[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§ 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7806-7889]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method

    Formerly, on at least one occasion, it was held that, in 
determining a question of the germaneness of an amendment to a 
proposition, the Chair looks solely to the result sought to be achieved 
by each, and not to the method of accomplishing that 
result.(7) More recent decisions, however, have tended 
toward the construction that, 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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The ruling in this case was that, to a Senate amendment providing 
        for the issuance of national bank notes to increase the 
        circulating medium, an amendment proposing to restore and 
        maintain the purchasing power of the dollar by the purchase and 
        sale of bonds by the Federal Reserve banks was germane. See 75 
        Cong. Rec. 15469-73, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 1932 
        (Speaker John N. Garner [Tex.]).
 8. See Sec. 6.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicable principle at present, therefore, is that, to a 
proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one method, an amendment 
seeking to achieve the same purpose by another closely related method 
is germane. Thus, to a bill proposing to regulate certain activities 
through the use of a governmental agency, an amendment proposing to 
regulate such activities through the use of a different governmental 
agency may be germane.(9) Conversely, one method of 
attaining an object is not germane to another method of attaining such 
object unless the two are closely related.(10) Where, for 
example, a bill proposes regulation of certain activities through the 
use of a governmental agency, an amendment substituting a different 
agency is not germane if, in addition, it authorizes such agency to use 
new and unrelated methods in achieving the purposes of the 
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 7, infra.
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 9287, 9288, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937. The 
        Chair (Jere Cooper [Tenn.]) on this occasion held that, to a 
        bill providing financial assistance to states and political 
        subdivisions thereof for the elimination of unsafe and 
        unsanitary housing conditions, an amendment proposing to amend 
        the National Housing Act in order to authorize the insuring of 
        loans on multi-family dwellings was not germane.
11. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The germaneness of an amendment which takes a different ap

[[Page 7807]]

proach from that taken by the bill in achieving the bill's objectives, 
may depend partly on how broadly those objectives are conceived. For 
example, a bill with the broad purpose of combating unemployment may 
admit a number of quite dissimilar approaches. A ruling that is 
significant for the liberal approach that may be taken in this regard 
was to the effect that where a bill provided for the establishment of 
minimum wages and maximum hours in industry by the exercise of broad 
discretionary powers granted to an independent board in the furtherance 
of that objective, an amendment proposing to fix minimum wages and 
maximum hours in specific terms without resort to such board was 
germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 6.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rulings have indicated that, to a proposition to accomplish a 
certain purpose by one method, a proposition to achieve the same 
purpose by another closely related but more restricted method is 
germane.(13) Conversely, to a provision in a bill designed 
to accomplish a purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish that 
purpose by a method broader in scope is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 6.4, 6.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the fact that a bill and amendment have a similar 
purpose and goal is not conclusive in judging the germaneness of the 
amendment. Generally, to a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one 
method, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane; and it is 
probably not too strict to say that, where the amendment deals with a 
subject to which there is no reference in the bill,(14) or 
which is within the jurisdiction of another committee than the scheme 
proposed by the bill or pending text,(15) a point of order 
based on clause 7, Rule XVI may be 
sustained.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 6.6, 6.35, infra.
15. See Sec. 6.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antirecession Measures: Bill Providing Grants for Public Works 
    Construction--Amendments Containing Revenue-Sharing Provisions To 
    Assist Local Governments in Maintaining Public Services

Sec. 6.1 To be germane, an amendment must not only seek to accomplish 
    the same result as the matter proposed to be amended but must 
    contemplate a method of achieving that end which is closely related 
    to the method contained in the bill.

[[Page 7808]]

    On June 23, 1976,(16) in proceedings relating to the 
conference report on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act, a House amendment was under consideration which had 
been reported from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and 
which consisted of one title relating to grants to state and local 
governments for local public works construction projects. A new title 
contained in the Senate bill and in the conference report providing 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services was held not germane to the House amendment, as 
proposing a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations, and not closely related to the 
public works construction provisions contained in the House version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 26.23, infra, for discussion of the proceedings of June 
        23, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedent for the above ruling had been set on Jan. 29, 
1976.(17) On that date, H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, was under consideration 
which similarly consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. The proceedings relating to the point of order made in 
the House against the title added by the Senate were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr. of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247)) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely different and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not 
    a public works

[[Page 7809]]

    provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations for the basic 
    day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local governments. 
    It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill when it was previously before the House. 
    For these reasons, I respectfully request that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .
        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental method used in the original bill to

[[Page 7810]]

    stimulate the economy is to provide for the construction of public 
    works projects. The methods used in the amendment provide for the 
    stabilization of budgets of general purpose governments, the 
    maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the State and 
    local governments, emergency support grants to State and local 
    governments to coordinate budget-related actions with the Federal 
    Government. Clearly, the methods provided for in the Senate 
    amendment are on their face so different from those in the House 
    bill as to preclude their being considered as the same or closely 
    allied. For this reason, then, the amendment is in violation of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.

        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat unemployment by 
    stimulating activity in the construction industry through grants to 
    States and local governments to be used for the construction of 
    local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the 
    State and local governments and that State and local governments 
    shall not use funds received under the act for the acquisition of 
    supplies or for construction unless essential to maintain basic 
    services.'' An additional purpose of this title is to reduce the 
    necessity of increases in State and local government taxes which 
    would have a negative effect on the national economy and offset 
    reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the economy. The 
    Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by title II of the 
    report is not closely related to the method suggested in the House 
    version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local governments 
    during the present recession.

[[Page 7811]]

    General revenue sharing is a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), 
    and a bill, H.R. 6416, in many respects identical to title II of 
    the report, was introduced in the House on April 28, 1975, and 
    referred to that committee. While committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 4.16--it is a relevant test where, as here, the scope of 
    the House bill is within one committee's jurisdiction. The 
    precedents indicate that as a bill becomes more comprehensive in 
    scope the relevance of the test is correspondingly reduced. The 
    bill, as it passed the House, was not a comprehensive antirecession 
    measure overlapping other committees' jurisdictions, but proposed a 
    specific remedy, local public works construction assistance, to a 
    complex problem. Given the limited scope of the bill as it passed 
    the House, the Chair finds the jurisdiction test quite persuasive 
    in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Antirecession Assistance to States: Different Distribution Formula

Sec. 6.2 To a portion of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute amending a section of existing law to authorize 
    antirecession assistance to state governments based on state 
    unemployment rates, an amendment amending the same section of 
    existing law to provide a different distribution of such grants 
    based on state and local tax efforts, but retaining unemployment 
    rates as the criteria for such grants, was held germane.

    During consideration of the Intergovernmental Antirecession 
Assistance Act of 1977 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, 
it was demonstrated that to a proposition to accomplish a result by one 
method, an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by another 
closely related method is germane when the Chair overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of May 13, 
1977,(1) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 6810.
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 14506, 14603, 14604, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Operations 
    now printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 2. (a) Subsection (b) of section 202 of the Public 
        Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6722(b)) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to the 
        provisions of

[[Page 7812]]

        subsections (c) and (d) of this section, there are authorized 
        to be appropriated for each of the five succeeding calendar 
        quarters (beginning with the calendar quarter which begins on 
        July 1, 1977) for the purpose of payments under this title--
            ``(1) $125,000,000, plus
            ``(2) $30,000,000 multiplied by the number of whole one-
        tenth percentage points by which the rate of seasonally 
        adjusted national unemployment for the most recent calendar 
        quarter which ended three months before the beginning of such 
        quarter exceeded 6 per centum.''. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Paragraph (2) of section 203(b) of the Public 
        Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6723(b)(2)) is amended 
        to read as follows:
            ``(2) Applicable state percentage.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the applicable State percentage is equal to the 
        quotient resulting from the division of--
            ``(A) the product of--
            ``(i) the State excess unemployment percentage, multiplied 
        by
            ``(ii) the State revenue sharing amount
            ``(B) by the sum of such products for all the States,
        except that, for purposes of subparagraph (A), the product for 
        a State as defined in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) shall be deemed to 
        be equal to the product of the population of that State 
        multiplied by lowest per capita factor of any State (as defined 
        in paragraph (3)(A)(i)) determined in accordance with paragraph 
        (3)(E).''. . . .

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Aspin: Page 26, strike out line 1, 
        and everything that follows through page 28, line 10, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 3. (a) Section 203 of the Public Works Employment Act 
        of 1976 is amended to read as follows:

                                  ``Allocation

            ``Sec. 203. (a) In General.--There shall be allocated for 
        each State for each calendar quarter out of amounts 
        appropriated out of section 202(b) for that quarter, an amount 
        which bears the same ratio to the amount appropriated under 
        that section for that period as the amount allocable to the 
        State under subsection (b) bears to the sum allocable to all 
        States under such subsection.
            ``(b) Determination of Allocable Amount.--
            ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of subsection (a) the 
        amount allocable to a State under this subsection for any 
        calendar quarter is the amount which bears the same ratio to 
        the amount appropriated as--
            ``(A) the aggregate taxes of that State, multiplied by the 
        relative tax effort factor of that State, bears to--
            ``(B) the sum of the products determined under subparagraph 
        (A) for all States,
        except that--

            ``(i) the product determined under subparagraph (A) for the 
        State described in subsection (e)(1)(B) shall be deemed to be 
        equal to two-thirds of the product of the aggregate taxes of 
        that State, multiplied by the relative tax effort factor of 
        that State; and
            ``(ii) the product determined under subparagraph (A) for 
        each State described in subsection (e)(1)(C) shall be deemed to 
        be equal to the population of such State multiplied by the 
        lowest per capita product (as determined under paragraph (6)) 
        of any of the States described in subsection (e)(1)(A).

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I 
    make

[[Page 7813]]

    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, the amendment changes the formula in a bill 
    that is described as establishing a new title to the State and 
    Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.
        In the present law, which is commonly known as the 
    countercyclical bill, the Congress enunciated as among its purposes 
    to deal with recession phenomena, and the act is cited as the 
    Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977. . . .
        The formula for State percentages and allocations under the 
    existing bill is based on unemployment in given areas of the 
    country. The bill is founded on a response to unemployment in 
    communities around the country and, thus, the applicable State 
    percentages are based on unemployment.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin) changes the very foundation of that formula and takes it 
    away from the unemployment underpinning and changes it to something 
    else. The gentleman wants to change this bill that is for the local 
    fiscal assistance based on the Public Works Employment Act of 1976 
    and put in a new basis for allocation of the formula.
        I am not sure I know what his basis is, whether it is the size 
    of the community, the size of the people in the community, or the 
    dress of the people in the community, but it has nothing to do with 
    unemployment upon which this bill is founded.
        The gentleman also has other irrelevant bases for changing the 
    formula.
        Thus I would urge, Madam Chairman, that a point of order lies 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin). . . .
        Mr. Aspin: I believe that the points raised by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) clearly do not constitute a point of 
    order.
        The purpose of this bill is to provide countercyclical funds. 
    The trigger in the bill is still unemployment. The amounts of money 
    in this bill are determined by the unemployment rate. Beginning 
    October 1, 1977, the amount of money available for distribution to 
    States and localities will be determined upon the unemployment 
    rate. How many percentages or how many tenths of a percent it is 
    above 6 percent; so the unemployment principle is still in the 
    bill.

        Once the percent has been determined this formula does indeed 
    change the distribution formula and changes it in a way in which I 
    believe it is much better--as I will explain when I have a chance 
    to talk about my amendment--because the unemployment rate is 
    already below the national average and is almost useless. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Very briefly, Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) is 
    founded on the tax effort of communities. It is to that response 
    that I feel and believe a point of order would lie because it does 
    not deal with the basic fundamentals of the existing law which is 
    based on the percentage of unemployment in various communities. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair finds, first, that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 7814]]

    from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) amends the same section of the law as 
    the committee amendment; and, second, finds that the amendment is 
    germane under the precedents since it accomplishes the same result 
    by a different but related method. The use of a different method to 
    accomplish the same result does not in any way offend the 
    germaneness doctrine. The amendment does not remove the 
    unemployment factor which triggers the authorization in the 
    committee bill. For that reason the point of order is overruled.

Aid to States for Public Works: Grants Proposed Instead of Loans

Sec. 6.3 To a section of a bill authorizing ``loans or advances'' to 
    states for certain public works, an amendment proposing that such 
    authorization should be for ``grants'' instead of loans or advances 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Aug. 31, 1944,(3) the following proposition was being 
considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 7471, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        2051 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In order to encourage States and other non-Federal public 
    agencies to make advance provision for the construction of public 
    works . . . the Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized to 
    make . . . loans or advances to the States and their agencies and 
    political subdivisions . . . to aid in financing (certain costs) 
    preliminary to the construction of such public works. . . .

    An amendment was offered as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 7472, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 40, line 15, change the period to a colon and add the 
    following: ``Provided further, That no grant shall be in excess of 
    50 percentum of the estimated planning cost for any individual 
    project''; and, on the same page strike out the words ``loan or 
    advances'' appearing in lines 6, 7, 13, 16, and 25, and insert the 
    word ``grants'' in lieu thereof.

    In response to a point of order, the proponent of the amendment 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the title of this section is ``Public Works,'' 
    and it is stated: ``In order to encourage States and other non-
    Federal public agencies to make advance provision for the 
    construction of public works'' in which case certain loans or 
    advances might be given.
        It seems to me it is thoroughly germane to encourage the States 
    and other non-Federal agencies public in nature and that grants be 
    given in aid of these public works.

    The Chairman(5) ruled as follows on the point of order: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7472, 7473, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair there is a very great difference 
    between loans

[[Page 7815]]

    and advances and grants. The pending committee amendment refers 
    only to loans and advances. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    provision for grants would not be germane to the committee 
    amendment, and for that reason the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Loan Guarantees to States and Cities--Direct Loan to One Municipality

Sec. 6.4 A bill designed to accomplish a given result by one method may 
    be amended by a substitute designed to accomplish the same result 
    by a different but closely related method; thus, to a bill 
    providing loan guarantee programs for all states and subdivisions, 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing direct loans 
    (limited to New York) was held germane.

    During consideration of the Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance 
Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2, 
1975,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above, demonstrating that a general proposition may 
be amended by a proposition more limited in nature, if it is within the 
same class. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 10481.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 38179, 38180, 38181, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: 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. J. 
        William Stanton: Strike all after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the New York City 
        Seasonal Financing Act of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. The Congress makes the following findings and 
        declarations:
            (1) It is necessary for the city of New York to obtain 
        seasonal financing from time to time because the city's 
        revenues and expenditures, even when in balance on an annual 
        basis, are not received and disbursed at equivalent rates 
        throughout the year. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Upon written request of the city or a financing 
        agent, the Secretary may make loans to the city . . . subject 
        to the provisions of this Act. . . .
            Sec. 6. (a) A loan may be made under this Act only if the 
        Secretary determines that there is a reasonable prospect of 
        repayment of the loan in accordance with its terms and 
        conditions. In making the loan, the Secretary may require such 
        terms and conditions as he may deem appropriate to insure 
        repayment. The Secretary is authorized to agree to any 
        modification, amendment, or waiver of any such term or 
        condition as he deems desirable to protect the interests of the 
        United States.
            (b) At no time shall the amount of loans outstanding under 
        this Act exceed in the aggregate $2,300,000,000. . . .

[[Page 7816]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the present consideration of the substitute 
    for the bill on the grounds that it is not germane as an amendment 
    to this particular legislation. For authority I cite chapter 28, 
    section 6.1 of Deschler's Procedure, 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. (116 Cong. Rec. 28165, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.)

        Also I cite chapter 28, section 6.2 of Deschler's Procedure, 
    which says:

            To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
        amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
        method not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. (113 Cong. 
        Rec. 21849, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 196.7.

