    bound by ancillary purposes suggested by the amendment; thus, to an 
    omnibus surface transportation authorization bill, including 
    highway-related projects as well as roadways, an amend

[[Page 7765]]

    ment authorizing funds for construction of those portions of 
    highway projects in a certain area necessary to permit completion 
    of a related flood-control project was held germane since by its 
    terms it was limited to roadway authorization and not separately 
    extended to flood control projects.

    During consideration of H.R. 11733 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 27, 1978,(11) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 32050, 32051, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ertel: Page 119, after line 23, 
        insert the following:
            (c) In any case where an Appalachian development highway on 
        the Federal-aid primary system, is the final section of an 
        approved Appalachian development corridor highway within an 
        urbanized area, transects an unincorporated jurisdiction, and 
        is a necessary element of a flood control project for the 
        protection of a commercially-zoned area containing not less 
        than 70 commercial and industrial establishments which is 
        authorized under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, 
        the Secretary of Transportation shall provide to the State 
        highway department so much of the costs, not to exceed 
        $1,800,000, as may be necessary to permit construction of that 
        portion of such development highway as is necessary to permit 
        completion of the flood control project. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment the gentleman offers is in violation of House rule XVI, 
    clause 7, which prohibits nongermane amendments.
        The amendment seeks to provide moneys for the completion of a 
    flood control project by way of amending the bill providing for an 
    increase in the Federal share for highway construction projects 
    under the Appalachian Regional Development Act.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. The obvious fundamental purpose of 
    the gentleman's amendment is to permit completion of a flood 
    control project for a certain city in Pennsylvania.
        The fundamental purpose of the bill is to make authorizations 
    for highway construction, highway safety, and mass transportation. 
    Flood control projects are in no way within the ambit of this 
    legislation.
        Clearly, the amendment does not relate to the subject matter 
    under consideration. I would direct the Chair's attention to a 
    precedent contained in the Congressional Record July 3, 1968, on 
    pages H11926 through H11927. The bill being read in that case was 
    the Federal-Aid Highway Act to which a Member offered an amendment 
    allowing any Governor of a State to permit the diversion of funds 
    apportioned to a State from highway construction to urban mass 
    transit.
        The Chair in that case held such an amendment was not germane.

[[Page 7766]]

        A basic rule of germaneness is that an amendment must not only 
    have the same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
    contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely allied 
    to the method encompassed in the bill.
        Even assuming that the basic purpose of the gentleman's 
    amendment is to actually complete the highway, this test is not 
    met, because an ancillary purpose is to complete this flood control 
    project. This is not closely allied to the method encompassed in 
    the bill, which is simply highway construction, unrelated to any 
    flood walls or levees.
        A further reason this amendment does not meet the test of 
    germaneness is that it creates a new class by providing relief for 
    a different group of people. Those aided by this bill are motorists 
    in need of good highways, while the gentleman's amendment instead 
    is aimed at providing flood control relief to the citizens of a 
    particular borough in Pennsylvania. Clearly, it violates the rule. 
    These beneficiaries are clearly not in the same class and would 
    rarely if ever be the same people.
        The gentleman's amendment broadens the scope of the original 
    bill by providing a general purpose which is not germane to the 
    specific subjects of the original bill. This legislation builds 
    bridges, highways, and mass transit systems; the gentleman's 
    amendment builds flood control levees. . . .
        Mr. Ertel: Madam Chairman, this is an amendment to complete the 
    Appalachian Development Highway on the Federal-aid primary system, 
    and it is clearly germane to the bill.
        It is true that this is to complete final sections of that 
    highway, and that is the purpose: To build the base for the 
    highway.
        That is the purpose of this amendment, and any flood control 
    project or any flood control benefit which might result has already 
    been appropriated and is incidental. The primary purpose of this is 
    to complete the Appalachian highway regional system in order 
    to connect regional highways together. . . .
        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: . . . I wish to speak 
    against this point of order.
        For the benefit of the Members of the House . . . let me say 
    that I inspected this area myself on behalf of the committee, and I 
    want to report that the Appalachian development highway program and 
    the regional program are part of this program, and this particular 
    link that is to be connected in Pennsylvania is an integral part of 
    the highway program. It had to be approved by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency, and it is part of the comprehensive planning of 
    the Appalachian program.
        Now, the question is whether or not the roadbed per se is a 
    matter of flood control versus a highway.
        You could not complete this program without putting this 
    highway on about a 52-foot fill. It happens to be because the 
    elevation and the terrain is in that direction. Therefore, Madam 
    Chairman, it is obvious that, whether it serves as an ancillary 
    purpose and does benefit the flood situation in the area, you could 
    not complete this highway without building it on the 52-foot fill. 
    Therefore, I would respectfully suggest to the Chairman that this 
    is not, in my judgment, nongermane and the point of order should be 
    defeated.

[[Page 7767]]

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) has offered an 
    amendment to section 125 of the bill, the section entitled 
    ``Appalachian Development Highways.''
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) argues that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) is not 
    germane because it is violative of the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill, which is to build highways and not to engage in flood 
    control.
        The fundamental purpose of the bill is not only to build 
    roadways. This is a surface transportation bill. There are a number 
    of ancillary highway-related activities and projects which are 
    authorized under the terms of the bill.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe), in arguing in 
    opposition to the point of order, has contended that it would be 
    impossible to complete a certain highway without the construction 
    contemplated in this amendment. That the roadbed will be part of a 
    flood control project is ancillary to the main thrust of the 
    amendment. The completion of a highway is apparently its 
    fundamental purpose, since the highway could not be completed 
    without going into a flood control area and completing the highway 
    with the authorization provided in the amendment.
        Consequently, the Chair overrules the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).

Bill Authorizing Federal Energy Research and Development Administration 
    To Conduct Environmental Research--Amendment Authorizing Council on 
    Environmental Quality to Evaluate Environmental Effects of Energy 
    Technology

Sec. 5.13 To a proposition to accomplish a result by one method 
    (regulation by a governmental agency), an amendment to achieve the 
    same fundamental purpose by another closely related method (use of 
    another governmental agency) is germane; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing the Federal Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to conduct a broad range of programs involving 
    energy sources, including environmental research related to the 
    development of energy sources, an amendment authorizing the Council 
    on Environmental Quality to evaluate environmental effects of 
    energy technology was held germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1973 
(13) in the Committee of the

[[Page 7768]]

Whole on Dec. 19, 1973,(14) the Chair, overruling a point of 
order, held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 11510.
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 42618, 42619, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dellenback: Page 55, line 8, 
        insert a new section 308 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 308. (a) The Council on Environmental Quality is 
        authorized and directed to carry out a continuing analysis of 
        the conduct of research and development of energy technologies 
        to evaluate--
            ``(1) the adequacy of attention to the probable 
        environmental effects of the application of energy technology, 
        and
            ``(2) the adequacy of attention to environmental protection 
        in connection with energy processes.

            ``(b) The Council on Environmental Quality, in carrying out 
        the provisions of this section, may employ consultants or 
        contractors and may by fund transfer employ the services of 
        other Federal agencies for the conduct of studies and 
        investigations.
            ``(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall hold 
        annual public hearings on the conduct of energy research and 
        development and the probable environmental consequences of 
        trends in the application of energy technology, and the 
        transcript of the hearings shall be published and made 
        available to the public.
            ``(d) The Council on Environmental Quality shall make such 
        reports to the President, the Administrator, and the Congress 
        as it deems appropriate concerning the conduct of energy 
        research and development, and the President as a part of the 
        annual Environmental Policy Report shall set forth the findings 
        of the Council on Environmental Quality concerning the conduct 
        of energy research and development and the probable 
        environmental consequences of trends in the application of 
        energy technology.''
            Renumber the subsequent sections. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it goes 
    beyond the authority of this committee and goes to the authority of 
    other committees.
        It seeks to authorize money, and it goes beyond the committee's 
    authority.
        I do not have the amendment in front of me, but I was listening 
    to it as the gentleman was reading it. There are a number of things 
    in it relative to the duties of the Council on Environmental 
    Quality, pending the authorization for the funding of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, the hiring of consultants by the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, as well as others.
        It ranges all over the jurisdiction of almost every Member's 
    committee in this Congress besides the one that is handling the 
    bill here, and, therefore, the amendment should be stricken down as 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Dellenback: . . . As the Chairman is aware, the bill which 
    is before us deals expressly with the question of the 
    responsibilities of the Administrator engaging in and supporting 
    environmental and other research related to the development of 
    energy sources and utilization technologies.
        I submit to the Chairman that this particular amendment, while 
    it does, of