        Mr. Chairman, I have examined the two bills, although I am 
    under the disability of having had the substitute amendment in my 
    possession only for 2 hours, but title I of H.R. 10481 states first 
    of all in its scope that the bill applies to all States and 
    subdivisions of the United States. Until the recent unanimous-
    consent request by the gentleman from Washington, the bill also 
    amended the IRS code and in one of its titles it sought to amend 
    the U.S. Bankruptcy Act. The substitute proposes only to apply to 
    New York City.
        Title I of the bill sought to be amended creates an 
    Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Board to administer the 
    legislation. There is no such creation of a Board in the 
    substitute, but the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to 
    administer the legislation.
        The entire thrust of the bill sought to be amended, H.R. 10481, 
    is a guarantee of State obligations which the State issues. The 
    entire thrust of the bill now offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    will direct Federal loans to two given entities, New York and New 
    York City.
        As provided in the bill which originally came before the House 
    under the rule there was a method for avoiding default and there 
    were eligibility requirements by which various States and 
    subdivisions must be met and it also allowed State loans to 
    municipalities. There are no such provisions in the substitute. It 
    speaks only of fiscal problems of New York and New York City.
        The bill before us limits guarantees to $5 billion over a 13-
    year period and $3 billion over a 23-year period. The substitute 
    speaks only of $2.3 billion and creates a revolving guarantee fund 
    over 3 years duration which is terminated in 1978, unlike the bill 
    which is sought to be amended.
        Section 111 of H.R. 10481 creates an emergency municipal debt 
    fund. There is no such fund in the substitute. It is completely 
    silent on that.
        Section 113 of the original bill speaks of the recovery of sums 
    loaned by the Federal Government and gets specific on remedies. The 
    only remedy section in the substitute is the general provision 
    speaking not at all about any specific recovery means.
        Finally the original bill provides for a future audit of New 
    York City or any

[[Page 7817]]

    local or State government applying for these guarantees. There is 
    absolutely no audit provision in the substitute. There is rather 
    only the right to inspect records.
        I submit under rulings of the Chair, even though the ends 
    sought are similar, the methods are totally dissimilar and 
    therefore the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. J. William Stanton: . . . The substitute under 
    consideration deals entirely and wholly with the subject matter 
    that has been under discussion here previously and before our 
    committee and these had to do with New York City.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, we do not in our substitute in any way 
    expand the authority for this particular aid and in fact, Mr. 
    Chairman, in many ways we in the substitute limit the amount of 
    authority and amount of money that has been given under this 
    particular substitute and in the particular section of the bill.
        I think what we have in the substitute is subject matter which 
    is germane and more limited rather than expanding the original 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute before us consists of nothing more 
    than a specific amendment to a general proposition. The Chairman 
    stated that as a specific point. I do not believe that this point 
    of order is valid.
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to add on this point of order as to germaneness. There are two 
    propositions we have before us in the bill as it came out of the 
    committee and the substitute on the floor. The substitute on the 
    floor deals with a loan and the bill coming out of the committee is 
    a loan guarantee; but in essence they are basically the same thing 
    in that the only time the Federal Government would be under a 
    liability would be if there was a default of the loan or the paper 
    that is guaranteed by the loan guarantee. So they are essentially 
    the same; the loan and the loan guarantee provide the exact same 
    liability to the taxpayers and to the Federal Treasury. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Maryland has made a point of order that the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is not germane to the bill.

        Now, several points have been raised in connection with this 
    point of order. First, the point has been made that the bill by its 
    terms extends loan guarantees to all States and municipalities, 
    whereas the amendment in the nature of a substitute directs itself 
    only to the problems of the city and the State of New York. With 
    respect to that particular point, the Chair would like to call the 
    attention of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from 
    Maryland to volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents, section 3004, which 
    stands for the principle that:

            To a proposition general in its nature an amendment 
        specific in character is germane if within the same class.

        This was pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William 
    Stanton). It goes on to state:

            To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum 
        appro

[[Page 7818]]

        priation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects an 
        amendment designating specifically the projects on which the 
        sum should be expended was held to be germane.

        The further point is made that a different agency is involved 
    in the carrying out of the particular program. The Chair would call 
    the attention of the gentleman from Maryland to section 6.21, 
    chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    that to a proposition to accomplish a result by regulation by a 
    particular Government agency, an amendment to achieve the same 
    fundamental purpose by another governmental agency was held to be 
    in order.
        Finally, with respect to the difference between the methods 
    sought to accomplish the common result--loan guarantees in the bill 
    and loans in the amendment, there is no quarrel, the Chair does not 
    believe, over the applicable principles. As was pointed out by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 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 in the bill sought to be 
    amended. To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
    amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by another method not 
    contemplated by the bill is not germane.
        The question, therefore, is whether or not the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute proposes to accomplish a similar purpose by 
    a method that is closely allied to the method encompassed in the 
    bill. That question is a factual one of whether or not the loan 
    mechanism in the amendment in the nature of a substitute is a 
    closely allied manner of seeking the same end as the provisions of 
    the bill containing the loan guarantee approach.
        The Chair, after listening to the discussion of the point of 
    order, would have to agree that the method proposed by the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is closely allied to the 
    method proposed by the bill since the concept of repayment or 
    recoupment of Federal outlays is contained in both approaches.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill To Provide Assistance to States for Public Housing--Amendment 
    Proposing Loans to Individuals for Purpose of Providing Better 
    Privately Owned Housing

Sec. 6.5 To a bill providing for national assistance to states and 
    political subdivisions thereof for the purpose of securing better 
    public housing facilities, an amendment proposing that money should 
    be loaned directly to individuals for the purpose of providing 
    better privately owned housing facilities was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a public housing 
bill, an amendment was offered providing that ``The United States 
Housing Authority shall make loans to construct individual de

[[Page 7819]]

tached dwellings. . . .'' The following exchange centered on the 
question of the germaneness of the amendment to the bill: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 9279, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937. Under 
        consideration was S. 1685 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clyde] Williams [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment--that it is not germane to the 
    bill or any section in the bill. This is a public housing bill, and 
    the amendment proposes to loan money to a private individual to 
    build a home. . . .
        Mr. [Peter J.] DeMuth [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    offered this amendment to make a better rounded housing program. 
    This amendment will develop more contented and better citizenry by 
    making home ownership possible for many of those now ill-housed. . 
    . .
        Mr. Chairman, in regard to the point of order, in that this is 
    a public housing bill and my amendment is aimed only to help the 
    public secure better housing facilities, I contend that my 
    amendment is germane to the purpose and intent of the bill.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers an amendment to the 
    pending bill to which the gentleman from Missouri makes a point of 
    order. The pending bill provides financial assistance to States and 
    political subdivisions thereof. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks considerably to change the 
    purpose and scope of the bill in that it would make loans directly 
    to individuals and provides for character loans and various other 
    matters which, in the opinion of the Chair, are not germane to the 
    bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Crime Control Measures: Firearm Regulation Proposed Instead of 
    Assistance to States in Law Enforcement Research and Training

Sec. 6.6 To a bill designed to aid in the control of crime through 
    research and training, an amendment aimed at the control of crime 
    through regulation of the sale of firearms was held to be not 
    germane.

    The following exchange,(12) including the statement of 
objections to the proposed amendment, the response by the proponent of 
the amendment,(13) and the ruling of the Chairman 
(14) on the point of order raised against the amendment, 
occurred during consideration of a bill relating to law enforcement and 
criminal justice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 21849, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1967. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 5037 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13. Jonathan B. Bingham (N.Y.).
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 7820]]

    of order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the text of the bill before the Committee of the 
    Whole provides for Federal assistance to States and localities and 
    improvement of law enforcement.
        There is no language in the bill dealing with any Federal 
    crime, particularly with crime involving the control of firearms.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would also 
    amend title 18 of the United States Code and create a new Federal 
    crime relative to the interstate shipment of firearms. . . .
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the very 
    first purpose of the bill before us . . . is stated in its title as 
    follows: ``To assist State and local governments in reducing the 
    incidence of crime.'' . . .
        My amendment proposes an additional means for carrying out the 
    same purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bingham] urges that the 
    purpose of his amendment is the same as that of the bill--to assist 
    State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime. But 
    it is a well-established principle of the germaneness rule that a 
    common purpose or objective is not conclusive when judging the 
    germaneness of an amendment. . . .
        The Chair concludes that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Bingham] is on a subject not now before this 
    Committee and therefore sustains the point of order.

Energy: Solid Waste Amendments To Bill To Conserve Fossil Fuels

Sec. 6.7 To a proposition seeking to accomplish a result by one general 
    method, an amendment which might indirectly achieve that result but 
    by an unrelated method not contemplated in the original proposition 
    is not germane; thus, to a measure designed to regulate and promote 
    the production, allocation and conservation of energy (primarily 
    directed toward crude petroleum and petroleum distillates but also 
    touching on the use of other energy sources), an amendment 
    providing for the prohibition of the production of non-returnable 
    beverage containers was held not to be germane where nothing in the 
    bill pertained to the control of solid waste or the production of 
    consumer goods.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(15) the Chair held that to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to accomplish the 
conservation of energy resources by the regulation of the production, 
allocation and use of those resources, an amendment

[[Page 7821]]

in the form of a new title prohibiting the manufacture or sale of non-
returnable beverage containers was not drafted to achieve the 
conservation of energy resources by the regulation of those resources 
and was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41755, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Vigorito to the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: At the end of the 
    bill, add a new title as follows:

        TITLE III--NONRETURNABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER PROHIBITION ACT

        Sec. 301. To reduce energy waste which is caused by the 
    production of nonreturnable containers used for the packaging of 
    soft drinks caused by the production of nonreturnable containers 
    used for the packaging of soft drinks and beer, and to assure 
    energy conservation, so that the essential needs of the United 
    States are met, by banning such containers when they are sold in 
    interstate commerce on a no-deposit, no-return basis.
        (a) The Congress finds that the utilization of returnable 
    beverage containers would result in substantial energy savings.
        (b) It is the purpose of this Act to assist in the solving of 
    this energy situation by preventing the use and circulation of the 
    offending types of nonreturnable containers by banning their 
    shipment and sale in interstate commerce. . . .
        Sec. 304. (a) No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer 
    for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate 
    commerce any non-returnable container with respect to which no 
    refundable money deposit is required from the consumer. . . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane because obviously 
    it creates a whole new title. It does not amend any existing 
    section of the bill.
        Second, it refers to nonreturnable beverage containers. This is 
    not mentioned in the existing substitute.
        Third, in effect it constitutes an amendment to the Solid Waste 
    Disposal Act but with regulatory effect, affecting none of the 
    operative provisions of the amendment and any reference to energy 
    conservation; and, finally, the amendment regulates economic 
    relationship between the purchaser and seller of consumer goods. 
    This is not done anywhere in H.R. 11882, except maybe one could 
    argue the windfall profits section might affect that, which this 
    does not purport to amend.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to object and 
    say it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Vigorito [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I think this 
    is appropriate at this time because we are trying to save energy, 
    and we definitely will save energy here, because we are using one-
    way containers, about 60 or 70 billion of them every year, and 
    increasing at the rate of 70 billion every year. One returnable 
    container can be used 20 times. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For all the reasons outlined by the gentleman from Florida the 
    amend

[[Page 7822]]

    ment is clearly not germane to this bill and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Energy Projects and Regulation: Achieving Purpose by Creation of a 
    Different Agency To Administer Provisions

Sec. 6.8 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. Thus, to a bill granting 
    broad powers to the Bonneville Power Administration relating to the 
    use and conservation of electric power in the Pacific Northwest, 
    and establishing a council to approve plans and projects relating 
    to energy planning, commercial fisheries and energy conservation, 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute creating instead a 
    government corporation to perform similar and related duties was 
    held germane as accomplishing the same result as the bill by a 
    closely related method.

    On Sept. 29, 1980,(17) during consideration of the 
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated 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 the 
fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the fundamental 
purpose of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 27832-52, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. S. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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

[[Page 7823]]

        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.

        Weaver: 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

[[Page 7824]]

        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 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. [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. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: . . . 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

[[Page 7825]]

    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: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 
        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.

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

Sec. 6.9 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

[[Page 7826]]

    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 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 19, 
1973,(1) the Chair, overruling a point of order, held the 
following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11510.
 1. 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. . . .

[[Page 7827]]

        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 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: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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 To Extend Federal Energy Administration--Amendment To Abolish 
    Agency and Transfer Functions

Sec. 6.10 To a bill reenacting a law to extend the existence of the 
    Federal Energy Administration, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute abolishing the agency and some of its functions and 
    transferring other functions to existing agencies was held to be 
    germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a

[[Page 7828]]

substitute was offered which itself provided for termination of the 
agency and the transfer of certain of its functions to other agencies--
matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of committees other than 
that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                           abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            (1) The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and 
        Analysis, Energy Conservation and Environment, and 
        International Energy Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy 
        Research and Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior.
            (3) The functions of the Office of Regulatory Programs 
        (including the Office of Private Grievances and Redress) shall 
        be transferred to the Federal Power Commission. . . .

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

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment be germane to the bill which is before the House both 
    as to the place in the bill to which the germaneness question 
    arises, and the amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a 
    whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give

[[Page 7829]]

    notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably anticipate 
    in the sense of amendments which might be presented to them. . . .
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . Committee 
    jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the original bill 
    is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute, which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    Committee jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government 
    Operations Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the 
    germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its 
    relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily 
    determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
    which, if considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction 
    of another committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill 
    continuing and reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to 
    the existing act sought to be continued was held to be germane to 
    the pending bill--VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. 
    To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications of that law may be germane--April 
    23, 1969; February 19, 1975.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the 
    House under rule X(i)(3) give the Committee on Government 
    Operations jurisdiction over the reorganizations in the executive 
    branch of the Government. The bill we have before us is an 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce bill. Therefore, the Schroeder 
    amendment is nongermane because it involves matter not before the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The title of the bill before us, both as it was originally 
    drawn and as it is amended, does only two things, and as amended it 
    reads:

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

        The other purposes are not accomplished in the legislation or 
    the lan

[[Page 7830]]

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

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

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

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

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) is not germane to 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 
    12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.

[[Page 7831]]

        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.

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

[[Page 7832]]

Energy Conservation: Different Classes of Tax Incentives

Sec. 6.11 To a title of a bill containing several taxes and tax credits 
    and having energy conservation as its fundamental purpose, amended 
    to include a section imposing a civil penalty on fuel-inefficient 
    cars, an amendment repealing the oil depletion tax credit in order 
    to increase federal revenues and to discourage petroleum production 
    was held not to fall within the class of energy conservation 
    provisions in that title and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on June 13, 
1975,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6860.
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 18817, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons:

        Sec. --. Repeal of Percentage Depletion on Oil and Gas Royalty 
                                    Income.

            (a) Subsection (d) of section 613A of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1954 (relating to persons entitled to percentage 
        depletion on 2,000 barrels of oil per day) is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Royalty Income Excluded.--Subsection (c) shall not 
        apply to income derived from a nonoperating mineral interest as 
        defined in section 614. In applying such definition for 
        purposes of this paragraph, the taxpayer's share of the costs 
        of production of the oil or gas shall be treated as zero if his 
        percentage share of such costs is substantially less than his 
        percentage share of the production.''. . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the subject of a 
    depletion allowance is very definitely not germane to either this 
    title or to the bill. There is nothing in this title that in any 
    way relates to that section of the code. There is nothing in this 
    title that in any way relates to the kind of tax treatment the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) refers to in his amendment.
        This is a title that deals with tax credits. The depletion 
    allowance is not a tax credit. This title deals with fuel 
    conservation, and the depletion allowance is not a conservation 
    matter.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Gibbons) is not germane to either this title or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gibbons: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this 
    bill deals with taxes, it deals with tax credits, it deals with tax 
    deductions, it deals with all kinds of tax matters. It is 
    intimately infected with the oil and gas problem, and this 
    amendment deals with that oil and gas problem. It deals with 
    conservation of fuel. This amendment would have the effect of pro

[[Page 7833]]

    moting conservation because the royalty owner would not be taxed 
    through a tax subsidy when the royalty is granted. For these 
    reasons I think the amendment is germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) well knows, under 
    the rule governing the consideration of amendments to this bill, 
    any amendment, of course, must be germane to the pending title. 
    Here we have title III and, as the gentleman well knows, in this 
    title the bill deals with tax credits and other matters, but not 
    depletion allowance matters.
        This is not a tax, or the same kind of tax, as those contained 
    in the pending title, and since it is not a tax designed to 
    accomplish the same purpose as those in this title and is not of 
    the same class as those contained in the pending title, the Chair 
    must sustain the point of order, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rule providing for the consideration of 
the bill specified that only amendments which had been printed in the 
Record could be offered. While the amendment was printed in the Record, 
it was printed as an amendment to title V, not title III, and would 
therefore have been subject to a point of order on that ground.