[[Page 7769]]

    course, on its face deal with the responsibilities of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, is dealing with this critically important 
    field of environmental research, and it is within the scope of the 
    bill. . . .
        If we are going to open up the field of environmental research, 
    as this bill does open it up, we should be able to deal with it in 
    this way and insure that that which is done is analyzed, 
    researched, and reported back to the Congress.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the language on page 33 of the bill 
    beginning at line 16, covers this point. It reads:

            (4) engaging in and supporting environmental, biomedical, 
        physical, and safety research related to the development of 
        energy sources and utilization technologies;

        The bill thus authorizes the Administrator of ERDA to engage in 
    precisely the type of environmental research which the amendment 
    would confer upon the Council.
        The Chair would like to cite from the House Manual, page 445:

            To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
        method, an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by 
        another closely related method may be germane. Thus, to a bill 
        proposing to regulate certain activities through the use of a 
        governmental agency, an amendment proposing to regulate such 
        activities by another governmental agency is germane (Dec. 15, 
        1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905).

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Granting Powers to Government Agency Relating to Use and 
    Conservation of Electrical Power--Amendment Creating Government 
    Corporation To Perform Similar Functions

Sec. 5.14 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 the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill; thus, for a bill proposing to 
    accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute seeking to achieve the same result is 
    germane where the methods contemplated are closely related, and 
    where additional provisions not contained in the original bill are 
    merely incidental conditions or exceptions related to the 
    fundamental purposes of the bill.

    During consideration of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
Planning and Conservation Act (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole on

[[Page 7770]]

Sept. 29, 1980,(17) it was held that to a proposition to 
accomplish a result by one method (regulation by a government agency), 
an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by another closely 
related method (another type of government entity) is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 885.
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 27832-52, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill reads as follows:

                                   H.R. 8157

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric 
        Power Planning and Conservation Act.''. . .
            Sec. 4. (a)(1) The purposes of this section are to provide 
        for the prompt establishment and effective operation of the 
        Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning 
        Council to further the purposes of this Act by the Council 
        promptly preparing and adopting (A) a regional conservation and 
        electric power plan and (B) a program to protect, mitigate, and 
        enhance fish and wildlife and to otherwise expeditiously and 
        effectively carry out the Council's responsibilities and 
        functions under this Act.
            (2) To achieve such purposes and facilitate cooperation 
        among the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and 
        with the Bonneville Power Administration, the consent of 
        Congress is given for an agreement described in this paragraph 
        and not in conflict with this Act, pursuant to which--
            (A) there shall be established a regional agency known as 
        the ``Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation 
        Planning Council'' which (i) shall have its offices in the 
        Pacific Northwest, (ii) shall carry out its functions and 
        responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this Act, 
        (iii) shall continue in force and effect in accordance with the 
        provisions of this Act, and (iv) except as otherwise provided 
        in this Act, shall not be considered an agency or 
        instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of any 
        Federal law; and . . .

                                     rates

            Sec. 7. (a)(1) The Administrator shall establish, and 
        periodically review and revise, rates for the sale and 
        disposition of electric energy and capacity and for the 
        transmission of non-Federal power. Such rates shall be 
        established and, as appropriate, revised to recover, in 
        accordance with sound business principles, the costs associated 
        with the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of 
        electric power, including the amortization of the Federal 
        investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System 
        (including irrigation costs required to be repaid out of power 
        revenues) over a reasonable period of years and the other costs 
        and expenses incurred by the Administrator pursuant to this Act 
        and other provisions of law. Such rates shall be established in 
        accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Columbia River 
        Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838), section 5 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1944, and the provisions of this Act. . . .

        Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. (James) 
    Weaver

[[Page 7771]]

    (of Oregon): Page 1, strike all after the enacting clause and 
    insert in lieu thereof:

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation Act of 1980''. . . .
            There is created a body corporate by the name of the 
        ``Columbia Basin Energy Corporation''. The Board of Directors 
        first appointed shall be deemed the incorporators, and the 
        incorporation shall be held to have been effected from date of 
        the first meeting of the Board. . . .

                                      fund

            Sec. 22. (a) There is hereby established in the Treasury of 
        the United States a Columbia Basin Energy Corporation 
        Administration Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ``fund''). 
        The fund shall consist of (1) all receipts, collections, and 
        recoveries of the Corporation in cash from all sources, 
        including trust funds, (2) all proceeds derived from the sale 
        of bonds by the Board, (3) any appropriations made by the 
        Congress for the fund, and (4) the following which are hereby 
        transferred to the Corporation: (A) all moneys in the 
        Bonneville Power Administration Fund established by the Federal 
        Columbia River Transmission System Act of October 18, 1974, (B) 
        the unexpended balances of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available for the Bonneville Power Administration. All funds 
        transferred hereunder shall be available for expenditure by the 
        Corporation, acting by and through the Board, as authorized in 
        this Act and other Acts relating to the Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation system, subject to such limitations as may be 
        prescribed by any applicable appropriation Act effective during 
        such period as may elapse between their transfer and the 
        approval by the Congress of the first subsequent annual budget 
        program of the Corporation. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us is one which arranges to deal with the Pacific Northwest 
    power problems through giving certain power to the administrator of 
    BPA, by arranging for the backing of the funding of construction by 
    use of the rate of all the facilities in the area. It sets up a 
    council relating to the planning for energy and for commercial 
    fisheries and it deals with the use of conservation as a mechanism 
    for substituting for the production of new power.
        The gentleman's amendment, on the other hand, is violative of 
    the rule of germaneness because it sets up a mechanism which goes 
    beyond and is not related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    legislation and which, in going toward the fundamental purpose of 
    the legislation, uses mechanisms not authorized and not 
    contemplated and not of the same character as the functions of the 
    basic legislation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman is different in a number 
    of noteworthy sections. For one thing, it sets up a corporation 
    which would be appointed with the board of directors, two to be 
    appointed by the President and a number of others to be appointed 
    by the several States. Apart from the constitutional questions that 
    this raises, the proposal would have a board which would 
    essentially be a corporate body, there being no corporation in the 
    legislation which is before the Committee at this time but, rather, 
    only an advisory council. This board would have sweeping powers 
    roughly equivalent to those of the Tennessee

[[Page 7772]]

    Valley Authority and which are, therefore, much more sweeping in 
    character. The board would be able to function without regard to 
    the civil service laws at page 10 section 5.
        Furthermore, the legislation confers upon the Secretary of 
    Labor the power to determine wage rates and so forth, and 
    compensation, something which is not included in the legislation 
    before us, Mr. Chairman.
        Furthermore, it provides for removal of board members by a 
    prescribed mechanism and requires that the activities of the board 
    be nonpolitical in character. It provides for the acquisition of 
    generating facilities, retail distribution systems, and affords to 
    the board the right of eminent domain, something which is not 
    included in the legislation before us. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, another 
    point, let me also say the amendment is not germane to the bill in 
    that it sets up a Government corporation, a Government corporation, 
    and none is provided for in the basic legislation. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to the main legislation. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . The bill before us sets up a council in which 
    one provision is appointed by the Secretary of Energy, that is the 
    so-called fallback provision, but, nevertheless, it is in the bill 
    that the council, which, by the way, is not an advisory council, it 
    has vast powers, vast powers, to approve the plan and projects, is 
    nominated by the Secretary of Energy, and mine is nominated by the 
    President. So the rule says that the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment must be the same. I maintain the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment is the same because both the bill and the substitute 
    are trying to solve the energy problems by creating a mechanism, 
    energy problems in the Northwest, by creating a mechanism.
        Mine sets up the Columbia Basin Authority which is quite 
    similar to the TVA. I think my substitute is very bad, you 
    understand. It is just that the bill is much worse. It sets up a 
    halfway TVA.
        I support very strongly something else. But if you are going to 
    have a TVA, I offer my substitute, Mr. Chairman, as a complete TVA.