Energy Conservation: Rebates to Purchasers in Lieu of Regulatory 
    Measure To Promote Fuel Efficient Automobiles

Sec. 6.12 To an amendment designed to accomplish a result by one 
    method, an amendment thereto designed to accomplish a related 
    result but by a different and unrelated method is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a title of 
    a bill designed to conserve energy through the imposition of civil 
    penalties on manufacturers of low miles-per-gallon autos, an 
    amendment thereto designed to conserve energy through tax rebates 
    to purchasers of high miles-per-gallon autos was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (8) in the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 
1975,(9) Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained 
a point of order and ruled that the following amendment was not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6860.
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 18695, 18698, 18701, 18702, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip R.] Sharp [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7834]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp: Page 58, strike out line 4 
        and all that follows down through line 20 on page 71 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: . . .
            (b)(1)(A) Any manufacturer who the Secretary determines 
        under subsection (a) to have violated a provision of section 
        302(a)(1) of this Act, shall be liable [for a] civil penalty 
        equal to [a specified amount] per gallon by which the average 
        fuel economy of the automobile manufactured by such 
        manufacturer during such model year is exceeded by the 
        applicable average fuel economy standard established under 
        section 302(a)(1) of this Act, multiplied by (ii) the total 
        number of automobiles manufactured by such manufacturer during 
        such model year. Such penalty shall be assessed by the 
        Secretary and collected in a civil action brought by the 
        Attorney General. . . .
            (2) Any person who the Secretary determines after 
        opportunity for presentation of data, views, and arguments to 
        have violated a provision of section 305 of this Act, other 
        than paragraph (1) thereof, shall be liable to the United 
        States for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each 
        violation; each day of a continuing violation constituting a 
        separate violation. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Sharp: Page 24, after line 5, insert the following:

                rebate for fuel efficient passenger automobiles

            Sec. 308. (a) The Secretary, in accordance with rules he 
        shall prescribe, shall pay to each person a rebate with respect 
        to each domestically manufactured passenger automobile which is 
        purchased by such person after August 31, 1976, determined in 
        accordance with the following table:
            (1) In the case of a 1976 model year passenger automobile:
            [If the fuel economy rate is at least 21.5 but less than 
        26.5, the rebate is $100; if the fuel economy rate is at least 
        26.5, the rebate is $200.]
            (c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, in the first place 
    this amendment is not germane to the Sharp amendment. Under the 
    special rule, only germane amendments to the Sharp amendment would 
    be in order. This is not germane.

        Second, Mr. Chairman, it violates our international GATT 
    obligations and treaties.
        Third, it violates the budget authority under Public Law 93-344 
    which says that it shall not be in order in either the House or 
    Senate to consider any bill or resolution which provides new 
    spending authority, described in section (c)(2)(c), ``Or any 
    amendment which provides such new spending authority which is to 
    become effective before the first day of the fiscal year or of the 
    calendar year in which the resolution was reported.''
        For those reasons, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Under the rule, Mr. 
    Chairman, the only amendments which are germane to the Sharp 
    amendment are in order at this time. The reading of the amendment 
    makes it very clear that the amendment directs, and I quote:

[[Page 7835]]

            The secretary shall pay to each person a rebate with 
        respect to each domestically manufactured passenger automobile 
        which is purchased by such person after August 31, 1976, 
        allowed in accordance with the following table:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment fails on three grounds. It is, 
    first of all, essentially an appropriation, because there is 
    nowhere in there authorization for the expenditure of money--simply 
    a direction to the Secretary to pay money. This, therefore, 
    constitutes an appropriation of funds, and as such, constitutes an 
    amendment which would direct an appropriation and an expenditure of 
    money without a piece of legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, it fails in two other particulars to meet the 
    requirements of the rules of germaneness.
        First of all, in an amendment that sets up standards of 
    automobile efficiency and civil penalties, this would add a 
    direction to pay money. Obviously, that is not the type of 
    amendment or legislation which might be anticipated by Members. So 
    it fails the second test.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, it is a proposal which would logically 
    have gone to the Committee on Appropriations, as opposed to having 
    come to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which 
    would have had jurisdiction over the Sharp amendment, or to the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the main 
    piece of legislation.
        As such, it fails the test of notice to the membership, which 
    is one of the inherent tests of germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: . . . I do think the amendment is germane. In 
    point of fact, a very similar amendment was offered in the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and it was found to 
    be germane. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Michigan . . . 
    in his original bill, had such a provision in the bill. I do not 
    think the gentleman will deny it.
        Mr. Chairman, this specifically contemplates authorization. It 
    is not an appropriation. It says there shall be authorized to spend 
    such money as may be appropriated.
        With respect to the budget resolution, I understand there is 
    nothing to prohibit offering such and the House adopting a new 
    provision which goes above the budget, but we have to make 
    adjustments like that.
        So I would ask that the various points of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The question involved pertains to the germaneness of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger).
        In Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 6.2, we find the 
    following provision:

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

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) provides for a rebate to the purchaser. This amendment 
    approaches the issue in a way completely unrelated to the Sharp 
    amendment, which imposes a civil penalty upon the manufacturer.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. 
    The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 7836]]

Bill To Promote Conversion From Petroleum to Coal as Energy Source--
    Amendment To Provide Government Aid to Private Industry for 
    Construction of Facilities for Liquefaction of Coal

Sec. 6.13 To a bill designed to increase supplies of fossil fuels, and 
    increase the use of domestic energy supplies other than petroleum 
    through conversion to coal, and containing an entire title dealing 
    with industrial conversion from oil and gas to coal, an amendment 
    adding a new title providing government loans and other assistance 
    to private industry for the construction and operation of 
    facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of coal was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 
(H.R. 7014), an amendment was offered to add a new title to the bill to 
which a point of order was raised and overruled. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 29338-41, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the form of a new title to title VIII.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter: On page 356, line 6, 
        insert the following new Title and renumber subsequent Titles 
        accordingly:

           TITLE VIII--COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 801. (a) The Administrator shall establish a program 
        of assistance to private industry for the construction and 
        operation of one or more facilities for the liquefaction and 
        gasification of coal. In order to effectuate such program, the 
        Administrator may make loans and issue guarantees to any person 
        for the purpose of engaging in the commercial operation of 
        facilities designed for the liquefaction or gasification of 
        coal.
            (b)(1) For the purpose of making loans or issuing 
        guarantees under this section, the Administrator shall consider 
        (A) the technology to be used by the person to whom the loan or 
        guarantee is made or issued, (B) the production expected, (C) 
        reasonable prospect for repayment of the loans. . . .
            Sec. 802. (a) The Administrator is authorized. . . .
            (3) Each lease shall further provide that the lessee shall 
        have options to purchase the facilities at any time within ten 
        years after the date of the respective lease at a price to be 
        agreed upon by the parties. Each option shall be conditioned, 
        however, upon the right of the Administrator within the ten-
        year term to offer the facilities for sale at public auction 
        and the lessee shall be entitled to purchase the facilities if 
        he meets the highest bona fide offer in excess of the agreed 
        option price. In order that an offer may be considered bona

[[Page 7837]]

        fide, it shall be offered by a bidder who shall have been 
        determined by the Administrator to be financially and 
        technically qualified to purchase and operate the facilities. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The point of order is as follows: A reading of the amendment 
    will show that under subsection 801(a), it would authorize a very 
    large program of loans and grants for the construction and 
    operation of facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of 
    coal.
        Nowhere else in the bill are there loans and grants, and 
    nowhere else in the bill are there provisions for that kind of 
    stimulus for the construction of facilities for the liquefaction or 
    gasification of coal.
        In addition to these loans and guarantees, the Administrator is 
    vested with authority to guarantee performance of contracts of 
    persons receiving loans from the administration for the purchase, 
    construction, and acquisition of equipment and supplies necessary 
    to construct and operate such a facility. This again, Mr. Chairman, 
    is not within the purview of the bill.
        In addition to this, construction plans and construction of 
    facilities, further down under (d)(2), could be financed in whole 
    or in part, including exploration and development.
        In addition to this, the possibility of exemptions and 
    exceptions from the air and water pollution laws are included under 
    (c)(2)(d), or, rather, under paragraph (d).
        To go along further, by no stretch of the imagination could my 
    colleagues be anticipated to anticipate an amendment of this kind 
    and character coming to this bill and relating to the air and water 
    pollution laws. Indeed the language is sufficiently broad to make 
    this exempt from State statutes, as well as from Federal statutes, 
    and that is a matter clearly not before the committee at this 
    particular time. Then we have the question of compliance with 
    Federal and State air pollution laws. . . .
        In addition to this, under section 802(a)(3), the amendment 
    provides for acquisition of private interests in all such 
    facilities as may have heretofore been constructed or acquired 
    relating to gasification of coal and other types of energy uses. 
    Again this goes far beyond the scope and sweep of the bill before 
    the committee.
        Again, under section 802(b)(1), these facilities could then be 
    leased or rented under conditions and terms as agreed on by and 
    between the parties, apparently without regard to existing Federal 
    statutes relating to the sale, leasing, or disposal of real estate, 
    and that is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of other 
    committees and which is the subject of control under other statutes 
    not presently before the House and not mentioned or alluded to in 
    the provisions of H.R. 7014 now before the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: As much as I am reluctant to 
    do so, I would have to suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee 
    that I think that the gentleman's amendment is germane.
        I would like to cite the provisions of the purposes of the act, 
    section 102. Item (3) in that section says, ``to in

[[Page 7838]]

    crease the supply of fossil fuels in the United States, through 
    price incentives and production requirements.''
        The gentleman's amendment squares, it seems to me, specifically 
    with that. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) has pointed 
    out, item (6) says ``to increase the use of domestic energy 
    supplies other than petroleum products and natural gas through 
    conversion to the use of coal.''
        This would certainly encourage the use of coal.
        Section 606 in the bill provides similar incentives to those 
    provided by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) for coal mines. Pollution requirements would not be 
    overridden by the legislation or the legislative modification of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky unless specified, that is, those 
    existing pollution requirements would not be overridden unless they 
    were specified in the amendment, and they are not specified in the 
    amendment. They would, therefore, continue to apply.
        It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky specifically does encourage the development and use of 
    additional fossil fuels by the various provisions in his amendment 
    and that those provisions are in the bill and have been added by 
    other amendments, and, therefore, would be germane to this 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For substantially the reasons just outlined by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and in view of the fact that title III has 
    several provisions going to the general issue of maximizing 
    availability of energy supplies, including coal, and, as pointed 
    out, title VI encourages industrial conversion from oil and gas to 
    coal, for example, by a similar loan guarantee mechanism as 
    proposed in the amendment, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    inserting a new title is germane to the bill under consideration 
    and overrules the point of order.

Agricultural Credit: Reappropriation in Lieu of New Budget Authority

Sec. 6.14 It is not germane to change a direct appropriation of new 
    budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury into a 
    reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 7839]]

    On Feb. 28, 1985,(12) during consideration of H.R. 1189 
(13) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Alan D. Wheat, of 
Missouri, sustained a point of order against a motion to recommit the 
bill with instructions to the committee of jurisdiction. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 4133, 4134, 4146, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation, fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 1189

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
    be cited as the ``Emergency Agricultural Credit Appropriations 
    Act''.

                         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                        Farmers Home Administration

                     agricultural credit insurance fund

        For an additional amount for guaranteed loans under this fund 
    in accordance with and subject to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1928-
    1929, $1,000,000,000, which shall be in addition to the 
    $150,000,000 provided in Public Law 98-396 and the $500,000,000 
    made available by Public Law 98-473. Such funds shall be available 
    in order that farm producers may obtain the necessary financing for 
    calendar 1985 operations. Such funds shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans and the reduction in rate of interest. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1189, to the 
        Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        committee to report the bill back to the House forthwith, with 
        the following amendment.
            On page 2, in line 10, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert 
        ``to be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
        Energy Security Reserve.''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions in 
    that it attempts to propose as instructions, language which would 
    not have been in order directly as an amendment during the reading 
    of the bill. The instructions include what is in effect a 
    rescission which was not considered by the House and which would 
    have violated clause 7 of rule XVI if there had been a reading of 
    the bill for amendment.
        The bill under consideration provides supplemental 
    appropriations for fiscal year 1985. The gentleman's instructions 
    would rescind funds appropriated in fiscal year 1980 for the 
    Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a matter clearly not related to this 
    bill.
        Mr. Speaker, because the motion contains language not in order 
    during consideration of the bill in the House, I believe it 
    violates the germaneness rule of the House. I ask for a ruling of 
    the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    point of order should be overruled. An amendment in a motion to 
    recommit with instructions

[[Page 7840]]

    must be germane to the bill as a whole. Although the amendment does 
    affect previously appropriated funds, so do several provisions of 
    the bill itself.
        On page 2, in lines 15 through 18, there is language that 
    provides that funds in the bill ``shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans.'' This language directly affects loans 
    guaranteed with funds under existing law.
        On page 3, in lines 2 through 14, there is language which 
    provides for ``review of FATM loans,'' and ``deferral of principal 
    and interest and the foregoing of foreclosure.'' This language 
    directly affects loans held by the Farmers Home Administration.
        On page 4, in lines 2 through 5, there is language directing 
    the administrator of the Small Business Administration to use loan 
    guarantee authority to restructure existing loans.
        Taken as a whole, the bill clearly affects the use of 
    previously appropriated funds and authority. My amendment, which 
    also affects previously appropriated funds, is germane, and 
    therefore I ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order that 
    the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is not germane to the bill H.R. 1189. The bill reported 
    from the Committee on Appropriations provides only new budget 
    authority for emergency agricultural credit. The bill does not 
    directly transfer or reappropriate any unexpended balances of 
    appropriations nor does it rescind previously appropriated funds.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the effect of the motion to 
    recommit is to decrease sums already appropriated for a program--
    Synfuels payments for future defaults on loans guaranteed pursuant 
    to the Energy Security Act--totally unrelated to the program under 
    consideration--farm credit--and to convert into immediate budget 
    outlays obligational authority which was not intended to represent 
    any outlays except in the event of a future default. The amendment 
    in the motion to recommit has the effect of transferring the 
    original appropriation for Synfuels loan guarantees, a proposition 
    not contemplated in the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The pending bill was not a general 
appropriation to which clause 6 of Rule XXI would apply. Otherwise, the 
amendment would clearly have been a reappropriation in violation of 
that rule.

Bill Authorizing Agricultural Loans To Encourage Farm Ownership--
    Amendment Directing Federal Land Banks To Transfer Designated 
    Property for Resale

Sec. 6.15 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
    loans for the purpose of enabling certain persons to acquire farms, 
    an amend

[[Page 7841]]

    ment directing the federal land banks to transfer designated real 
    property to the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of resale 
    was held to be not germane.