        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would cite section 798(b) of the House Rules and 
    Manual relating to the fundamental purpose as a test of germaneness 
    which says in part:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill. Thus for a bill proposing 
        to accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, a 
        committee amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to 
        achieve the same result was held germane where it was shown 
        that the methods contemplated were closely related and that 
        additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
        merely incidental conditions or exceptions which were related 
        to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

        The Chair would further cite chapter 28, section 2.22 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, and I quote:

            The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
        sub

[[Page 7773]]

        stitute 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 portion of the bill to 
        which offered.

        Finally the Chair would note on page 209 in Cannon's Procedure 
    in the 75th Congress, that to a proposal to create a bureau to 
    administer a program a substitute was held germane which 
    established a board rather than a bureau to administer the program.
        The bill under consideration utilizes the Bonneville Power 
    Administration and a planning council, while the amendment creates 
    a corporation.
        Therefore, on the basis of the precedents cited, the Chair 
    would overrule the point of order.

Bill Addressing Formulation by Agencies of Policies of Energy 
    Conservation--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Fuel for School Busing 
    and Imposing Criminal Penalties

Sec. 5.15 To a title of a bill designed to enable agencies of the 
    government to formulate policies of energy conservation, an 
    amendment prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by 
    any person and imposing criminal penalties for such use was held 
    not germane to the fundamental purpose of the title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(19) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a new section to a 
title of a bill being read by titles is the relationship between the 
amendment and the pending title. The proceedings during consideration 
of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (20) 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Texas: Page 273, insert 
        after line 4 the following new section:

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

            Sec. 450. (a)(1) No person may use gasoline or diesel fuel 
        for the transportation of any public school student to a school 
        farther than the public school which is closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student and which is within the boundaries of the 
        school attendance district wherein the student resides.
            (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section 
        shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 
        one year, or both, for each violation of such subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this

[[Page 7774]]

    title of the bill. It would very substantially introduce 
    administrative duties that are not provided for in any way in the 
    bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. 
    . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a 
    similar amendment in conservation bills before which have passed 
    the House before, and in this particular bill. It comes in 
    conjunction with sections on energy conservation through van 
    pooling arrangements, through the use of car pools. It is an 
    identical type of conservation measure as the limitation of 
    limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title 
    IV. The gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, 
    has cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill 
    during debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is 
    talking only about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 
    specifically this bill itself, in this particular bill itself on 
    page 270, we have a section of this bill which says, ``Energy 
    Conservation Through Van Pooling Arrangements.''
        On page 271, we have a section called ``Use of Carpools.'' We 
    just adopted the Santini amendment, which is related to it. We 
    talked about limousines. We have been talking about transportation 
    and vehicles. Here we are talking about conservation, and we could 
    conserve a great deal of gasoline and diesel fuel. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . I would point out 
    that the bill before us relates to allocation of gasoline. It 
    relates to the conservation of energy. But this amendment adds a 
    criteria category and purpose to the bill which is above, apart and 
    different from anything else found anywhere else in the bill, and 
    that is a specific prohibition of the use of fuels for a particular 
    purpose, which carries us beyond the purposes of the bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the Chair that the nature 
    of the amendment must be such as to notify the House that it might 
    reasonably anticipate it and might be related for the purposes of 
    which the bill is drawn.
        Mr. Chairman, I might add further that the amendment adds 
    criminal sections, imposing, for example, penalties on bus drivers 
    of school buses, and goes well beyond the allocation powers or the 
    conservation powers which are vested in the Federal Government, 
    adding, essentially, a new criminal section of the bill which was 
    not previously before us and which is not in the bill. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    call the attention of the Chair to title VI of the bill, 
    particularly section 605, where we have a section that prohibits 
    the use of natural gas as boiler fuel for the generation of 
    electricity.

[[Page 7775]]

        It would seem to me that here we have a similar type of fuel--
    gasoline--and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) by his 
    amendment would prohibit the use of that fuel in transporting 
    school children. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing 
    I wish to say. We have talked about whether there were penalties or 
    not provided in this bill.
        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consideration to the matters contained 
    in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedures, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7776]]

Provisions To Deregulate Primarily Interstate Sales of Natural Gas--
    Substitute Addressing More Aspects of Regulation of Intrastate 
    Sales and Differentiating Among Large and Small Producers

Sec. 5.16 While the methods to accomplish a general purpose in a bill 
    and amendment thereto must be closely related for the amendment to 
    be germane, where the bill contains a comprehensive and diverse 
    methodology, a substitute changing the emphasis to be placed upon 
    various suggested regulatory methods may be germane; thus, for an 
    amendment comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to 
    deregulate interstate sales of new natural gas and to regulate 
    certain aspects of intrastate natural gas use, a substitute 
    providing regulatory authority for both interstate and intrastate 
    natural gas sales of large producers was held germane.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(2) during consideration of H.R. 9464 
(the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1974) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a point of order and 
held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 2387-91, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as 
    a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Iowa as a substitute for 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Krueger: . . .
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Krueger, insert the following: That, 
        this Act may be cited as the ``Natural Gas Act Amendments of 
        1976''. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Section 2 of the Natural Gas Act is amended by 
        redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as paragraphs (15) 
        through (17), respectively, and by inserting the following new 
        paragraphs. . . .
            ``(13) `Independent producer' means a natural gas producer 
        whose aggregate marketed production of natural gas in the 
        preceding calendar year, together with the marketed production 
        during that year of any affiliate of such producer, does not 
        exceed 100,000,000 Mcf., but such term does not include any 
        natural gas producer whose annual gross revenue, together with 
        the annual gross revenue of any affiliate of such person, from 
        the operation of a pipeline for the transportation or sale for 
        resale of natural gas in interstate commerce or the 
        distribution of natural gas does not exceed 10 percent of the 
        total annual gross revenues of the person or of the affiliate 
        of such person.
            ``(14) `Exempt independent producer sale' means a sale of 
        new natural gas that is produced by an independent producer and 
        a sale in

[[Page 7777]]

        which (A) no natural gas producer (other than an independent 
        producer) has any interest in the proceeds or profits other 
        than a royalty interest and (B) the aggregate of royalty 
        interests of natural gas producers (other than independent 
        producers) does not exceed 20 percent of such proceeds or such 
        profits. The term `exempt independent producer sale' does not 
        include a sale of new natural gas that is produced from acreage 
        in which the independent producer acquired an interest after 
        January 1, 1976; if, prior to the acquisition by the 
        independent producer, a discovery well had been drilled into 
        the reservoir from which the natural gas is produced at a 
        distance from the well from which the natural gas is produced 
        of two statute miles for areas on the outer continental shelf 
        and one statute mile for other areas of the United States. . . 
        .
            ``Sec. 24. (a)(1) Not later than the first day of the third 
        full calendar month following the effective date of this 
        section, the Commission shall, by rule, promulgated in 
        accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
        establish a national ceiling price applicable to any sale of 
        new natural gas in interstate and intrastate commerce by a 
        producer who is not an independent producer. For the purposes 
        of this section, a sale of new natural gas in intrastate 
        commerce means any sale of natural gas pursuant to a contract 
        entered into on or after the effective date of the rule 
        required to be promulgated pursuant to this subsection.
            ``(2) In establishing such national ceiling price, the 
        Commission shall take into account the following:
            ``(A) the recovery of costs, including prospective costs; 
        and
            ``(B) a reasonable rate of return which will provide 
        incentive adequate to attract capital investment and to provide 
        incentive for further exploration for, development of, and 
        production of, new natural gas.
            ``(3) The Commission may, by rule, establish a higher 
        ceiling price in excess of the national ceiling price 
        established under paragraph (1) if the Commission finds that 
        such higher ceiling is necessary to provide special relief to 
        meet extraordinary expenses for deep vertical drilling or other 
        high-cost or high-risk production of natural gas and limits 
        such higher ceiling price to only those persons incurring such 
        additional costs or risks.
            ``(b) The Commission shall amend rules required to be 
        promulgated under subsection (a) from time to time as may be 
        necessary to take into account inflation or any change in 
        circumstances related to the factors specified in subsection 
        (a) to be given consideration in establishing such rate. . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order lodges against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) on the basis that it is not germane to the basic 
    legislation and it is not germane to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) in that while it may seek to 
    accomplish the same end as the Krueger amendment here, even the 
    same end as the basic piece of legislation, it does not contemplate 
    a method of achieving that end that is closely allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill and in the Krueger amendment.
        I cite Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    page 374, paragraph 6, ``Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by 
    Different Method,'' paragraph 6.1 and then again in paragraph 6.17:

            To a proposition seeking to accomplish a result by one 
        general method,

[[Page 7778]]

        an amendment which might indirectly achieve that result but by 
        an unrelated method not contemplated in the original 
        proposition is not germane.