    On June 29, 1937,(14) the House was considering a bill 
designed to encourage and promote ownership of farm homes. An amendment 
was offered (15) directing the transfer of certain land 
owned by the federal land banks, for purposes of resale by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. The germaneness of the amendment was 
discussed in the following exchange: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 81 Cong. Rec. 6574-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7562 (Committee on Agriculture).
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 6577, 6578, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1937.
16. Id. at p. 6578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . It would authorize 
    acquiring land from the Federal land banks and the trading of stock 
    in the banks. These are not involved in this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Otha D.] Wearin [of Iowa]: . . . I desire to call the 
    attention of the Chair to the enacting clause of this bill, which 
    specifies that it is an act to encourage and promote ownership of 
    farm homes. It can be seen that the enacting clause itself, 
    therefore, does not set out that this proposed act provides 
    exclusively for loans. It says it is a provision to encourage and 
    promote the ownership of farm lands, which is precisely what my 
    amendment does.
        The Chairman [William J. Driver, of Arkansas]: . . . It is true 
    that this amendment seems to direct the thought to the same 
    purpose, the acquisition of land for the purpose of placing the 
    same in the hands of tenants, sharecroppers, and so forth, for the 
    purpose of providing farm homes for that class of citizens; but 
    there is a very distinct difference in the provision for the 
    acquisition of such homes under the terms of this amendment and the 
    provisions of the bill. One is the purchase of a home direct by the 
    tenant and the furnishing of the money by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture for the purpose of enabling him to acquire the title. 
    In this amendment, however, new machinery is set up for the purpose 
    of operating with property that was not considered at all in the 
    bill under consideration. New machinery is brought into life and 
    authorized to operate in connection with the use of properties 
    owned by a separate and distinct agency of the Government.
        The Chair, therefore, is of the opinion that this amendment is 
    not germane to the provisions of the bill under consideration. . . 
    .

Proposition and Amendment as Stating Different Formulas for Acreage 
    Reserve Programs and Affecting Different Feed Grains

Sec. 6.16 To a proposition stating a formula for establishing a minimum 
    acreage allotment

[[Page 7842]]

    for corn and relating to acreage reserve programs for diverted 
    acres and for feed grains, an amendment providing another formula 
    for acreage reserves and containing provisions as to other feed 
    grains was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill was under consideration which sought 
to establish a minimum acreage allotment for corn and to provide 
acreage reserve programs for diverted acres and for feed grains. An 
amendment was also pending which provided an alternative formula for 
establishing a minimum acreage allotment for corn and containing 
provisions relating to acreage reserve programs for diverted acres. To 
such amendment, which was in the nature of a substitute, the following 
amendment was offered:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3580, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4901 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas] to the 
    substitute offered by Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: 
    At the end of the pending amendment add the following new section:
        Sec. 2. Section 103(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
    amended to read as follows:
        (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to 
    all other programs authorized by this act, the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to formulate and carry out an acreage-
    reserve program for 1957 for acreage diverted from the production 
    of each of the commodities specified in subsection (a) of this 
    section except corn produced in the commercial corn-producing area. 
    Individual farms may participate in such acreage-reserve program 
    for diverted acres up to (a specified acreage). . . . For purposes 
    of this subsection the measure of feed grain acreage on the farm 
    shall be the average acreage planted in the 3 most recent years, 
    adjusted for unusual weather conditions, to the following crops for 
    harvest as grain: Corn produced outside the commercial corn-
    producing area, wheat produced on farms to which marketing quotas 
    are not applicable, grain sorghums, barley, rye, and oats.

    The following point of order was raised against such amendment:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the Poage amendment for the reason that it 
    introduces matter not covered in the amendment which it seeks to 
    amend. The amendment as offered deals only with corn as one 
    commodity. The gentleman's amendment to that seeks to broaden that 
    to include feed grain.

    The proponent of the amendment defended the amendment as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 3580, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: . . . The Harrison (19) amendment has for 
    its purpose the

[[Page 7843]]

    control of excess corn. . . . The Poage amendment adopts another 
    means of controlling the excess supply of corn. Since they are both 
    directed at achieving the same result, I submit the amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Some confusion arose from the fact that the Poage amendment, while 
        intended as an amendment to the Harrison amendment, was 
        actually offered as an amendment to the Cooley amendment, which 
        was itself a substitute for the Harrison amendment. Mr. Poage 
        subsequently reintroduced his amendment as an amendment to the 
        Harrison amendment (see 103 Cong. Rec. 3581, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 13, 1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (20) 
stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Lawrence Brooks Hays (Ark.).
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 3581, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question touches the germaneness of the formula or plan 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage] as an amendment to 
    the plan offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley]. 
    As the gentleman from Texas says, it is related to the corn 
    program. It differs as to method, and since it differs as to method 
    and not in substance, it is related to the purposes of the 
    legislation, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Regulating Marketing of Agricultural Products--Amendment To Fix 
    Prices After Determinations Made by Secretary of Agriculture

Sec. 6.17 To a bill regulating the marketing of domestically produced 
    farm products, an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing 
    for certain guaranteed payments by dealers, manufacturers, and 
    others to the producers of agricultural products was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a bill regulating the 
marketing of farm products, a substitute amendment was offered which 
provided that the Secretary of Agriculture should determine the cost of 
production of agricultural products, and that such determination should 
furnish the basis for payments to be made by dealers to the producers 
of such products. In the course of ruling that the amendment was not 
germane, the Chairman (2) described the provisions of the 
bill and the substitute as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
 3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1284, 1285, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 10, 1937. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8505 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration is a bill to regulate the 
    marketing of domestically produced farm products.
        The substitute . . . provides among other things, that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the costs of production of 
    such agricultural products and shall issue a proclamation to that 
    effect.
        It further provides that after that proclamation has been 
    issued all deal

[[Page 7844]]

    ers, manufacturers, millers, elevator operators, processors, [and 
    the like] shall pay to the producers of such agricultural products 
    not less than such average costs of production price. . . .
        There is also a provision . . . dealing with tariff 
    adjustments, something entirely foreign to the bill now under 
    consideration. . . .

    The Chair, citing precedent, (4) indicated that, while 
the purpose of both the bill and the amendment was farm relief, the 
wide difference in the methods of approach of the two rendered the 
amendment improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Speaker Henry T. Rainey (Ill.), cited in 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture: Tariff and Import Restriction in Lieu of Domestic Price 
    Supports

Sec. 6.18 To a proposal to provide financial assistance to domestic 
    agriculture through a system of price support payments, an 
    amendment seeking to protect that segment of domestic agriculture 
    by restricting imports in competition therewith is not germane, 
    since seeking to accomplish a purpose by an unrelated method within 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

    The proceedings of Oct. 14, 1981, relating to H.R. 3603, the Food 
and Agriculture Act of 1981, are discussed in Sec. 4.71, supra.

Proposition To Permit Transfer of Certain Federal Timberlands in 
    Exchange for Timberlands Acquired From Private Owners--Amendment 
    Permitting Transfer of Timber Rights Only

Sec. 6.19 To a proposition relating to compensation, in the form of 
    transfers of certain federal timberlands, to be given to private 
    owners in exchange for timberlands acquired by the government for 
    public use, an amendment imposing restrictions on such exchanges 
    was held to be germane.

    On Feb. 17, 1954, the following proposition was under 
consideration: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 1925, 1926, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4646 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That whenever the United States finds it necessary to acquire 
    for any public use timberlands which are being operated as part of 
    a forest area to provide a sustained yield of timber for processing 
    purposes . . . [the agency concerned] shall . . . provide that . . 
    . federally owned lands situated within the same community area . . 
    . shall be transferred to the owners of the pri

[[Page 7845]]

    vate lands acquired if said owners so elect, as compensation pro 
    tanto for the lands taken. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 100 Cong. Rec. 1928, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        And provided further, That title to the lands involved shall 
    not be transferred, and that it shall be determined that such 
    exchange of timber will not impair the efficient administration or 
    operation of the overall unit of land on which the exchanged timber 
    is situated.

    Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, made a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that it was not germane. In support of the 
point of order, he stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads in the first phrase, ``title 
    to the land involved shall not be transferred.'' The whole purpose 
    of the legislation is to transfer title. Therefore, this amendment 
    is contrary to the whole purpose of the bill.

    The proponent of the amendment stated in reply:

        As far as the amendment not being germane is concerned, the 
    bill involves the transfer of timber rights; not the transfer of 
    title. I think this amendment only secures to the Forest Service 
    and to the Government the proposition that title shall remain in 
    the Government, and the timber rights shall be preserved, which is 
    the purpose of H.R. 4646 and is the stated purpose of the 
    legislation.

    In disposing of the point of order, the Chairman (7) 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Alvin E. O'Konski (Wis.).
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 1928, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The committee amendment provides 
    that whenever the United States finds it necessary to acquire 
    timberlands being operated as part of a unit to provide a sustained 
    yield for processing purposes, the private owners from whom such 
    lands are acquired may under certain conditions elect to be 
    compensated therefor by exchange of other federally owned 
    timberlands, and certain limitations are imposed upon such 
    exchanges.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Montana seems to have the 
    same objective but it provides somewhat different and additional 
    conditions upon such exchanges.
        . . . [T]o a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
    method a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another closely 
    related method is germane.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Montana falls into this category and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Wage and Price Stabilization: Replacing Advisory Function With Mandated 
    Prices

Sec. 6.20 To a bill extending executive authorities which are advisory 
    and informational in nature, an amendment to confer direct 
    mandatory au

[[Page 7846]]

    thority on an executive official belongs to another class and is 
    not germane; thus, to a bill extending the advisory and 
    informational authority of the Council on Wage and Price Stability 
    to encourage voluntary programs to resist inflation, an amendment 
    directing the President to issue orders and regulations stabilizing 
    economic transfers including wages and prices was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 2283 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 20, 1979,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 5549, 5550, 5562-64, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 2283

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 6 of the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 6. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the provisions of this Act not to exceed--
            ``(1) $6,952,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1979, which shall remain available until expended;
            ``(2) $8,483,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980; and
            ``(3) $8,483,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1981.''.

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: On page 2, strike out lines 1 and 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That section 3(a) of the Council on Wage and Price 
        Stability Act is amended . . .
            (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            (10) hold regional hearings on the Council's standards, 
        regulations, and other major actions which affect general 
        consumer interests; and
            (11) enlist voluntary individual and group participation 
        from the public to help monitor the performance of the 
        Council's anti-inflationary programs. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: On page 3 at the end of 
        line 5 insert the following new section:
            Sec. 4. (a) Strike out section 3(b) of the Council on Wage 
        and Price Stability Act.
            (b) Insert in the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act a 
        new section 4 as follows:
            Sec. 4(a). Presidential Authority.--Within sixty days of 
        the date of enactment of this Act the President shall issue 
        such orders and regulations as he may deem appropriate to 
        stabilize prices, rents, wages, salaries, profits, dividends, 
        interest rates, and other comparable economic transfers at 
        levels not less than those prevailing on October 1, 1978. Such 
        orders and regulations shall provide for--
            (1) the making of such adjustments, as may be necessary to 
        prevent gross inequities;

[[Page 7847]]

            (2) wage and salary increases or adjustments, after October 
        1, 1978, based on the application of cost of living and 
        productivity formulas. . . .
            (b) Delegation.--The President may delegate the performance 
        of any function under this Act to the Council.
            (c) Penalty.--Whoever willfully violates any order or 
        regulation under this Act shall be fined not more than $5,000. 
        . . .
            (e) Expiration.--The authority to issue and enforce orders 
        and regulations under this Act expires at midnight September 
        30, 1983, or upon any earlier date provided in a concurrent 
        resolution of the Congress. . . .
            Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
        make a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
        gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) for two reasons.

        First. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Stratton) which seeks to strike down section 3(b) of the 
    original act, is well beyond the fundamental purpose of this act, 
    which is the gathering of information and voluntary programs to 
    fight inflation. Certainly the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Stratton), which is a mandatory program, is 
    outside of such fundamental purpose of the act.
        Second. If the amendment is adopted, it will establish a 
    precedent which allows amendments striking limiting language, such 
    as section 3(b) of the original act, and then inserting language of 
    an entirely different scope, of a much broader application, and 
    allowing, once limiting language is stricken, the broadening of the 
    scope which would put a chilling effect on all attempts by the 
    Congress to insert limiting sections, specifically in a particular 
    law. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    speak on the point of order.
        I would also point out that in addition to the argument offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the scope of the amendment is 
    so broad that it goes well beyond the particular authorities that 
    the present statute, Public Law 93-387, contains, and is therefore 
    nongermane. First of all, the present statute allows the President 
    to establish the Council which is the subject of this legislation. 
    The gentleman's amendment shifts the power completely to the 
    President, who may or may not under his amendment place this power 
    in this or any other agency of Government, as appears on the second 
    page of his amendment.
        Furthermore, it permits the President to delegate to any 
    officials or departments the powers his amendment suggests, which 
    goes beyond the scope of the current law, and also provides for 
    criminal penalties and injunctions upon application to the district 
    court, none of which is in the present law and is beyond its scope.
        It also sets up an expiration date, which the present law does 
    not contain. So, in many specifics, it is well beyond the scope of 
    the present act, and nongermane for that reason. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This is a bill to amend the Council on Wage 
    and Price Stability and to extend the authority granted by such 
    act. My bill is designed to provide a method whereby the Council on 
    Wage and Price Stability can achieve this price and wage

[[Page 7848]]

    stability within the period determined by the original act. 
    Therefore, in my judgment it simply represents an additional duty 
    imposed on the Council which will perhaps enable it to achieve the 
    objective that, so far, it has not achieved.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment, to be germane, must accomplish the purpose of 
    the bill by a closely related method to that in the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 3(b) of the Wage and Price 
    Stability Act. That subsection presently contains the disclaimer 
    that nothing in the basic act, which is being extended and amended 
    by the pending bill, should be construed to confer mandatory wage 
    and price control authority upon the Council or to affect separate 
    authorities under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. In lieu 
    of that disclaimer, the pending amendment would confer upon the 
    President or Council mandatory wage and price control authorities.
        The authorities being extended by the pending bill are of a 
    readily definable class--they are all advisory or informational in 
    nature. On the other hand, the amendment confers authorities of a 
    different class--authorities which are mandatory in nature. For the 
    same reason that the Chair feels it would not be germane to impose 
    direct wage and price controls on specified levels of income or 
    commodities as an amendment to this bill, it is not in order to 
    confer direct mandatory authority upon an executive official to 
    impose such controls.
        On June 19, 1952, Chairman Mills held not germane to a bill 
    extending authority in law to settle labor disputes by negotiation 
    and collective bargaining, an amendment to the same law empowering 
    the President to take possession of plants closed by work 
    stoppages.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    A similar amendment, but one which ``authorized'' rather than 
directed the President to issue orders and regulations stabilizing 
economic transfers, was offered on Mar. 21, 1979, and ruled out of 
order as not germane: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-82, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 the 
    following:
        Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
    Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this Act'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in section 8, 
    nothing in this Act''.
        (b) Such Act is amended by adding after section 7 the following 
    new section:

                          ``presidential authority

        ``Sec. 8. (a) The President is authorized to issue such orders 
    and regulations as he may deem appropriate to stabilize prices, 
    rents, wages, and salaries at levels not less than those prevailing 
    on January 1, 1979, and to stabilize interest rates and corporate 
    dividends and similar transfers at levels consistent with orderly 
    economic growth. Such orders and regulations may provide for the 
    making of such ad

[[Page 7849]]

    justments as may be necessary to prevent gross inequities.
        ``(b) The President may delegate the performance of any 
    function under this section to the Council as he may deem 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Weiss).
        I cite as precedent for that, because it is absolutely on all 
    fours with the prior ruling, the ruling of the present occupant of 
    the chair on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Stratton).
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss), as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) has stated, 
    is very similar; I would say it is almost identical, and in fact 
    part of it seems to be merely a photocopy of the previous 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: . . . What we have today is an 
    amendment to the Council on Wage and Price Stability. We are 
    talking about wage and price stability. We are talking about 
    inflation. What the amendment that I have offered seeks to do is to 
    provide an additional weapon, an additional basis, for dealing with 
    wage and price instability. Nothing could be more germane than what 
    we do, which is not to mandate, not to impose mandatory controls, 
    but simply to allow the President the standby authority to impose 
    it. It is discretionary, it is voluntary upon the part of the 
    President.
        I should say, even if that were not the case, Mr. Chairman--and 
    I now have before me in my hand the act itself--there is a 
    provision in the act which is anything but voluntary. What it says 
    is--and this is section 2(G)(1)--the Council shall have the 
    authority for any purpose relating to this act to require periodic 
    reports for the submission of information maintained in the course 
    of business. And then it goes on to say that they have the power to 
    issue subpenas. Then they go on to say that, in case of the refusal 
    to obey this section, or the subpena, that the Council may request 
    the Attorney General to seek the aid of the U.S. district court. 
    Now, that is not voluntary.
        So it seems to me that the premise that we have is a maze of 
    voluntary informational advisory provisions in the bill before us. 
    But what we are asking for is different, is totally erroneous, 
    because ours is no less voluntary than the act that it seeks to 
    amend and, secondly, because the (act) itself is not totally 
    voluntary. It has mandatory provisions. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair believes that the underlying reasons cited in his 
    ruling yesterday, are applicable to the pending amendment in 
    determining its germaneness to H.R. 2283. The principle of 
    germaneness which the Chair enunciated yesterday, and which is 
    supported in many precedents contained in Deschler's, chapter 28, 
    section 6 and on page 532 of the House Rules and Manual, suggests 
    that to be germane, an amendment to accomplish the same result as 
    that sought to be accomplished by a pending bill must also suggest 
    a closely related method of accomplishing that result. The 
    precedent relied upon yesterday, when examined in the full context 
    of the entire Defense Production Act under consideration supports 
    the Chair's position.