        In both of these instances the germaneness issue goes to the 
    method by which deregulation is to be undertaken. In the Krueger 
    amendment there is no regulation currently of intrastate natural 
    gas, but there is in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith). In section 24 of that amendment, in the seventh 
    line, there is specific reference to the regulation of intrastate 
    natural gas, and there is a difference in procedure of the method 
    by which deregulation is accomplished in that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) achieves deregulation by 
    the source and the type of the gas, whereas the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) attempts to achieve 
    deregulation based on the size of the producer of the gas and, 
    therefore, undertakes an entirely different method.
        Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the two citations I gave, 
    paragraph 6.1, of which says:

            In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
        same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
        contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely 
        allied to the method encompassed in the bill or other matter 
        sought to be amended.

        I do not think that the method undertaken by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) is either a method achieving that end closely 
    allied to the method encompassed in the bill or in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in the fear that I did not make myself clear 
    about what is in the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith), as I had a chance to read it, the Smith amendment deals 
    with intrastate gas, regulating intrastate gas with regard to the 
    large producers, which neither the Krueger amendment nor the basic 
    legislation do.
        Second, the Smith amendment seeks to deregulate on the basis of 
    the size of the producer, as opposed to the definition of the 
    source and the type of item to be deregulated. Therefore, it is not 
    closely allied and attempts to address the issue, but in ways and 
    by methods that are entirely different than exists either in the 
    basic legislation or in the Krueger amendment.
        That, Mr. Chairman, is my point. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . I insist that 
    the point of order is valid, specifically because the Smith 
    substitute amendment provides for new natural gas regulation in the 
    instance of intrastate gas.
        The title of section 24 states, ``New natural gas sales of 
    regulated producers.''
        Section 24(a)(1): Not later than the first day of the third 
    full calendar month following the effective date of this section, 
    the Commission shall, by rule, promulgated in accordance with 
    section 553 of title 5, United States Code, establish a national 
    ceiling price applicable to any sale of new natural gas in 
    interstate and intrastate commerce by a producer who is not an 
    independent producer.
        That goes well beyond the scope, speaks to a question that the 
    Krueger

[[Page 7779]]

    substitute is silent on, and the point of order should prevail. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, very simply, both 
    the Krueger amendment and the Smith substitute amendment define the 
    scope of FPC price regulatory authority through amendment to 
    section C of the Natural Gas Act. Both deal with deregulated gas 
    and with regulated gas. The section of the Krueger amendment that 
    deals with OCS gas creates regulation in that area.
        Both purport to achieve a method by which encouragement of 
    production would come by deregulation, and at the same time purport 
    to keep certain restraints on price by maintaining some gas, some 
    quantity of gas, under regulation, under restriction.
        The two bills in fact come out with almost the same results, in 
    that OCS gas is generally under regulation, under the Krueger 
    amendment, and since it is largely produced by majors, it is also 
    under regulation under the Smith amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the whole thrust of both bills is an attempt to 
    alter and to define the scope of the FPC, both with respect to 
    certain gas which is presently interstate and certain gas which is 
    intrastate.
        The agricultural priority provisions of section 25, oil and gas 
    provisions under section 26 of the Krueger amendment, deal with 
    both interstate and intrastate gas and indeed the original bill 
    deals with both. But the important thing is that, since the Krueger 
    amendment is made in order to a bill, an amendment to the Krueger 
    amendment which is germane to the Krueger amendment is also germane 
    at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair has had 
    some opportunity prior to the offering of this substitute to 
    examine into the problem raised by the substitute and by the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        Essentially, in line with the line of reasoning stated by the 
    gentleman from Michigan and Texas, the Chair has a statement which 
    he would like to read.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) is not 
    germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). The Krueger amendment is 
    comprehensive in scope. Title I of the amendment authorizes the 
    Federal Power Commission to permit a temporary emergency purchase 
    by interstate pipelines of natural gas to meet the needs of their 
    high priority customers, free from the restrictions of the Natural 
    Gas Act.
        Title I also mandates, in its perfected form, short-term 
    allocation and price control of propane whether in interstate or in 
    intrastate commerce. Title II of the Krueger amendment 
    comprehensively amends the Natural Gas Act to deregulate interstate 
    sales of new natural gas, to establish a statutory priority for 
    essential agricultural and industrial uses in interstate commerce, 
    to ban the use of new gas affecting commerce generally for boiler 
    fuel use, to permit intrastate transportation of new natural gas 
    through interstate facilities under certain conditions, and to 
    provide for a study of the entire natural gas industry, both 
    interstate and intrastate, by the Federal Power Commission.

[[Page 7780]]

        The Smith substitute distinguishes in its regulatory approach 
    between new and old types of gas and also regulates intrastate gas 
    sales of large producers after a price ceiling has been established 
    pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the substitute.
        The substitute also contains provisions relating to 
    conservation of natural gas for boiler fuel use, priorities for 
    agricultural and other public service purposes, and emergency 
    allocations which are similar to those contained in the Krueger 
    amendment.
        Volume 8, Cannon's Precedents, section 2964 and volume 5, 
    Hinds' Precedents, section 5841, appear to indicate that to a bill 
    relating to interstate commerce an amendment relating to intrastate 
    commerce is not germane. Those precedents deal however with a 
    situation where a narrow bill or section of a bill directed towards 
    interstate commerce is attempted to be amended by an equally narrow 
    provision broadening that section to address intrastate commerce as 
    well.
        The decisions of the Chair on those instances were founded on 
    the principle that an amendment relating to one designated class is 
    not in order to a bill dealing with another designated and clearly 
    defined class, and have little applicability to the situation now 
    pending, where a comprehensive substitute is offered to a broad 
    measure amending existing law.
        The Chair has already noted that the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) does 
    not only address itself to interstate commerce. The amendment 
    affects natural gas in intrastate commerce in substantial ways both 
    through free-standing provisions of law and through amendments to 
    the existing Natural Gas Act. Furthermore section 203 of the 
    Krueger amendment would amend section 717 of the Natural Gas Act, 
    which section defines the coverage of the Natural Gas Act in 
    relation to natural gas in intrastate commerce.
        It is well established in the precedents that to a measure 
    amending in many respects an existing law, an amendment is germane 
    to further modify the law in another respect germane to the law. 
    For example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with 
    respect to the impact of energy shortages, an amendment to another 
    section of that act suspending the authority of the Environmental 
    Protection Agency to control automobile emissions was held germane. 
    Chapter 28, Deschler's Precedents, section 28.44.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the Krueger amendment 
    substantially changes the powers of the Federal Power Commission 
    under the Natural Gas Act, incorporates within the act various 
    authorities dealing with natural gas in intrastate commerce, and so 
    vitally affects the scope of the act as to allow a substitute to be 
    offered which proposes alternative revisions of the policy 
    directives and specific regulatory powers of the Federal Power 
    Commission under the Natural Gas Act, in order to achieve adequate 
    supplies of natural gas.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7781]]

Bill Authorizing Establishment of Petroleum Reserves and Exploration at 
    Certain Sites for Oil and Gas--Amendment To Require Study of Uses 
    of Public Lands in Reserve for Recreational, Scenic and Subsistence 
    Purposes

Sec. 5.17 For a proposition reported from 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 containing similar provisions and also 
    requiring 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.

    On July 8, 1975,(3) during consideration of H.R. 49 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, held that 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 portion of the 
bill to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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

[[Page 7782]]

        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, 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

[[Page 7783]]

    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.
        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: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        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.

Bill To Promote Energy Conservation, Including Energy Efficiency 
    Labeling of Consumer Products--Amendment Relating to Energy Use in 
    Production of Beverage Containers

Sec. 5.18 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

[[Page 7784]]

    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, (4) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (5)) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against an 
amendment in the form of a new title to the bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      PART A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        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.
        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

[[Page 7785]]

        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.
        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

[[Page 7786]]

    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 because 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: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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

[[Page 7787]]

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

Bill To Authorize National Drinking Water Standards--Amendment 
    Requiring Enforcement of Agreements on International Drinking Water 
    Standards

Sec. 5.19 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, authorizing the promulgation of national drinking 
    water standards to protect public health from contaminants, an 
    amendment requiring the negotiation and enforcement of 
    international agreements to accomplish that purpose was held to be 
    not germane, since it proposed a method not closely related to that 
    prescribed in the bill and involved a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    The proceedings of Nov. 19, 1974, relating to H.R. 13002, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, are discussed in Sec. 6.25, infra.

[[Page 7788]]

Bill Amending Reclamation Law Primarily With Respect To Eligibility for 
    Irrigation Water--Amendment To Require Review of Audit Reports on 
    Water Resource Projects Including Specified Projects To Provide 
    Hydro-electric Power

Sec. 5.20 While ordinarily a bill having a specific fundamental purpose 
    may not be amended by a proposal broader in scope, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title may be germane to a bill as a whole where 
    that bill contains additional provisions not necessarily confined 
    to the primary purpose and where the amendment is within the 
    overall parameters of the bill; thus, to a bill amending several 
    provisions of reclamation law relating primarily to the question of 
    eligibility of water users for increased irrigation water supply, 
    but also containing miscellaneous provisions relating to the status 
    of persons and entities affected by reclamation laws generally, an 
    amendment adding a new title to require the Inspector General of 
    the Department of the Interior to review audit reports pertaining 
    to Bureau of Reclamation water resource projects, including 
    specified multi-purpose projects to provide hydro-electric power as 
    well as water for irrigation, was held germane, based upon the 
    inclusion of diverse provisions in the bill not exclusively related 
    to irrigation eligibility.

    During consideration of the Federal Reclamation Law amendments 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole on May 6, 
1982,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 5539.
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 8933, 8934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 26, after line 5, 
        insert the following new title:

                                  ``TITLE III

                               ``audit compliance

            ``Sec. 301. (a)(1) The Inspector General of the Department 
        of the Interior shall undertake a review of all audit reports 
        prepared by the Department of the Interior since January, 1977, 
        pertaining to Bureau of Reclamation water resource projects, 
        including, but not limited to,
            ``(A) `Review of the Central Valley Project--Bureau of 
        Reclamation'', January 1978;

[[Page 7789]]

            ``(B) `Review of Repayment Status of Pick-Sloan Missouri 
        Basin Program and Individually Authorized Projects'', July 
        1978;
            ``(C) `Review of Municipal and Industrial Water Activities, 
        Central Valley Project'', September 1979; . . .
            ``(2) No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, the Inspector General shall prepare, and transmit to 
        the Secretary of the Interior, and to the Congress, a list of 
        recommendations based upon the review of audit reports which he 
        has conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.
            ``(b) No later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall implement all 
        recommendations which have been made by the Inspector General 
        pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, unless he earlier 
        informs the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
        Natural Resources of the Senate, in writing, of his detailed 
        reasons for not implementing such recommendations.''. . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . I make a point of 
    order that the amendment now pending, offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois, is not germane to the bill.
        This bill deals with irrigation policy. It is not so broad as 
    to encompass all aspects of the reclamation program. We are not 
    writing a comprehensive law to govern all features of reclamation 
    projects.
        The amendment is clearly not pertinent to irrigation. It places 
    a new duty on the Inspector General that is not now a part of the 
    Reclamation Act of 1902, or any act amending or supplementing any 
    part of that 1902 legislation. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would say that, in my 
    opinion, the amendment is germane. The bill before us does address 
    reclamation policy. Part of that is involved in the resolution of 
    these audits that also have to do with reclamation policy and, more 
    importantly, the implementation of that policy.
        The Inspector General has already the general duties, as 
    outlined in this amendment. The Inspector General, as a matter of 
    fact, has made audits in the seven cases that are specifically 
    mentioned in the amendment, and that is (A) through (G), the seven 
    particular projects. Some or all of those have been subject to 
    audit, and recommendations have been made.
        The duty of the Inspector General is not a new duty. The 
    Inspector General is supposed to make audits and make 
    recommendations. This is no new duty whatsoever. And certainly the 
    duty imposed on the Secretary of the Interior is not new, though 
    the implementation and carrying out of that duty might appear to be 
    new. That is the purpose of the amendment--to see that the duty of 
    the Department of the Interior to respond to audit recommendations 
    by the Inspector General is done in a prompt manner. . . .

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: If the Chair would allow 
    me, within the duties of the Department of Reclamation also come 
    water resources, power, and several other elements of energy and 
    not only irrigation; water for municipal and industrial uses, water 
    for recreation, flood control, and many other purposes, many other 
    duties that the Department has besides irrigation.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair is concerned 
    about the amend

[[Page 7790]]

    ment, in that it is not clear what type of recommendations may be 
    implemented as a result of this amendment. If it is a question 
    between auditing power rates as opposed to irrigation rates, that 
    would be a serious question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. J. Pickle (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        But just on the question of germaneness . . . there are 
    provisions in sections 205, 206, 210, and 213 of the bill that 
    might go beyond irrigation policy continued in the reclamation 
    laws. To the extent that this amendment is limited to irrigation 
    recommendations, and since there are diverse provisions in the bill 
    with respect to reclamation policy involving water uses for other 
    than irrigation purposes, the Chair then will rule that the 
    amendment is germane, as a new title, to the committee reported 
    bill as a whole. The Chair overrules the point of order.

War Powers Bill--Amendment To Modify Civil Service Retirement Act

Sec. 5.21 To a bill conferring on the executive certain war powers for 
    purposes of expediting prosecution of the war, an amendment 
    proposing modification of the Civil Service Retirement Act with 
    respect to provisions affecting retirement of employees was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Second War Powers 
Bill of 1942,(10) an amendment was offered (11) 
by Mr. Frederick C. Smith, of Ohio, who stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 1758, 1759, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
12. Id. at p. 1759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Perhaps the most germane part of this whole bill to its 
    objective is title IV. This is specifically designed to preserve 
    the credit of the Government. . . .
        Now, my amendment is also specifically designed to safeguard 
    the credit of the Government. It seeks to save to the taxpayers, 
    and therefore to the Treasury, $44,000,000 annually by repealing 
    the provision in the Ramspeck Act which sets up pensions for 
    250,000 political job holders. . . .

    A point of order having been raised by Mr. Charles F. McLaughlin, 
of Nebraska, the amendment was held not to be germane. The Chairman 
(13) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . has to do with the Civil Service Retirement 
    Act of May 23, 1930, as amended, and would affect the domestic 
    employees of the Government. Certainly there is nothing in the 
    pending amendment to indicate to the Chair that it is related to 
    the subject matter covered by the pending bill.

    Citing a previous statement of the Chair that ``the only proper and 
reasonable test that can be applied in a situation of this kind is the 
subject matter and the pur

[[Page 7791]]

pose covered by the pending bill and the pending amendment,'' the 
Chairman sustained the point of order.

Bill To Increase Strength of Armed Forces--Amendment To Allow Aliens To 
    Enlist

Sec. 5.22 To a bill increasing the strength of the armed forces, an 
    amendment permitting the armed forces to accept original 
    enlistments from among qualified aliens and repealing existing law 
    to the contrary, was held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(14) the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8673, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon H.] Gavin [of Pennsylvania]: On 
    page 21 . . . insert the following new sections . . . .
        Sec. 6. (a) Under policies established by the Secretary of 
    Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and 
    the Secretary of the Air Force are authorized to accept original 
    enlistments . . . from among qualified aliens not less than 18 
    years of age for enlistment periods of not less than 3 years: 
    Provided, That the total number of aliens who may be enlisted 
    pursuant to this section shall not exceed 100,000 at any one time. 
    . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    . . .
        The bill is the Selective Service Act of 1948, and does not 
    contain any provisions similar to those contained in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to the fact that the bill is entitled 
    ``A bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces of the United States, and for other 
    purposes.'' The bill carries sections relating to enlistments and 
    other means of increasing the strength of the armed forces of the 
    United States.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and believes that the 
    amendment is clearly within the scope of the bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance--Amendment 
    Authorizing Military Aid To Further Purposes of Bill

Sec. 5.23 To a bill reported from the Committee on Inter

[[Page 7792]]

    national Relations authorizing funds to provide humanitarian and 
    evacuation assistance and authorizing the use of United States 
    troops to provide that assistance, an amendment authorizing funds 
    for military aid to a foreign country (generally a subject within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) to be used by 
    that country to further the fundamental purpose of the bill was 
    held germane and a point of order against the amendment was 
    overruled.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of the 
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (18) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11509, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
            Page 1, line 6; strike out ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$300,000,000''.