[[Page 7850]]

        As a further example, to a proposition whose fundamental 
    purpose was registration and public disclosure by lobbyists, but 
    not regulation of the activities of lobbyists an amendment 
    prohibiting lobbying in certain places or placing monetary limits 
    on contributions by lobbyists was held not germane (Chairman 
    Bolling, September 28, 1976, cited on page 532 of the House Rules 
    and Manual). There, as here, the pending bill was limited in scope 
    to a proposition which established a mechanism for gathering and 
    distributing information relating to certain conduct, and the 
    amendment which was ruled out as not germane went beyond the scope 
    of the bill to directly regulate the activity or conduct in 
    question.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Establish Limitation on Salaries--Amendment To Permit 
    Stabilization of Salaries on Basis of Levels Existing at Specified 
    Time

Sec. 6.21 To a provision in a bill fixing a limitation on salaries, an 
    amendment seeking by another method to accomplish the same end was 
    held to be germane.

    On Mar. 11, 1943, the following proposition was being considered: 
(12)

        No action shall be taken under authorization of this act, or 
    otherwise, which will limit the payment of annual salaries to a 
    maximum amount less than the greater of the following:
        (1) The annual rate of salary paid to such employee on December 
    7, 1941; or
        (2) An amount which after reduction by the Federal income taxes 
    thereon would equal $25,000.

    An amendment was offered to the bill, as follows:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 1891, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . No provision of law heretofore enacted . . . shall be 
        held or considered to authorize a limitation, in terms of a 
        stated amount of money . . . of the aggregate amount which may 
        . . . be paid to . . . any individual as compensation for 
        personal services. . . . This section shall not prevent the 
        stabilization of wages or salaries on the basis of levels which 
        existed on any stated date between January 1, 1942, and 
        September 15, 1942.

    The following exchange related to a point of order made against the 
Gearhart amendment:(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    nor is it germane to the [bill]. It is broader in scope. It takes 
    in subject matter which is contained in neither the amendment nor 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gearhart: Mr. Chairman, I merely point out that the section 
    to

[[Page 7851]]

    which I offered my amendment is a section which fixes limitations 
    on salary earnings. The amendment I offer would also fix 
    limitations upon salary earnings. . . .
        The Chairman (Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia): The Chair 
    thinks that both the section in the bill and the amendment regulate 
    restrictions on salaries. The Chair is unable to see from reading 
    the amendment . . . that it is any broader in scope than the 
    section 4 in the bill and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Providing for Suspension of Ceiling Prices--Substitute 
    Amendment Stating Different Conditions for Suspension of Ceiling 
    Prices

Sec. 6.22 To an amendment providing for suspension of ceiling prices 
    under certain designated conditions, a substitute amendment 
    providing for suspension of ceiling prices under other, but 
    similar, designated conditions is germane.

    On June 20, 1952, a proposition was being considered which provided 
in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 7713, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (5) The ceiling price for any material shall be suspended as 
    long as (1) the material is selling below the ceiling price and has 
    sold below that price for a period of 3 months; or (2) the material 
    is in adequate or surplus supply to meet current civilian and 
    military consumption and has been in such adequate or surplus 
    supply for a period of 3 months.

    To such proposition, a substitute amendment was 
offered:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 98 Cong. Rec. 7718, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided however, That the ceiling price for any material, 
    which by its nature is not susceptible to speculative buying and 
    not more than 10 percent of which is purchased with Government 
    funds for defense purposes, shall be suspended as long as: (1) The 
    material is selling below the ceiling price and has sold below that 
    price for a period of 6 months; or (2) the material is in adequate 
    or surplus supply to meet current civilian and military consumption 
    and has been in such adequate or surplus supply for a period of 6 
    months, if such material requires expansion of productive 
    facilities beyond the levels needed to meet the civilian demand as 
    set forth in section 2 of this act.

    In response to a point of order raised against the substitute 
amendment, the Chairman (17) indicated that the amendment 
did not go beyond the purposes and scope of the legislation considered 
in committee, and held the substitute amendment to be 
germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 7718, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 1952.

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

[[Page 7852]]

Bill Conferring Authority Upon Independent Board to Determine Minimum 
    Wages and Maximum Hours in Industry--Amendment Providing That 
    Determination Be Made by Division of Department of Labor--
    Substitute Amendment Specifically Setting Wages and Hours

Sec. 6.23 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 held to be 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 was held to be germane to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration S. 2475, the Wages and Hours bill, which had as its 
purpose the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations 
in or affecting interstate commerce, through prohibition of interstate 
shipment of goods produced under such conditions, and through 
utilization of an independent board exercising broad discretionary 
powers with respect to the establishment of minimum wages and maximum 
hours in industry. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
offered which sought to establish a wages and hours division in the 
Department of Labor which was to exercise similar discretionary powers, 
within prescribed limits. A point of order against such amendment was 
overruled. A substitute amendment was then offered to such amendment 
for the purpose of fixing minimum wages and maximum hours in specific 
terms, rather than through the exercise of discretion by a government 
agency. The substitute amendment was held to be germane to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 82 Cong. Rec. 1572, 1580-94, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Clerk will report the 
    Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the 
        Black-Connery Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

[[Page 7853]]

         Part I--Legislative Declaration; Definations; Labor Standards 
                                     Board

                            legislative declaration

            Section 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard 
        labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the 
        production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise 
        directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate 
        commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate 
        commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers 
        of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical 
        and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers 
        . . . (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and 
        obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in 
        interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the 
        orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.
            (b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting 
        interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its 
        legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States 
        by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods 
        produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing 
        for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in 
        occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce. . . 
        .

                             labor standards board

            Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby created a Board, to be known as 
        the Labor Standards Board, which shall be composed of five 
        members who shall be appointed by the President by and with the 
        advice and consent of the Senate and in such appointment 
        industrial and geographic regions shall be given consideration. 
        The President shall from time to time designate one of the 
        members of the Board to act as chairman. . . .

                 Part II--Establishment of Fair Labor Standards

                 minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards . . .

            4(a) Whereas it is necessary for the development of 
        American commerce and the protection of American workers and 
        their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated 
        from interstate industry and business . . .
            It is declared to be the policy of this Act to maintain, so 
        far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, minimum-wage 
        and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, 
        efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the maximum 
        productivity and profitable operation of American business.

            (b) Having regard to such policy . . . the Board shall by 
        order from time to time declare . . . minimum wages which shall 
        be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible, without 
        curtailing opportunity for employment, to maintain a minimum 
        standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and 
        general well-being; Provided, That the Board's jurisdiction in 
        declaring minimum wages shall not include the power to declare 
        minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour, but higher 
        minimum wages fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall 
        be encouraged, it being the objective of this Act to raise the 
        existing wages in the lower-wage groups so as to attain as 
        rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour 
        without curtailing opportunities for employment and without 
        disturbance and dislocation of business and industry. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . The gentlewoman from New Jersey offers an 
    amendment, which the Clerk will report.

[[Page 7854]]

        The Clerk read as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1580, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary Teresa] Norton moves to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause down to and including all of section 1 of the bill 
    S. 2475 and insert in lieu thereof the following as a substitute 
    for the Senate bill:

            ``That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards 
        Act of 1937.

         ``Part I--Legislative Declaration; Definitions; Wage and Hour 
                        Division of Department of Labor

                           ``legislative declaration

            ``Section 1. (a) The employment of workers under 
        substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate 
        commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, 
        or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes 
        interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of 
        interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among 
        the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the 
        physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of 
        such workers. . . .

                                 ``definitions

            ``Sec. 2. (a) As used in this act unless the context 
        otherwise requires--. . .
            ``(8) `Oppressive wage' means a wage lower than the 
        applicable minimum wage declared by order of the Administrator 
        under the provisions of section 4.
            ``(9) `Oppressive workweek' means a workweek (or workday) 
        longer than the applicable maximum workweek declared by order 
        of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4. . . .
            ``Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby created in the Department of 
        Labor a Wage and Hour Division which shall be under the 
        direction of an Administrator, to be known as the Administrator 
        of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the 
        Administrator). . . .

                ``Part II--Establishment of Fair Labor Standards

            ``It is declared to be the policy of this act to establish 
        minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent 
        with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and 
        the profitable operation of American business. . . .
            ``(b) Having regard to such policy and upon a finding that 
        a substantial number of employees in any occupation are 
        employed at wages and hours inconsistent with the minimum 
        standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and 
        general well-being, the Administrator shall appoint a wage and 
        hour committee to consider and recommend a minimum-wage rate or 
        a maximum workday and workweek . . . Provided, however, That no 
        such committees shall be appointed with respect to occupations 
        in which no employee receives less than 40 cents per hour or 
        works more than 40 hours per week. . . .
            ``(g) A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor 
        standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum 
        wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of 
        less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter 
        maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise 
        shall be encouraged; it being the objective of this act to 
        raise the existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to 
        attain as rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per 
        hour without curtailing opportunities for employment and 
        without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry, 
        and a maximum workweek of 40 hours without curtailing earning

[[Page 7855]]

        power and without reducing production. . . .

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 1586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snell: . . . I call the attention of the Chair very briefly 
    to one matter. The original Senate bill, 2475, has for a title the 
    following:

            To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in 
        employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other 
        purposes.

        The title of the amendment offered by the committee is exactly 
    the same as the title of the original Senate bill. In other words, 
    the intent and purpose of each bill is exactly the same, but as set 
    up in the very first paragraph in the first section of the Senate 
    bill, it proposes to accomplish this end by setting up an 
    independent board consisting of five members with certain specific 
    qualifications, and there is also the proposition to give them 
    certain authority to do certain things.
        The committee amendment, offered by the chairman of the Labor 
    Committee, tries to accomplish the same end, but does so in an 
    entirely different method. It sets up a Wages and Hours Division 
    under the Department of Labor to be headed by one man, and the 
    authority given to that one man is entirely different from the 
    authority given to the board set up in the original bill. In other 
    words, it is distinctly a new method which was never mentioned in 
    the original Senate bill.
        There is nothing about wages and hours in the title or the 
    objects of the Senate bill. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, without going 
    over the complete argument I made earlier in the afternoon, that 
    the method proposed by the amendment is entirely different from the 
    method proposed by the original bill, therefore is not germane and 
    should not be held to be germane at this time. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    very important parliamentary matter, in the opinion of many 
    Members, because it goes to one of the fundamental rules of the 
    House, rule XVI, relating to ``germaneness.'' This rule as to 
    ``germaneness'' when adopted early in the history of the Congress 
    in 1790 was a new departure in parliamentary law and without any 
    precedent. It has been interpreted countless times. Sometimes it 
    has been strained, reflecting the particular attitude of the 
    membership at that time, and sometimes it has reflected the 
    attitude of the then presiding officer.
        The argument I shall make will be directed at the point of 
    order made by the distinguished minority leader (Mr. Snell) . . . 
    and the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from 
    South Dakota (Mr. Case) all going to the same point.
        With regard to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota, I believe he has directed his argument more against 
    the merits of the proposal than against the parliamentary 
    procedure. . . .
        The distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Snell) the 
    minority leader, has admitted in his second argument on his point 
    of order the crux of this question, when he states that

[[Page 7856]]

    the ``intent and purpose of these two bills is the same.'' This is 
    the whole issue here.
        The gentleman has referred to the titles of the two bills. Of 
    course, it is well held in parliamentary procedure, as announced in 
    section 2916 of Hinds' Precedents, that the title of a bill is of 
    no influence whatever in deciding what is in the bill.
        In his first argument the gentleman from New York (Mr. Snell) 
    referred to subtitles and pointed out that the subtitle of the 
    Senate bill referred to a Labor Standards Board while the subtitle 
    of the committee amendment referred to a Wage and Hour Division of 
    the Department of Labor. If they are important, they are not so 
    unrelated as to affect the question under consideration. 
    Furthermore, they are merely titles.
        What subject are we considering here? How would anybody briefly 
    describe it in a few words? He or she would say we are taking up 
    the subject of wages and hours. Minimum wages and maximum hours are 
    what we are discussing, and this is the issue in every one of at 
    least a half dozen bills which have been introduced in the House.
        The point of order of the distinguished minority leader (Mr. 
    Snell), however, is directed toward the method by which we shall 
    approach this goal, to do something about minimum wages and maximum 
    hours. The point I make is that the subject matter of the bill 
    being wages and hours, this amendment offered by the lady from New 
    Jersey is in the nature of a substitute. It also deals with wages 
    and hours. Any other amendments which may be offered hereafter 
    dealing with this subject, is germane irrespective of the 
    particular method proposed to be adopted to reach the ultimate 
    objective.
        As far as I know, I have examined every single, solitary 
    precedent in Hinds and Cannon and in other works, and I have not 
    found one precedent which would sustain the point of order made by 
    the distinguished minority leader. Every one of the precedents 
    cited by the gentleman from New York can be distinguished from the 
    question in point, because this is a new proposal.
        Congress and the Government are engaged in a new venture, you 
    may call it, in legislation. There is nothing on the statute books 
    today in reference to ``minimum wages and maximum hours.'' We are 
    not amending any existing law. We are not giving any new powers to 
    any existing agency of the Government. We are starting on an 
    entirely new venture, an attempt to do something about wages and 
    hours in industry.
        As everybody knows, the amendment offered by the distinguished 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Norton), in the nature of a 
    substitute, is offered as a new, complete, clean bill, as it has 
    been called, for the purpose of avoiding confusion as far as 
    possible. The Senate bill went to the House Committee on Labor, 
    which first reported some 60 amendments to the Senate bill. Then 
    the House Labor Committee reported other amendments, and then 
    finally decided to bring in a clean copy of the bill, including all 
    of the House committee amendments, and to offer that as a 
    substitute, treating it as one new bill. All