        Page 2, line 2; delete the period at the end of the line, 
    insert a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided that 
    $150,000,000 of such sum shall be available to the President solely 
    for military aid to South Vietnam to provide such protection as he 
    may deem necessary to insure the delivery of the humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation programs authorized in this section.''
        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, military aid to Vietnam is not included in the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. It is under the 
    MACV account and DAV account, and the attempt has been made in the 
    past to vest this jurisdiction in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    The committee does not have jurisdiction over this subject matter 
    and cannot give military aid. As a result, the amendment is not 
    germane, and I make that point of order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This amendment is perfectly in order. This 
    would provide additional funds to the President to use, in his 
    discretion, to provide protection for the humanitarian assistance 
    and evacuation provided in the bill.
        I would invite the Chair's attention to the fact that section 3 
    of the amendment refers in considerable detail to the military 
    appropriations and to military actions, and that section 2 of the 
    substitute provides funds to the

[[Page 7793]]

    President to be used notwithstanding any other provision of law on 
    such terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate.
        The basic legislation and the Eckhardt substitute both refer to 
    legislation that deals with military assistance to Vietnam, and 
    therefore, this amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is within the bill the provision for humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation assistance. The amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) goes to aid, to provide for 
    the delivery of military aid, to be sure, but it is to insure the 
    delivery of humanitarian assistance and the evacuation programs, 
    and in that form the amendment is germane to the substitute, and 
    the point of order is overruled.

Bill Authorizing Operations of Coast Guard--Amendment To Require That 
    Commercial Cargo Under Coast Guard Protection Be Transported on 
    United States Vessels

Sec. 5.24 To a bill authorizing operations of the Coast Guard, an 
    amendment directing the President to ensure that, where Coast Guard 
    protection of commercial cargo is required, such cargo be 
    transported on vessels of the United States which were never 
    registered under the laws of a foreign country was held to be not 
    germane, such matters relating to the subject of commercial 
    shipping, which was within the jurisdiction of the Maritime 
    Administration.

    During consideration of the Coast Guard authorization for fiscal 
1988 (20) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1987,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. H.R. 2342.
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 19013-16, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Davis of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Earl] Hutto [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Hutto] reserves a point of order against the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert W. Kastenmeier (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois: Page 22, after 
        line 11, add the following new section:
            Sec. 26. In any case where the President of the United 
        States, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines that neutral 
        shipping requires the protection of the Coast Guard or other 
        U.S. Armed Forces the President shall, if practicable cause the 
        commercial cargo requiring Coast Guard or other Armed Forces 
        protection, to be trans

[[Page 7794]]

        ported in vessels of the United States which were never 
        registered under the laws of a foreign country.

    Mr. Hutto made the point of order:

        Mr. Hutto: . . . As I mentioned, it is a good amendment. 
    Certainly we can associate ourselves with the remarks of the 
    gentleman from Illinois but unfortunately it does not belong in 
    this bill. It is not germane and is not made in order by the rule. 
    . . .
        Mr. Davis of Illinois: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
    germane. This amendment has been drafted to include the Coast Guard 
    and the Secretary which controls the Coast Guard and the President 
    of the United States.
        Let me just read this one sentence that I think makes it 
    germane--in fact, the whole paragraph does. 'In any case, where the 
    President of the United States, after consultation with the 
    Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 
    determines that neutral shipping requires the protection of the 
    Coast Guard or other United States armed services' - now if that is 
    not an appropriation item, I do not know what is. The U.S. Coast 
    Guard, if called upon - and it does not just protect the 
    continental United States - if called upon to use its vessels to 
    protect reflagged or even chartered vessel bottoms of the United 
    States, chartered to another country, that is going to require an 
    expenditure of Coast Guard funds. I could have identified that line 
    item, but I did not. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert H.] Bateman [of Virginia]: . . . It seems to me 
    there is a great distinction between the amendment now being 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois and the previous amendment 
    which was ruled out of order on the point of order. The difference 
    being that the previous amendment addressed in a specific context 
    whether or not and under what circumstances Kuwaiti vessels 
    proposed to be reflagged would be permitted to be reflagged.
        The gentleman from Illinois' amendment does not relate to and 
    in fact has nothing to do with that reflagging issue which the 
    Rules Committee said would be determined on the basis only of the 
    pending Bennett amendment and the pending Lowry amendment and a 
    possible substitute amendment and that is what I understand the 
    rule to be.

        If I may have just 30 more seconds, this amendment deals 
    prospectively and deals with reflagging generically in the future, 
    not this reflagging which it does not reach but future reflagging. 
    As such, why should we hold back from considering something which 
    is of benefit and is a legitimate matter to be taken into 
    consideration as this country, through the Department of 
    Transportation, makes future reflagging decisions in general.
        Mr. Hutto: Mr. Chairman, I would grant that it does not deal 
    directly with the Kuwaiti reflagging issue. However, cargo is not 
    determined by the Coast Guard.
        In my view, it is not germane and would not pertain to the 
    Coast Guard authorization bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hutto] makes a point of order 
    that the

[[Page 7795]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] is not 
    germane.
        The primary purpose of the bill before the Committee, as 
    amended, is to authorize funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
    1988, as well as to address other provisions including the Biaggi 
    amendment within the purview of the Coast Guard and its operations. 
    The operative part of the pending amendment, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, would suggest that the President cause commercial cargo 
    requiring protection to be transported in vessels documented under 
    the laws of the United States rather than in vessels previously 
    registered in another country. This in effect would create a new 
    form of ``cargo preference'' for U.S. vessels to be determined only 
    by the President, an area of law currently administered by the 
    Maritime Administration rather than the Coast Guard.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment goes beyond the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill to address matters other than the 
    Coast Guard and its operations. Therefore, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill To Stabilize Prices of Housing--Amendment Providing Aid to 
    Veterans in Buying Houses

Sec. 5.25 To a bill to prevent speculation in housing and to insure 
    availability of real estate for housing purposes at reasonable 
    prices, an amendment providing that all discharged veterans of 
    World War II desiring to build or buy a house be issued a 
    certificate for $200 to be applied to the purchase price was held 
    to be germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to housing stabilization. An amendment which contained 
provisions described above was offered by Mr. Emory H. Price, of 
Florida, and a point of order was raised against such amendment: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 1983, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane. It does not 
    carry out the intended purposes of the proposed bill. It provides 
    for the giving of bonuses to veterans to buy homes, at least to 
    those who are fortunate enough to get homes. It provides for a 
    bonus of $200. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the proposal embodied in 
    the gentleman's amendment would even be referred to the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Price [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I thought the purpose of 
    this bill was to provide homes for veterans. I think this is in 
    line with other amend

[[Page 7796]]

    ments which have been offered and is in keeping with the purposes 
    set out in the bill.

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . While a rather close question is involved, the amendment 
    does seem to relate to housing for veterans, which is the subject 
    matter of the pending bill in that it provides for a certificate 
    for a certain amount of money to be applied on the purchase price 
    of a new home or the purchase of materials to be used in building a 
    home.
        Although it is a close question, the Chair is inclined to rule 
    that it comes within the scope of the bill and overrules the point 
    of order.

    The following exchange then occurred: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: The amendment itself shows that it discriminates 
    against a large group of veterans; that the one who is fortunate 
    enough to get a home gets a bonus of $200, but the fellow who 
    cannot purchase a home does not get the $200.
        The Chairman: Of course, that question could not be considered 
    in passing upon the point of order, that being a proper argument 
    for the gentleman to make on the merits of the amendment.

--Amendment Authorizing Establishment of Maximum Prices for 
    Construction Materials

Sec. 5.26 To a bill to insure availability of real estate for housing 
    purposes at reasonable prices, and containing provisions 
    authorizing priorities and allocations of materials for 
    construction of homes, an amendment relating to the establishment 
    of maximum prices of construction materials was held to be germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
relating to housing stabilizations, the following amendment was 
offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 1984, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 12, after line 2, insert the following new section:
        In order to achieve maximum production of materials suitable 
    for use in the construction of housing accommodations the Expediter 
    is authorized and directed to issue a directive on policy to the 
    Price Administrator requiring the Price Administrator to establish 
    within 60 days after the date on which this title becomes effective 
    a maximum price with respect to each such material. . . .

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

        Mr. [A. S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment

[[Page 7797]]

    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska. The amendment he has 
    offered is not germane to the pending bill. It is an amendment to 
    the Price Control Act, which is not before the committee at the 
    present time.
        The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    bill contains provisions authorizing priorities and allocations of 
    materials for the construction of homes. The pending amendment 
    provides for directives for the production of materials suitable 
    for use in the construction of housing accommodations, and so 
    forth.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is within the 
    scope of the pending bill and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing for Minting of Public Coinage--Amendment Providing for 
    Minting of Commemorative Coin

Sec. 5.27 To a bill relating to the minting of new coins for public 
    circulation as currency, an amendment providing for the minting of 
    commemorative coins bearing the likeness of the late Speaker 
    Rayburn for sale to the Rayburn Library was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of certain Coinage Act 
amendments,(9) an amendment was offered by Mr. Ray Roberts, 
of Texas, as described above. (10) A point of order was 
raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 14127 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 30101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Barrett [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The gentleman 
    is talking about minting a coin and making a profit from it. The 
    bill calls for making coins, putting them into circulation, and 
    making no profit.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . provides for the issuance of 500,000 half-
    dollar coins bearing the likeness of the late Speaker of the House, 
    Sam Rayburn.
        The amendment specifies that these coins are not to be put into 
    general circulation but are to be sold to the Sam Rayburn Library 
    for its use. These coins would be commemorative coins intended for 
    sale by the library at a price above their face value, with the 
    proceeds to be derived therefrom accruing to the library's benefit. 
    The purpose of the bill before the committee relates to the 
    issuance and minting of public currency and the disposal of certain 
    previously minted coins withdrawn from circulation and now held by 
    the Secretary of the Treasury.
        The Chair does not think the issuance of coins which, although 
    they might eventually find their way into public circulation, are 
    designed and minted primarily for a private purpose is a subject 
    that is germane to that under consideration. . . .

[[Page 7798]]

--Amendment Requiring Excess Silver To Be Retained for Later Use in 
    Commemorative Coin

Sec. 5.28 To a bill providing for the minting of public coinage, an 
    amendment requiring excess silver to be retained in the Treasury 
    for use in a commemorative coin to be issued for the American 
    bicentennial celebration was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of certain Coinage Act 
amendments,(12) the following amendment was offered: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 14127 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 30101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James A.] McClure [of Idaho]: Page 5, 
    immediately after line 9, add the following:
        Sec. 7. Any silver held by the Treasury in excess of that 
    needed to complete the minting and issuing of any coin under this 
    act shall be retained for use in a commemorative coin to be issued 
    in conjunction with the bicentennial celebration of the United 
    States in 1976.

    Responding to a point of order made by Mr. William A. Barrett, of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. McClure stated:

        Mr. Chairman, there is a distinction between this amendment and 
    the one that was just offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Roberts] in that his called for the minting of a specific 
    commemorative. (14) This amendment is designed to 
    prevent the disposition of the silver by the Treasury Department. . 
    . . This is not to authorize the minting of the coin but to direct 
    the Treasury with respect to the disposition of this silver at the 
    present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the discussion of the Roberts amendment at Sec. 5.27, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is not in keeping with the purpose of the bill 
    before the committee and therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing for Fair Labor Standards for Wages and Hours--Amendment 
    To Establish Committee To Investigate Social and Other Factors 
    Relevant To Labor Standards

Sec. 5.29 To a bill providing for the establishment of fair labor 
    standards in industry by providing for minimum wages and maximum 
    hours, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing that a 
    joint executive and congressional committee be established to 
    examine possible legislative remedies and to investigate social, 
    economic and legal factors rel

[[Page 7799]]

    evant to establishment of labor standards was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of the Wages and Hours 
Bill,(16) an amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
offered which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2475 (Committee on Labor).
17. 82 Cong. Rec. 1679, 1680, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That a commission . . . is hereby . . . 
    directed to be established, and it shall be the duty of the said 
    commission to explore and examine all the fundamental aspects and 
    the potential field of legislative regulation or remedy that may be 
    available or attainable looking to the objective of abolishing or 
    ameliorating excessive and oppressive hours of labor, [low] wages 
    (and the like). . . .
        Resolved, That the said commission, in submitting its findings, 
    shall include as exhaustive report as possible on the social, 
    economic, and legal factors involved in the problem. . . .

    Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(18) In defending the amendment, 
the proponent, Mr. Robert L. Bacon, of New York, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 1680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the substitute which I have offered has the same 
    objective as the pending bill. . . .

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, stated, in response to Mr. 
Bacon:

        Of course, there is quite a lot of difference between the 
    objective of a bill where you undertake legislation and the 
    objective of an investigation which is preliminary to any 
    legislation, if ever.

    The Chairman,(19) in sustaining the point of order, 
cited the principle that ``to a proposal to authorize certain 
activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the advisability of 
undertaking such activities is not germane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Two rulings during consideration of the 
same bill took a liberal view of the requirement of the germaneness 
rule with respect to amendments which use different approaches to the 
achievement of the objectives of the bill. On Dec. 15, 1937, it was 
held that, where a bill concerned the determination of minimum wages 
and maximum hours in industry by an independent board exercising broad 
discretionary powers, an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
provided that such determination be made by a division newly 
established in the Department of Labor was germane; and a further 
substitute amendment proposing to fix minimum wages and maximum hours 
in specific terms without resort to the exercise of discretion by any 
agency

[[Page 7800]]

was held to be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
See the proceedings of Dec. 15, 1937, with respect to S. 2475, 
discussed in Sec. 6.23, infra.

Provisions Requiring Registration and Disclosure by Lobbyists--
    Amendment Requiring Identification Tags

Sec. 5.30 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists but not the 
    regulation of their activities, an amendment requiring lobbyists 
    within a certain distance of the House and Senate Chambers to wear 
    tags displaying their names and affiliations was construed as a 
    further information disclosure requirement and was held germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(20) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was held germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan to the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5 
        line 20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5 
        following line 20, insert the following: Provided however, That 
        any officer, agent or employee of an organization regulated as 
        a lobbyist by this Act who influences, or attempts to 
        influence, any Member of Congress with respect to any 
        legislative matter, shall prominently display on his or her 
        person an identification name tag, stating in clearly 
        discernible print, his or her full name and the organization he 
        or she represents; said name tag shall be printed in not less 
        than 24 point type; Provided further however, This requirement 
        shall only be applicable to those persons who influence, or 
        attempt to influence, Members within 50 feet of any entrance to 
        either Chamber of the Congress while such is in session. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because I do not think it has 
    any relevancy to the bill.
        The distance of how far away one is or whether he or she is 
    wearing a badge of 24-point type has nothing to do with the bill. 
    There are a lot of things it is pertinent to, but not that. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . I respectfully disagree with the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
        This is a disclosure bill. We require people to register and to 
    identify themselves. It seems to me that if we are going to have a 
    piece of disclosure legislation that is effective, we ought to be 
    able to associate names and faces; and that is all that this 
    amendment does.