[[Page 7857]]

    the amendments included in this committee substitute, except one, 
    are practically minor perfecting amendments, about which there can 
    be little complaint, and possibly no point of order.
        The issue all comes down to the question of the method of 
    administration of the act. The issue devolves as to section 3 of 
    the original bill and section 3 of the amendment offered by the 
    distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Norton). Section 3 
    of the original bill was entitled ``Labor Standards Board.'' 
    Section 3 of the new bill is entitled ``Administrative Agency.'' 
    Section 3 of the Senate bill, the original bill, provided for the 
    setting up of a board of five members, and the section had five or 
    six subsections relating to the place of office, the appointment of 
    employees, the making of reports, and other minor matters. Section 
    3 of the House Labor Committee amendment is the same, except that 
    it provides for the appointment of an administrator in the 
    Department of Labor rather than a board of five members. Outside of 
    this one detail, both sections are substantially the same.
        Now, no one can say that whether or not we put the 
    administration of this act in the Labor Department or in a board of 
    five, or in some other agency, or in no agency, is the outstanding 
    feature of this bill. The outstanding feature is the proposal to do 
    something about minimum wages and maximum hours, and there is no 
    one who can now dispute that point. How we shall do it is another 
    question.
        I wish to call to the attention of the Chair an authority 
    directly in point, in my opinion. I have seen no authorities to the 
    contrary. They all point in the direction which I am arguing, but 
    this authority is directly on the point and should be conclusive.
        In Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, at section 3056, the headline 
    is:

            To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
        method a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another 
        closely related method is germane.
            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government through the agency of 
        the Secretary of War, an amendment proposing to adjudicate such 
        claims through the agency of a commission appointed for that 
        purpose was held to be germane. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell] makes the point of order against the 
    amendment, one of the reasons advanced being that the substitute 
    provides for the setting up of a bureau as a division of the 
    Department of Labor under an administrator, whereas the Senate bill 
    provides for the establishment of a board. Also, that the method 
    proposed by the amendment pending establishes a different one from 
    that set forth in the Senate bill. Points of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Martin] and the gentleman from South 
    Dakota [Mr. Case] are involved in the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from New York, and in part the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] is also involved, but in part 
    it is not.
        The Chair recognizes the seriousness of this question. The 
    Chair is indebted to those who have presented their arguments on 
    both sides. The Chair realizes that the matter of germaneness at 
    times is one filled with great uncer

[[Page 7858]]

    tainty. The Chair realizes that there is a twilight zone. The Chair 
    also realizes that too narrow an interpretation of the rule might 
    interfere with the conduct of the Committee of the Whole House or 
    of the House in the proper consideration of a bill.
        The Chair anticipated this particular point of order and has 
    had an opportunity of giving consideration to the precedents 
    interpreting the rule which prompted the point of order being 
    raised. During the general debate on the pending Senate bill, the 
    Chair was informed by a number of Members that certain amendments 
    would be offered to it, some in the nature of a substitute and 
    others in the nature of perfecting amendments thereto. The Chair 
    has taken notice and has utilized its opportunity during the 
    general debate to review the decisions on germaneness embodied in 
    Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives. The 
    Chair has also listened intently to the discussion of the point of 
    order on the floor and has examined the precedents cited by 
    gentlemen on both sides of the question.
        In deciding this question it may be appropriate to examine into 
    the meaning of the word ``germane'' as it relates to parliamentary 
    law. In this respect the Chair calls attention to a statement made 
    in a decision on germaneness by Mr. Chairman Fitzgerald, of New 
    York, on September 22, 1914, which is to be found in Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 8, section 2993. The Chair quotes from that 
    decision:

            The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, 
        or appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments 
        must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as 
        well as meet other tests; that is, that they be a natural and 
        logical sequence to the subject matter, and propose such 
        modifications as would naturally, properly, and reasonably be 
        anticipated.

        The Chair also calls attention to a decision made by Mr. 
    Chairman Garrett, of Tennessee, September 19, 1918, section 2911 of 
    volume VIII of Cannon's Precedents, wherein it was held generally 
    that the rule providing that amendments must be germane was 
    construed as requiring that the fundamental purposes of the 
    amendment be germane to the fundamental purposes of the bill to 
    which it is offered. The Senate bill pending before the Committee 
    of the Whole at the present time provides generally for the 
    establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and 
    affecting interstate commerce. To accomplish that result the bill 
    sets up a board, conferring upon that board certain specified 
    powers; asserts that the declared policy of the act is to maintain 
    minimum wage and maximum hours standards, fixing the limits to be 
    achieved in the one case at a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour and 
    in the other a maximum of 40 hours per week. Certain discretionary 
    powers are lodged in the board and certain conditions and 
    limitations are placed upon such discretion. It is a broad plan, 
    attempting to achieve a definite result.
        Coming more directly now to the immediate question presented to 
    the Chair, involving the question of germaneness of the amendment 
    offered by the lady from New Jersey to the Senate bill, the Chair 
    finds that the amendment, of course, differs somewhat from the 
    Senate bill. It nec

[[Page 7859]]

    essarily follows that it would do so; otherwise it would not have 
    been offered. The question for the Chair here is to ascertain 
    whether it differs so widely in its details from the Senate bill to 
    justify the Chair in holding it not germane. The Chair has listened 
    attentively to the citations of precedents involving the question 
    of germaneness of amendments to farm legislation which have 
    occurred during the past 12 years. The Chair studiously examined 
    those decisions prior to the time when the pending question 
    presented itself, and the Chair believes that they can be 
    distinguished from the instant question as well as from the 
    decision referred to by the gentleman from Michigan in connection 
    with the ruling made by the distinguished gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Warren] only several days ago.
        It seems to the Chair that this entire question turns upon one 
    point, and that is whether a new agency proposed by the amendment 
    offered by the lady from New Jersey to administer the provisions of 
    the pending bill is so different from the agency set up in the 
    Senate bill to accomplish that purpose as to warrant the Chair 
    holding the amendment not germane. It seems to the Chair that the 
    other provisions in the pending bill involve solely a question of 
    detail, and do not, in and of themselves, provide a great departure 
    from the terms of the Senate bill. Therefore, it appears to the 
    Chair that the point for him to determine is whether the change in 
    agency to administer this act is so different as to make the 
    amendment not germane.
        Again referring to those decisions of germaneness made in the 
    past, in the consideration of farm legislation, the Chair would 
    distinguish them in this manner: The amendments in those cases, it 
    seems to the Chair, were not ruled out on the ground that the 
    substitution of a new governmental agency to administer the terms 
    of the bill were not germane, but went, rather, to the authority of 
    the new agency proposed to use a new and unrelated method in 
    accomplishing that end. The Chair thinks that there is a decided 
    difference between the substitution of a new agency to administer 
    the law and the substitution of a new method of accomplishing a 
    predetermined end.
        The Chair happily finds, however, that it is not necessary for 
    him to rely entirely upon his own opinion in reaching a conclusion 
    on this question. The Chair has found, and the gentleman from New 
    York has referred to a precedent involving a similar question. The 
    Chair has found what he regards to be a direct and pointed decision 
    on this matter.
        The Chair has before him the following decision which the 
    gentleman from New York has referred to, which may be found in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 3056, wherein it was held 
    that--

            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government, ``through the agency 
        of the Secretary of War,'' an amendment proposing to adjudicate 
        such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for 
        that purpose was held to be germane.

        The Chair thinks that the decision by Mr. Chairman Crisp, of 
    Georgia, is of sufficient importance that it should be read in its 
    entirety. Mr. Chairman Crisp on that occasion said:

[[Page 7860]]

            The bill before the House has for its object the validating 
        and settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made 
        by the War Department. The bill before the House provides that 
        the Secretary of War, or any of his agents or representatives, 
        can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the 
        gentleman from Pennsylvania provides a different method or a 
        different agent or a different tribunal to settle these 
        differences. The Chair believes it is germane to the bill 
        before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is 
        confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims 
        that the committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is 
        germane, proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to 
        determine which shall be adopted.

        For the reasons stated, Chairman Crisp overruled that point of 
    order.
        In conclusion, the Chair thinks that the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment proposed by the lady from New Jersey is germane to 
    the fundamental purposes of the bill now before us. The Chair, 
    relying more specifically upon the decision of Mr. Chairman Crisp, 
    just quoted, thinks the amendment comes within the rule of 
    germaneness, and overrules the points of order.

    A substitute amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 1591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn H.] Griswold [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute to the Norton amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Griswold offers the following amendment as a 
        substitute: In lieu of the matter proposed by the pending 
        amendment insert the following:
            ``That as used in this act unless the context otherwise 
        requires--
            ``(1) ``Person'' includes an individual, partnership, 
        association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, 
        trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent. . 
        . .
            ``Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful to employ any person in any 
        employment affecting interstate or foreign commerce at a wage 
        less than 40 cents an hour, or at work in excess of 8 hours per 
        day or more than 40 hours in any 1 week, or to employ any 
        person under conditions of oppressive child labor as 
        hereinafter defined: Provided, That in case of emergency the 
        provisions of this act shall not apply during the period of 
        such emergency: Provided further, That such employer affected 
        file with the State labor commissioner or other proper State 
        official designated by law a sworn statement as to the 
        necessity for such action: Provided further, That such employer 
        shall pay to his workers during such emergency wages of not 
        less than time and one-half for work in excess of 8 hours per 
        day or 40 hours in any 1 week.
            ``Sec. 3. Any person in any State or Territory or 
        possession of the United States or the District of Columbia 
        guilty of violation of any of the provisions of this act shall 
        be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be 
        fined not less than $100 for each offense. The employment of 
        each employee at a wage less than that fixed in this act, or 
        for hours longer than those fixed in this act, unless excepted 
        as provided in section 3, shall constitute a separate offense.
            ``Sec. 4. The district courts of the United States and 
        possessions shall have jurisdiction of the violations of this 
        act. . . .

[[Page 7861]]

        Mr. [Robert C.] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Norton] is not germane to the 
    amendment to which it is offered for the reason that it not only 
    sets up a different procedure and a different agency but it is for 
    a different purpose.
        The pending amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey proposes to set up fair labor standards. It proposes not one 
    wage scale or one hour limitation but different wage scales and 
    different hour limitations to be arrived at by the procedure 
    outlined in her amendment. The proposal offered by the gentleman 
    from Indiana [Mr. Griswold], on the contrary, is a penal statute 
    solely and exclusively. It makes it unlawful for any person to 
    employ anybody for more than 40 hours per week except for the 
    exemptions named in the bill. It makes it unlawful to pay anybody 
    less than 40 cents per hour and therefore it is for a different 
    purpose which is to set up a single standard of wages and hours, 
    whereas the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    sets up plural standards and plural hours, to be administered by an 
    administrative agency in the Department of Labor. This proposal 
    would be administered by the officers enforcing the criminal laws 
    of the United States and by the criminal divisions of the district 
    courts of the United States, whereas the proposal of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is administered by an executive 
    department and the amendment provides for a series of steps before 
    reaching the maximum purpose.
        I would like to call the Chair's attention to this language 
    taken from the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Robert H. 
    Jackson, who presented the legal phases of the bill as originally 
    introduced, to the House and Senate committees, and it applies 
    likewise to the purpose sought to be accomplished by the proposal 
    now before the Committee of the Whole offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey. Mr. Jackson said this:

            The bill recognizes the very practical exigencies which 
        make it impossible to prescribe for all goods which enter into 
        interstate commerce a single minimum fair-wage standard or a 
        single maximum reasonable workweek standard. Even in the 
        treatment of national problems there are geographic and 
        industrial diversities which cannot be ignored. For that reason 
        the bill makes a distinction between labor conditions which are 
        clearly oppressive under any circumstances and labor conditions 
        which may be found unreasonable under circumstances prevailing 
        in particular industries or in particular geographic areas. As 
        to labor conditions that are clearly oppressive, the regulatory 
        provisions of the bill are largely automatic, but as to labor 
        conditions which depend for their unreasonableness upon 
        particular circumstances, the regulations become effective only 
        after appropriate administrative findings and audits. The 
        administration of these provisions is placed in a labor 
        standards board of five members.

        The only difference between Mr. Jackson's statement and the 
    proposal of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is that instead of a 
    board we have wage and hour committees appointed by an 
    administrator, but the method provided is for consideration of 
    economic factors, of the cost of living, of the cost of 
    transportation, of wages paid for like work of comparable char

[[Page 7862]]

    acter in the community under investigation, and the unit cost of 
    production, all of which are ignored in the substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Indiana, who proposes to set up a single rigid 
    standard, which I submit to the Chair, under his own ruling a few 
    moments ago on the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York, is a different purpose arrived at also by a different method, 
    and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey. . . .
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, earlier today I said I 
    believed that any bill that approaches a possible solution of the 
    question of wages and hours is germane as a substitute to the 
    pending bill.
        The original bill provided for a board to administer its 
    provisions. The Norton amendment provides for an administrator in 
    the Department of Labor. The Griswold substitute provides for no 
    administrator whatsoever. In that respect all these proposals are 
    germane. The original bill and the Norton amendment provide for 
    flexible wages and flexible hours. The Griswold amendment provides 
    for fixed wages and fixed hours. Surely, if you have a flexible 
    schedule, you could always offer an amendment to make a rigid or 
    fixed schedule.
        There has been some talk about enforcement of the act, putting 
    such enforcement into the courts. That result has nothing to do 
    with administration of the measures. Probably in the other bills 
    before us there are provisions whereby some parts of the measures 
    will be enforced by the courts, but any bill that deals with wages 
    and hours, irrespective of any schedule of wages and hours, 
    irrespective of whether such schedules are flexible or rigid, 
    irrespective of what method of administration is selected or 
    whether there is no administration at all, I contend all these 
    measures are germane to the Senate bill first under consideration 
    by the House. They all aim at the ultimate objective of solving the 
    national problem of minimum wages and maximum hours for our 
    workers.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the ruling made by the Chair a 
    short time ago on the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell] applies as well to the point of order raised 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ramspeck].
        In addition to the citations mentioned by the Chair on the 
    previous occasion, the Chair calls attention in connection with the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ramspeck] 
    to a precedent in section 3054 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, 
    where, in the syllabus, it is stated:

            To a proposition providing for the attainment of an 
        objective by a specific method a proposal to achieve the same 
        objective through the adoption of another method closely 
        related may be germane.
            To a bill authorizing the Secretary of War in his 
        discretion to discharge enlisted men, an amendment directing 
        the Secretary of War to prescribe regulations permitting the 
        discharge of such men was held to be germane.
            An instance wherein a proposal to instruct an executive to 
        take definite action was held to be germane to a proposal to 
        authorize him to take such action.

        The Chair believes, having in mind the broad objective of this 
    bill, the es

[[Page 7863]]

    tablishment of minimum wages and maximum hours, that the Committee 
    of the Whole and the House are not precluded from considering 
    another method or another means of accomplishing that purpose than 
    the one recommended by the Senate bill or by the House committee, 
    both methods being germane. The Chair believes it germane for the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union under the 
    rules, to consider a mandatory minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    provision in preference to the amendment of the committee or the 
    provisions of the Senate bill. Which is the desirable course to 
    take is a matter for the Committee to determine.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Griswold], for the reasons stated, is 
    germane, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Providing for Promulgation of National Standards for Drinking 
    Water--Amendment Permitting Judicial Remedy to Prevent Discharge of 
    Contaminants into Streams

Sec. 6.24 To a bill providing for promulgation and enforcement of 
    national drinking water standards to protect the public health from 
    contaminants of any source of public water supply, an amendment 
    permitting a judicial remedy in equity to assure safe drinking 
    water by preventing discharges or emissions of contaminants in 
    violation of law was held germane as limited to the control of 
    drinking water sources covered by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 13002 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 19, 1974,(5) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The Safe Drinking Water Act.
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 36395, 36396, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: Page 132, line 18, strike 
        out the quotation marks.
            Page 132, insert after line 18 the following:

                               ``equitable relief

            ``Sec. 1449. (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in 
        paragraph (2), in any action which is commenced by (or at the 
        request of) the Administrator and which requests equitable 
        relief for the purpose of assuring safe drinking water, if a 
        party shows that a defendant in such action is discharging or 
        emitting any substance in violation of Federal law (or any 
        State law which is enforceable under Federal law) and that such 
        discharge or emission presents or contributes to a public 
        health risk, the court shall grant such equitable relief as may 
        be necessary promptly to assure that such discharge or emission 
        does not present or contribute to such risk.