[[Page 7801]]

    It just implements the disclosure requirements of this legislation. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined this amendment, and it is not the same 
    as the one on which the Chair ruled before.
        The Chair would have to say that this amendment would seem to 
    have as its purpose the disclosure of information by lobbyists and 
    to come within the fundamental purposes of the amendment to which 
    it has been offered.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Placing Ceiling on Contributions to Federal Officials

Sec. 5.31 To an amendment requiring registration and public disclosure 
    by lobbyists but not regulating or prohibiting their activities, an 
    amendment placing a ceiling on their monetary contributions to 
    federal officials is not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(22) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (23) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the fundamental 
purpose of an amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the 
proposition to which it is offered when a point of order against the 
following amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
23. H.R. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 20, 
        immediately after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e)(1)) No organization shall make expenditures 
        reportable under section 6 to or for the benefit of any Federal 
        officer or employee that exceed $100 in value in the aggregate 
        in any calendar year: Provided That, for the purposes of this 
        limitation all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed 
        or retained by the organization shall be considered to have 
        been made by the organization: Provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to any loan of money in the ordinary 
        course of business on terms and conditions that are no more 
        favorable than are generally available or to any honorarium 
        within the meaning of section 328 of the Federal Election 
        Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441(i)).
            ``(2) Any organization which knowingly and willfully 
        violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000 
        for each such violation.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order against the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Mikva), lies, I think, because the gentleman's 
    amendment violates the central purpose of the proposed

[[Page 7802]]

    legislation and that is to provide a method of lobbying disclosure 
    and not in any wise, Mr. Chairman, regulating amounts or providing 
    any ceiling or floor or anything else but disclosure.
        The amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Mikva), clearly violates the intent of the statute in that it 
    imposes duties upon the Comptroller General that would not 
    otherwise be imposed by this statute, or duties of a different 
    kind.
        It imposes a different penalty that would be imposed than 
    otherwise in this statute. It is not clear whether it is a civil or 
    a criminal penalty.
        For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what my distinguished 
    colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary is referring to, but 
    there is nothing in this amendment that talks about the Comptroller 
    General. He may be a little precipitous about something else. What 
    this says, very simply, is that there ought to be a $100 limitation 
    on the amount lobbyists can give as gifts. It excludes honoraria; 
    it excludes political contributions; it excludes all of the 
    nonreportable items. The rules now existing in this House of 
    Representatives--already the Rules of this House--make it clear 
    that no gifts of any substantial value shall be given by a lobbyist 
    to a Member. What this does is define that substantial interest in 
    terms of $100. It is put in the sanctions section, and it deals 
    with the other sanctions that are already in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Chairman, might I be heard one moment further 
    here on the point of order?
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman extends the bill much further than 
    it is already intended, in that he says:
        That, for the purposes of this limitation--

            And again a limitation which is not a part of the purpose 
        of the bill--
            --all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed or 
        retained by the organization shall be considered to have been 
        made by the organization.

        This is a concept not within the proposed legislation, and we 
    think, Mr. Chairman, clearly that this does extend the purpose of 
    the legislation far beyond that of the substitute or H.R. 15, as 
    amended. We feel that the point of order ought to be sustained.
        The Chairman: (24) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reason first stated by the gentleman from Alabama and 
    by the Chair in an earlier ruling on the Ashbrook amendment, the 
    point of order is sustained.

--Amendment Prohibiting Lobbying Within Certain Distances of 
    Congressional Chambers

Sec. 5.32 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute whose 
    fundamental purpose is to require registration and public 
    disclosure by persons who lobby before Congress and the executive 
    branch, but not seeking to regulate or prohibit their activities, 
    an

[[Page 7803]]

    amendment prohibiting lobbying within a certain distance of the 
    Chambers of the House and Senate is not germane.

    During consideration of the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 
1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 28, 
1976,(25) a point of order against the following amendment 
was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 122 Cong. Rec. 33070, 33071, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5, line 
        20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5, following 
        line 20 insert the following new language: ``Provided however, 
        That no officer, agent, or employee of an organization defined 
        as a lobbyist by this Act may lobby on any legislative matter 
        within one hundred feet of either Chamber of the Congress when 
        either body of said Congress is in session;''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not germane to the 
    main purpose of the bill, which is public disclosure of public 
    activities and not a prohibition of lobbying activities. I would 
    also suggest to the Chair in raising my point of order to the 
    gentleman's amendment that additional duties hereunder would be 
    imposed on the Comptroller General than otherwise would be imposed 
    upon him. For that purpose it ought to be also considered 
    nongermane, and the point of order ought to be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I fail to see how the amendment would add 
    additional duties to the Comptroller General. The amendment is 
    simply a statement of exception to the various provisions we have. 
    I do not see it as broadening the coverage of the act. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman would like to read from the report of the 
    committee on the bill which the Chair believes properly 
    characterizes the Bennett amendment as well. On page 8, in the 
    middle of the page, under the title ``Purpose,'' as the gentleman 
    from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) indicated:

            The purpose of H.R. 15, as amended--

        And here the Chair would add the words ``and of the Bennett 
    amendment''--
        is to replace the present lobbying disclosure law with a 
        comprehensive new statute that specifies which organization 
        must register as lobbyists and what information they must 
        publicly disclose. It does not in any manner seek to regulate 
        or prohibit lobbying itself.

        The Chair agrees with the statement of purpose made in the 
    report and in the statement of the gentleman from Alabama.
        Therefore, the Chair thinks that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 7804]]

    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) goes well beyond the fundamental purpose 
    of the basic amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida, and attempts to directly regulate lobbying 
    activities. And the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Prohibit Off-shore Gambling--Amendment To Prohibit 
    Transportation of Gambling Devices in Interstate Commerce

Sec. 5.33 To a bill to prohibit off-shore gambling establishments, a 
    matter of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, an amendment 
    relating to transportation of gambling devices in interstate 
    commerce was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7235 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 11073, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 4, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lee E.] Geyer of California: . . .
        Page 2, after line 15, insert:
        Sec. 287B. Whoever shall knowingly transport . . . in 
    interstate . . . commerce any . . . mechanical device designed . . 
    . for the playing of any game of chance . . . shall be guilty of a 
    felony. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. The bill under consideration concerns the admiralty and 
    maritime jurisdiction of the United States, whereas the amendment 
    deals with matters of interstate commerce, the transportation or 
    carriage of so-called roulette wheels, marked dice, and other 
    paraphernalia used in games of chance across State borders. For 
    this reason it is not germane to the bill.
        The Speaker,(4) adopting the reasoning of Mr. 
    Celler, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Authorizing Funds for Research on Nuclear Winter--Amendment 
    To Designate by Specified Senators' Names Any Science Scholarships 
    Established Under Bill

Sec. 5.34 To an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization 
    bill, authorizing funds for the Departments of Defense and Energy 
    to conduct research on ``nuclear winter'' and to contract therefor 
    with the National Academy of Sciences, an amendment designating by 
    the names of specified Senators any science and mathematic 
    scholarships or fellowship programs established during the 99th Con

[[Page 7805]]

    gress under the bill was held not germane, as unrelated to the 
    narrow scope of the primary amendment.

    On Aug. 15, 1986,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4428 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment, thus demonstrating that an individual proposition 
may not be amended by an unrelated individual proposition. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 22076, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. Wirth: Modify the 
    amendment to read as follows: At the end of division C (page 353, 
    after line 10), add the following new title: . . .

                Sec. 3302. nuclear winter study and report.

        (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
    comprehensive study on the atmospheric, climatic, biological, 
    health, and environmental consequences of nuclear explosions and 
    nuclear exchanges and the implications that such consequences have 
    for the nuclear weapons, arms control, and civil defense policies 
    of the United States.
        (b) Report.--Not later than November 1, 1987, the Secretary 
    shall submit to the President and the Congress an unclassified 
    report suitable for release to the public, with classified addenda 
    if necessary, on the study conducted under subsection (a). . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment, as modified, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Wirth, as modified, as amended:1

        sec. 4005. name of new scholarship and excellence in education 
                                    program.

        Any program established by this Act during the 99th Congress to 
    establish a foundation in the executive branch of the Government to 
    award scholarships and fellowships for study in the fields of 
    science and mathematics in order to further scholarship and 
    excellence in education shall be named for Barry Goldwater, Senator 
    from the State of Arizona, and Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, late a 
    Senator from the State of Washington. Any such foundation, and any 
    board of trustees, fund, or other entity established in connection 
    with such foundation, shall include in its name the names of Barry 
    Goldwater and Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    insist on my point of order on the grounds stated, that it is 
    beyond the scope and nongermane. I state my reluctance in insisting 
    on this point of order, but I think it is proper. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair is 
    constrained to observe that the pending amendment deals with 
    nuclear winter research, and that the subject matter of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington has little 
    relevancy to the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].

[[Page 7806]]