[[Page 7864]]

            ``(2) A court is not required by this section to grant 
        equitable relief with respect to a discharge or emission if the 
        person who is discharging or emitting such substance 
        demonstrates that--
            ``(A) the public health risk does not exist; or
            ``(B) it would be arbitrary or capricious to grant such 
        relief (taking into account technological and economic 
        considerations, size of population at risk, and availability of 
        alternative sources of drinking water).
            ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to have 
        the effect of limiting any other provision of law which 
        requires or authorizes any court to prohibit or limit any 
        discharge or emission. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill provides the requirement that the 
    Administrator of EPA will prescribe national primary drinking water 
    regulations. Also, it has provisions in it to provide for State 
    enforcement of these national primary drinking water regulations 
    and also sets up certain oversight by the Administrator in case the 
    States fail to adopt or implement these standards.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with discharge of pollutants 
    into a stream. The bill has enough provisions dealing with this 
    discharge of pollutants. The legislation deals only with water 
    treatment in order to comply with the standards that are set up as 
    a result of the bill and the enforcement of these standards. This, 
    again, is realistically an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: . . . First of all, in response to the question of 
    germaneness, I would like to make the following four points:
        The major bill deals with the issue of safe drinking water, and 
    that is exactly the thrust of the amendment.
        The amendment deals with the possible health hazards connected 
    with the drinking of water from a raw water source. There are many 
    references to raw water sources in the bill--it is not limited to 
    solely water systems. . . .
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: . . . Since it has been agreed 
    that the amendment deals with emissions and discharges into streams 
    and since the amendment deals with that and that the bill has 
    nothing whatever to do with that subject matter and that is the 
    subject of jurisdiction of another committee, I maintain it is not 
    germane to this legislation, or to the legislative jurisdiction of 
    the committee. . . .
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I would just 
    like to reemphasize the point made by the distinguished gentleman 
    from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill), that this clearly deals with 
    the discharge and emission into the navigable waters of the 
    country, and is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water 
    Pollution Control Act and amendments which we adopted in 1972. It 
    has nothing to do with the language of the bill presently being 
    considered by the Committee; nor does the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce have any jurisdiction over water pollution. 
    That is within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Public 
    Works. To attempt to amend that law by this means is not germane 
    nor within the jurisdiction of this legislation. . . .

[[Page 7865]]

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William Nichols (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is limited in scope 
    to the question of equitable relief to assure safe drinking water, 
    and does not go to the broader question of water quality generally. 
    The bill goes to the question of contamination of drinking water by 
    any source, including injections of contaminants into underground 
    water. Thus an amendment to provide a remedy which is limited to 
    the control of contamination of drinking water sources is germane 
    to the bill.
        For that reason, the Chair must overrule the point of order.

--International Instead of Domestic Approach To Maintaining Standards 
    for Clean Water

Sec. 6.25 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 ruled out 
    as 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.

    On Nov. 19, 1974,(7) during consideration of H.R. 13002 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a 
bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
promulgate national drinking water regulations and requiring 
cooperative federal-state enforcement of those standards, an amendment 
directing the President to negotiate international agreements to 
protect drinking water in the United States from contaminants outside 
the United States was held to go beyond the scope of the bill and to 
include a subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and was ruled out as not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 36393, 36394, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Safe Drinking Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: Page 132, insert after line 
        18 the following new section:

                           ``international agreements

            ``Sec. 1449. For the purpose of protecting drinking water 
        in the States from contamination by contaminants from sources 
        outside the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, 
        the President shall--

[[Page 7866]]

            ``(1) seek to negotiate multilateral treaties, conventions, 
        resolutions, or other agreements and seek to formulate, 
        present, and support appropriate proposals at the United 
        Nations and other appropriate international entities, and
            ``(2) seek to implement and enforce existing treaties and 
        agreements to which the United States is a party or signatory 
        and which may serve to provide such protection.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    contention that this amendment goes far beyond the scope of this 
    legislation. There is no provision in this legislation, as far as I 
    can see, for involvement in international treaties or agreements 
    and no funds authorized in the wording of the bill for that 
    purpose. . . .
        Mr. Vanik: . . . In response to the point of order that is made 
    by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, I want to 
    point out that this amendment does not provide for any 
    appropriation of funds. It merely requests that the President 
    explore the possibilities of working out conventions and agreements 
    with Canada on drinking water standards.
        I do not know how else we can achieve the same standards on the 
    Great Lakes for the millions of Americans who depend on the Great 
    Lakes for their water supplies, if we cannot work this out in some 
    way by agreement with respect to a mutuality of standards between 
    the United States and the Government of Canada.
        We cannot compel the Canadians to do anything. Our statutes 
    have no effect, and I think that if we are going to achieve a 
    better quality water, if we are going to maintain the standards 
    proposed by this legislation for drinking water for those people 
    who must depend on the Great Lakes in the nations that are 
    involved, it can only be achieved by agreements and treaties and by 
    conventions with the Government of Canada. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William Nichols (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman advises the gentleman from Ohio that the subject 
    of international agreements is not within the scope of the bill and 
    that the subject of the amendment comes under the jurisdiction of 
    another committee of the House; namely, the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the Chair must 
    sustain the point of order raised by the gentleman from Iowa.

Clean Air: Amendment Invoking Provisions of Law Not Within Jurisdiction 
    of Reporting Committee

Sec. 6.26 To a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
    of a law, an amendment accomplishing that result by prohibiting 
    federal assistance under another law (within the jurisdiction of a 
    different House committee) where there has been failure to comply 
    with standards imposed by the amendment was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7867]]

    On May 1, 1974,(10) during proceedings relating to H.R. 
14368, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 
the Committee of the Whole was considering an Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
several sections of the Clean Air Act to permit limited variances from 
environmental requirements, including the temporary suspension of 
certain emission standards imposed upon automobile manufacturers. An 
amendment was offered which sought to impose restrictions on emissions, 
only for new automobiles, in designated geographical areas, through 
requirements affecting the manufacture, purchase, and registration of 
automobiles. The amendment also sought to withdraw state entitlements 
to federal assistance under the Clean Air Act or under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. The latter act was within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Public Works. The amendment was ruled out of order 
as not germane. The proceedings are discussed in greater detail in 
Sec. 4.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 12520, 12522-24, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Proposing Interim Period of Public Ownership in lieu of 
    Private Ownership of District of Columbia Transportation Authority

Sec. 6.27 To a committee amendment restoring the District of Columbia 
    transportation franchise to the Capital Transit Company, a 
    substitute amendment providing for an interim public transportation 
    authority operated by the District of Columbia Commissioners 
    pending sale to private operators, was conceded to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a proposition was under consideration 
relating to the reinstatement of a franchise for operation of a 
transportation system in the District of Columbia.(11) To 
such proposition, an amendment was offered which stated in part that: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Under consideration was H.R. 8901 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 8417, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 17, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is hereby declared to be a matter of legislative 
    determination . . . that operation of the Capital Transit Co., the 
    operator of the principal transportation system located within the 
    Washington metropolitan area, will cease August 14, 1956, 
    consequent upon repeal of its franchise rights and charter

[[Page 7868]]

    by Public Law 389, 84th Congress (69 Stat. 724); that the Congress 
    finds the establishment of an adequate transportation system to 
    operate in the Washington metropolitan area, commencing August 15, 
    1956, as a replacement for Capital Transit Co., cannot be 
    accomplished at the present time by the ordinary operations of 
    private enterprise without public participation. . . .

    The amendment sought to grant,(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . to a public body corporate consisting of the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia for an interim period 
    certain powers to acquire . . . and operate an adequate 
    transportation system or systems in the Washington metropolitan 
    area. . . .

    The following proceedings then took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Heselton] is not germane to the committee 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: . . . I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Augustine B. Kelley (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amtrak: Tax Incentives in Lieu of Direct Financial Assistance To 
    Improve Rail Service

Sec. 6.28 To a bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce reorganizing Amtrak through 
    financial assistance and other methods to improve rail passenger 
    services, an amendment to achieve track improvements solely through 
    tax incentives by amending the Internal Revenue Code, is not a 
    related method and is not germane, since it would fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chair, in the proceedings of July 25, 1979, discussed in 
greater detail in Sec. 4.66, supra, relied for its ruling on the fact 
that the methods proposed by the amendment to improve rail passenger 
service fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, rather than the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
which had jurisdiction over the bill. In so ruling, the Chair was 
rejecting the contention of the proponent of the amendment that the 
fundamental purpose of both bill and amendment was the same, and that 
the methods used by both to achieve the purpose were closely enough 
allied to render the amendment germane.

[[Page 7869]]

Income Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax in District of Columbia

Sec. 6.29 To a bill providing for a sales tax for the District of 
    Columbia, a substitute proposing an amendment to the income tax 
    laws was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 14, 1949, the following amendment was offered to a bill 
relating to a sales tax for the District of Columbia: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 2444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3347 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is hereby annually levied and imposed for each taxable 
    year upon the taxable income of every resident a tax at the 
    following rates:
        Two percent on the first $2,000 of taxable income. . . .

    A point of order was made against the amendment:

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, we are 
    considering titles I and II of this bill; that is a sales tax. It 
    is an entirely different proposition from the income tax; in fact, 
    it is usually put in a separate title or in a separate bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a substitute for a 
    sales tax of an income tax is not germane to the pending bill at 
    this point.

    In ruling on the point of order, the Chairman (17) 
stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Hale Boggs (La.).
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 2444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 14, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment as a 
    substitute to the pending bill. The Chair is constrained to rule 
    that it is germane, because in the gentleman's substitute he 
    proposes a method of taxation which though somewhat different from 
    the method proposed in the bill, nevertheless, is a method of 
    taxation, and it is germane at this point.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Dollar Limitation on Expenditures--Amendment Increasing Limitation in 
    Amount Computed Pursuant to Given Formula

Sec. 6.30 To a provision fixing an expenditure limitation at a specific 
    dollar amount for a fiscal year, an amendment increasing the 
    limitation by an amount to be computed pursuant to a specified 
    formula was held to be germane.

    On May 21, 1969, it was held that, to that section of an 
appropriation bill setting a limitation of $192,900,000,000 on 
expenditures for the fiscal year, an amendment increasing the 
limitation by an amount equal to certain budgetary fixed costs was 
germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings at Sec. 15.51, infra.

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

[[Page 7870]]

Budget Procedure: Introducing Executive Branch Into Congressional Rule-
    making

Sec. 6.31 To a proposition changing Congressional budget procedures to 
    require consideration of balanced budgets, an amendment changing 
    concurrent resolutions on the budget to joint resolutions, bringing 
    executive enforcement mechanisms into play, was held not germane.

    The proceedings of July 18, 1990, relating to H.R. 5258, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1990, are discussed in Sec. 5.6, supra.

Proposition Amending Rule To Permit Recorded Teller Votes--Amendment to 
    Another Rule To Allow Roll Call Vote in House on Amendments 
    Rejected in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 6.32 To a proposition amending a rule of the House so as to permit 
    recorded teller votes, a substitute amendment addressed to another 
    rule of the House and requiring in certain instances a roll call 
    vote in the House on amendments rejected in the Committee of the 
    Whole was held to be not germane.

    On July 27, 1970, the House was considering a proposal 
(20) to permit, upon demand of one-fifth of a quorum, the 
recording by clerks of individual teller votes in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. The following amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was offered by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25796, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. The proposal, in the form 
        of an amendment to clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the House 
        offered by Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.), is set forth in 
        Sec. 6.33, infra. Under consideration was H.R. 17654 (Committee 
        on Rules).
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 25801, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Reconsideration by Roll Call Votes of Amendments Defeated in 
                        Committee of the Whole House

        . . . Rule XXIII . . . is amended by adding . . . :
        9. When any measure is reported from a Committee of the Whole 
    House, it shall be in order . . . for any Member, who has proposed 
    an amendment to that measure in the Committee of the Whole House 
    which has been defeated by teller vote, to offer a motion, which 
    shall require for adoption the affirmative vote of at least one-
    fifth of a quorum, demanding the reconsideration of that amendment 
    by roll call vote taken in the manner provided by rule XV.

    The following proceedings then took place with respect to the 
proposed substitute: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id.

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

[[Page 7871]]

        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I want to 
    raise a point of order against the consideration of this amendment 
    at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as I understand the substitute, the substitute is 
    addressed to rule XXIII of the House, whereas the current 
    amendment, the one offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill), is addressed to rule I. The O'Neill amendment primarily 
    deals with procedures under consideration in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whereas the substitute primarily deals with matters in the 
    House rather than in the Committee of the Whole. That is the main 
    substance of my objection. . . .
        Mr. Hays: . . . I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman (William H. Natcher, of Kentucky): The point of 
    order is conceded.
        The point of order is sustained.

Proposition Amending Rule To Permit Recorded Teller Votes--Amendment 
    Adding Language to Same Rule to Allow Roll Call Vote in House on 
    Amendments Rejected in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 6.33 To an amendment to the rules of the House to permit, upon 
    demand of one-fifth of a quorum, the recording of teller votes in 
    the House or in Committee of the Whole, an amendment adding 
    language to permit a separate roll call vote in the House, upon 
    demand of one-third of a quorum, on any amendment rejected in 
    Committee of the Whole by a teller vote was held to be germane as 
    providing a different method for the recording of teller votes.

    On July 27, 1970,(3) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, offered the following amendment to the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25796, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Recording Teller Votes

        Clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
    is amended to read as follows:
        . . . If . . . any Member requests tellers with clerks and that 
    request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, the names 
    of those voting on each side of the question shall be entered in 
    the Journal. . . .

    Subsequently, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 25814, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, immediately after the adoption of the O'Neill 
    amendment . . . I want to offer an amendment adding the sentence 
    that when we go back into the House from the Committee of the Whole 
    any amendment that has been adopted by a teller vote or defeated by 
    a teller vote shall have a difference in this respect: On the 
    adoption of the amendment it takes

[[Page 7872]]

    . . . one-fifth to ask for a recorded vote, but on any defeated 
    amendment that if a vote is requested we ask for one-third of the 
    membership to rise in order to get a vote. I believe we ought to 
    make a distinction between an approved or disapproved teller vote 
    amendment.

    The amendment was offered by Mr. Arends:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Arends to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts. After the last sentence of the 
        O'Neill amendment add the following new language:
            ``When any measure is reported from a Committee of the 
        Whole House, it shall be in order, immediately after the order 
        for the engrossment and third reading of the measure and before 
        consideration of the question of final passage, for any Member 
        with respect to any amendment which has been defeated by teller 
        vote in the Committee of the Whole, to offer a motion, which 
        shall require for adoption the affirmative vote of at least 
        one-third of a quorum, demanding the reconsideration of that 
        amendment by roll call vote taken in the manner provided by 
        Rule XV. Such motion is of the highest privilege and shall be 
        decided without debate. If, upon reconsideration by roll call 
        vote, the amendment is adopted, then the amendment shall be 
        deemed to have been read in the third reading, and shall be 
        included in the engrossment, of that measure.''

    Mr. O'Neill made a point of order against the amendment. The 
Chairman (5) ruled as follows: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 25815, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Arends) provides for the recording of teller votes. The pending 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts also provides 
    for the recording of teller votes. Therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order. . . .

    Another amendment in the nature of a substitute, also relating to 
reconsideration by roll call votes of amendments defeated in the 
Committee of the Whole House, had been ruled out as not germane because 
it was addressed to a different rule of the House than that to which 
the O'Neill amendment related. See Sec. 6.32, supra.

Ethics in Government: Limits on Outside Earned Income in Addition to 
    Disclosure

Sec. 6.34 To a proposition intending to regulate the conduct of a class 
    of persons by several diverse methods, an amendment adding an 
    additional approach to accomplish the same result may be germane; 
    thus, to a title of a bill providing for financial disclosure and 
    regulation of

[[Page 7873]]

    ethical conduct and conflicts of interest by employees of the 
    executive branch, an amendment prohibiting employees covered by 
    said title and receiving a certain level of compensation from 
    receiving above a certain percentage of outside earned income was 
    held germane as an additional regulation of ethical conduct related 
    to those contained in the title.

    During consideration of H.R. 1 (Ethics in Government Act of 1977) 
in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 27, 1978, (7) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 32006, 32007, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 51, after line 
        19, insert the following new section and renumber accordingly:
            ``Sec. 243. Except where the employee's Agency or 
        Department shall have more restrictive limitations on outside 
        earned income, all employees covered by this Act who are 
        compensated at a pay grade in the General Schedule of Grade 16 
        or above shall be limited in outside earned income to not more 
        than fifteen percent of their salary.''. . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: . . . The proposed 
    amendment in the first place by its terms applies to employees 
    covered by this act. The act has three titles: Title I which is on 
    the legislative branch; title II, executive branch; and title III, 
    judicial branch. We are here presently dealing only with title II, 
    the executive branch. Therefore the amendment is broader than the 
    subject matter pending before the committee under the rule and 
    would be subject to a point of order.
        Second, the other point of order I would like to raise is that 
    this bill by its terms is a financial disclosure act. It is to 
    require certain officers and employees of the United States to 
    answer as to their income and financial holdings and transactions 
    and report as to those. It does not limit income.

        A limitation of income is within the rules of the House and by 
    special mention in the rule under which this bill is being heard, 
    an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) could 
    have been entertained, but that I submit respectfully is not a 
    broad enough exemption to the rule to permit the entire bill to 
    reach earnings limitations in addition to the financial disclosure. 
    . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California 
    withhold his point of order until I ask unanimous consent to change 
    the word ``act'' to ``title''? . . .
        I would ask unanimous consent to change the word ``act'' to 
    ``title'' in the amendment. That is the intention of the amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 7874]]

        Does the gentleman from California insist on his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Danielson: Yes. As to the other point of order, as to the 
    scope of the bill, the earnings limitation as opposed to the 
    financial disclosure, yes. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I think the entire thrust of the bill does 
    relate, as we have said particularly as to income having a 
    relationship to ethics, and I think on that point my amendment 
    would be germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Title II approaches the issue of the ethical conduct of 
    executive branch employees in three diverse ways, one, disclosure; 
    two, creation of the Office of Ethics to monitor employee conduct; 
    and, three, imposition of civil penalties for conflicts of 
    interest. The amendment suggests a fourth approach to the issue of 
    ethical conduct of executive branch employees and as modified is 
    germane to title II as a whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill To Limit Campaign Expenditures for Radio and Television--Amendment 
    To Effect Limitation on Newspaper and Periodical Expenditures

Sec. 6.35 To a bill intended to limit campaign expenditures for radio 
    and television, an amendment making any such expenditures 
    contingent upon compliance with a limitation on newspaper and 
    periodical expenditures was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
imposing limits on the amounts permitted to be spent on radio and 
television broadcasting by certain candidates for elective office, an 
amendment to such proposition was offered for purposes of prohibiting 
any broadcasting expenditures by such candidates unless they certified 
that their newspaper and periodical advertising expenses did not exceed 
certain limits. The amendment stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Under consideration was H.R. 18434 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 28165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [No] . . . candidate in an election . . . for a major elective 
    office [may] spend for the use of broadcasting stations on behalf 
    of his candidacy in such elections any amount of money unless he 
    has first certified to the broadcast licensee from whom he proposes 
    to make the purchase of time that his total expenditures for 
    newspaper or periodical advertisements on behalf of his candidacy 
    in such an election will not exceed [a specified sum].

    The amendment was held to broaden the scope of the bill and was 
ruled out on a point of order. The basis of such ruling was explained 
by the Chairman (11) as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 28166, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.

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

[[Page 7875]]

        The gentleman from Massachusetts has made a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana on the 
    grounds that it is not germane. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana is drafted 
    as an amendment to that part of the bill . . . which seeks to 
    impose limits on the amounts which may be spent by candidates for 
    major elective offices for the use of broadcasting stations.
        The bill pertains solely to radio and television.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, however, 
    introduces another subject: Expenditures for newspaper and 
    periodical advertising.
        The effect of the amendment is to significantly broaden the 
    scope of the bill. While both the bill, in part, and the amendment 
    have a common purpose--limiting campaign expenditures--this fact 
    alone does not insure the germaneness of the amendment. The Chair 
    has examined a ruling made by Chairman Cannon, of Missouri, in the 
    77th Congress which stands for the following proposition.

            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, and an 
        amendment dealing with a subject to which there is no reference 
        in the text to which offered is not germane to the bill [Rec. 
        p. 875-878, Feb. 10, 1941].

        Since there is no mention in the pending bill of an expenditure 
    control on any campaign costs except radio and television, the 
    Chair finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the 
    point of order.

Consumer Protection: Congressional Oversight in Lieu of New Independent 
    Executive Agency

Sec. 6.36 To a bill establishing an independent agency within the 
    executive branch for the protection of consumer interests, an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute emphasizing the committee 
    oversight responsibility of the legislative branch and authorizing 
    Congressional committees to order the consumer office to take 
    certain actions, and creating an office within the legislative 
    branch as a function of the committee oversight responsibility was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Nov. 5, 1975,(13) during consideration of a bill 
establishing an agency for consumer protection (14) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was illustrated that to a bill seeking to 
accomplish a purpose by one method, an amendment proposing to 
accomplish that result by another method not contemplated by the bill 
is not ger

[[Page 7876]]

mane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 35041-43, 35046, 35047, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 7575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Levitas as a substitute:
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Protection Act 
        of 1975''.

                             statement of findings

            Sec. 2. The Congress finds that the interests of consumers 
        are inadequately represented and protected within the Federal 
        Government; that vigorous representation and protection of the 
        interests of consumers are essential to the fair and efficient 
        functioning of a free market economy; that it is the primary 
        responsibility of each Federal agency to serve and protect the 
        consuming public and to orient its operations toward this goal; 
        and that it is within the legitimate oversight authority and 
        responsibility of the Congress to establish mechanisms whereby 
        the operations of Federal agencies may be subjected to critical 
        examination to insure that those purposes are faithfully 
        pursued.
            Sec. 3. (a)(1) There is hereby established an office of the 
        Congress to be known as the Office of Consumer Protection. The 
        Office shall be headed by a Director who shall be nominated by 
        the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
        House of Representatives, and confirmed by majority vote of the 
        Senate and of the House of Representatives. . . .
            Sec. 5. (a) The Office shall, in the performance of its 
        functions, advise the Congress as to matters affecting the 
        interests of consumers; and protect and promote the interests 
        of the people of the United States as consumers of goods and 
        services made available to them through the trade and commerce 
        of the United States. . . .
            Sec. 7. (a) Whenever a committee of the Congress having 
        specific oversight responsibility with respect to the 
        operations of a Federal agency determines that the result of a 
        proceeding or activity of such agency may substantially affect 
        an interest of consumers, such committee may by resolution 
        order the Director to intervene as a party or otherwise 
        participate for the purpose of representing the interests of 
        consumers, as provided in paragraph (1) or (2) of this 
        subsection. . . .
            (d) To the extent that any person, if aggrieved, would have 
        a right of judicial review by law, the Director may, at the 
        direction by resolution of the committee of the Congress having 
        primary oversight responsibility, institute, or intervene as a 
        party, in a proceeding in a court of the United States 
        involving judicial review of any Federal agency action which 
        such committee determines substantially affects the interests 
        of consumers, except that where the Director did not intervene 
        or participate in the Federal agency proceeding or activity 
        involved, the court shall determine whether the Director's 
        institution of the judicial proceeding would be necessary to 
        the interests of justice. . . .
            (e) When the committee of the Congress having primary 
        oversight responsibility determines it to be in the interests 
        of consumers, such committee may by resolution order the 
        Director to request the Federal agency concerned to initiate 
        such proceeding or to take such other action as may be 
        authorized by law with respect to such agency. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I would review and point 
    out that in

[[Page 7877]]

    rule 16, section 78(c), committee jurisdiction as a test of 
    germaneness is the section to which I refer, and it is quite 
    obvious that this substitute amendment would give considerable 
    authority and jurisdiction in this entire field to a branch of the 
    Congress and would, if independently introduced, be referred 
    undoubtedly to some other committee, other than the Committee on 
    Government Operations. It would probably go to the Committee on 
    House Administration and to the Committee on Rules, or maybe to all 
    three.
        I would rest on that argument that this substitute amendment is 
    not germane and that a point of order lies against it. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: . . . I must say, I am somewhat taken by surprise 
    that the chairman of the committee did offer this point of order, 
    but it occurs to me, nevertheless, having one or two precedents 
    here that perhaps that point of order is not well taken.
        The question of germaneness, I believe, is quite clearly not 
    confined to which committee has jurisdiction in reporting the 
    original legislation.
        I think that there are ample precedents to establish the fact 
    that the question of committee jurisdiction itself is not a 
    sufficient test of germaneness.
        I would like to cite three precedents in particular that I 
    think are quite pertinent and I will refer to the first in some 
    detail because I think it is the most important. It is a precedent 
    that occurred on December 15, 1937, and involves a ruling by the 
    Chairman at that time. The point of order that was then made 
    related to whether or not a Department of Labor--a proposal was 
    made that would set up an authority within an independent agency. 
    The substitute provided, however, for setting up a bureau as a 
    division of the Department of Labor under an administrator, whereas 
    the Senate bill provided for the establishment of an independent 
    board.
        In ruling that the point of order was not well taken, the Chair 
    pointed out and quoted from Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 
    2993:

            The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, 
        or appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments 
        must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as 
        well as meet other tests; that is, that they be a natural and 
        logical sequence to the subject matter, and propose such 
        modifications as would naturally, properly, and reasonably be 
        anticipated.

        Now, as I pointed out in my remarks, the purpose of both these 
    bills is quite clearly to get the executive and the independent 
    agencies to do their jobs. This is clearly stated in the findings 
    incorporated in both pieces of the legislation that are offered. 
    The only difference is which vehicle is to be used to carry out the 
    responsibility of seeing that the independent agencies do their 
    job. In further making his ruling, the Chair said as follows:

            It seems to the Chair that this entire question turns upon 
        one point, and that is whether a new agency proposed by the 
        amendment offered by the lady from New Jersey to administer the 
        provisions of the pending bill is so different from the agency 
        set up in the Senate bill to accomplish that purpose as to 
        warrant the Chair holding the amendment not germane. It seems 
        to the Chair that the other provisions in the pending bill 
        involve solely a question of de

[[Page 7878]]

        tail, and do not, in and of themselves, provide a great 
        departure from the terms of the Senate bill. Therefore, it 
        appears to the Chair that the point for him to determine is 
        whether the change in agency to administer this act is so 
        different as to make the amendment not germane.
            Again referring to those decisions of germaneness made in 
        the past, in the consideration of farm legislation, the Chair 
        would distinguish them in this manner: The amendments in those 
        cases, it seems to the Chair, were not ruled out on the ground 
        that the substitution of a new governmental agency to 
        administer the terms of the bill were not germane, but went, 
        rather, to the authority of the new agency proposed to use a 
        new and unrelated method in accomplishing that end. The Chair 
        thinks that there is a decided difference between the 
        substitution of a new agency to administer the law and the 
        substitution of a new method of accomplishing a predetermined 
        end.

        It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite clear, based on 
    the statement of findings in both bills, that the purpose of both 
    is the same. The agency to carry it out only differs.
        Concluding my point, Mr. Chairman, again in that precedent the 
    Chair quoted from Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 4056, 
    wherein it was held--

            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government, ``through the agency 
        of the Secretary of War,'' an amendment proposing to adjudicate 
        such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for 
        that purpose was held to be germane.

        One of those was a cabinet post, the other was a quasi-judicial 
    body.
        The Chair in that case stated:

            The bill before the House has for its object the validating 
        and settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made 
        by the War Department. The bill before the House provides that 
        the Secretary of War, or any of his agents or representatives, 
        can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the 
        gentleman from Pennsylvania provides a different method or a 
        different agent or a different tribunal to settle these 
        differences. The Chair believes it is germane to the bill 
        before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is 
        confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims 
        that the committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is 
        germane proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to 
        determine which shall be adopted.

        The other two precedents, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to 
    cite are as follows: One was the ruling of the Chairman, Mr. 
    Lanham, in the Record of June 9, 1941, reported at page 4905; and 
    most recently, Mr. Chairman, the ruling of the Chair on December 
    19, 1973, found at page H11753.
        Based on those authorities, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the 
    test of germaneness is whether the substance to be accomplished is 
    akin to the substance in the bill itself. I think that is quite 
    clearly the case, as a reading of the findings in both situations 
    provide. The only difference is the vehicle to carry it out, and I 
    think it is quite clear in this instance that the precedents I 
    called to the attention of the Chair of 1937 are quite clearly in 
    point. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The bill H.R. 7575 would 
    set up an independent

[[Page 7879]]

    agency within the executive branch to protect and represent the 
    interests of consumers. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia, while related to the general 
    purpose of the bill--the protection of consumer interests--would 
    establish an Office for Consumer Protection as an office of the 
    legislative branch to further strengthen ``the legitimate oversight 
    authority and responsibility of the Congress to establish 
    mechanisms whereby the operations of Federal Agencies may be 
    subjected to critical examination to insure that those purposes are 
    faithfully pursued.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the amendment tracks the bill in many respects, 
    conferring upon the congressional office many of the authorities 
    given to the agency in the bill, to initiate actions for the 
    protection of consumers, a major function of the office as stated 
    in section 7 of the amendment is to institute or intervene in 
    actions to protect the interests of consumers whenever a committee 
    having specific oversight responsibility adopts a resolution 
    ordering the Director to so participate.
        It thus appears to the Chair that a primary method contemplated 
    by the amendment to achieve the common purpose of protecting 
    consumer interests is not closely enough related to the methods 
    contained in the bill to permit the amendment to be considered 
    germane.
        A landmark germaneness decision in this area, which was cited 
    by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas), is cited on page 515 
    of the House Rules and Manual, where Chairman McCormack ruled on 
    December 15, 1937, that, for a bill to accomplish a result through 
    regulation by a governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the 
    same fundamental purpose through regulation by another executive 
    agency was held germane. (See also Cannon's Precedents, vol. 8, 
    sec. 3056.)
        The precedents also indicate, however, that, to one method of 
    attaining an objective, an amendment to accomplish the same 
    objective by a different and unrelated method not contemplated by 
    the bill is not germane. (Deschler's Procedure, chap. 28, sec. 
    6.2).
        For example, to a bill providing relief to foreign countries 
    through Government agencies, an amendment providing for such relief 
    to be made through the Red Cross was held not germane December 10, 
    1974 . . . also cited on page 515 of the manual.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the emphasis contained in the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute upon congressional 
    oversight responsibilities and the authority conferred upon House 
    and Senate committees to order certain actions to be undertaken by 
    the Consumer Office in furtherance of those committees' oversight 
    functions introduces an issue which is not sufficiently related to 
    the scope of the pending bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing President To Appoint Administrative Assistants--
    Amendment To Change President's Term of Office

Sec. 6.37 To a bill authorizing the President to appoint up to

[[Page 7880]]

    six administrative assistants, an amendment proposing a 
    constitutional amendment extending the terms of the President and 
    Vice President to six years was held to be not germane.

    In arguing that a constitutional amendment extending the terms of 
the President and Vice President was germane to a bill authorizing 
Presidential appointment of administrative assistants, the proponent of 
the amendment, Mr. Donald H. McLean, of New Jersey, stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 7700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7730 (Select Committee on Government 
        Organization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A moment ago the ruling of the Chair was that this bill 
    pertained to the Executive Department. Certainly the amendment I 
    proposed pertains entirely to the executive department of the 
    Government and is therefore in order. Much has been said about the 
    physical and mental strain upon the Executive. The proposal for the 
    election of the President for a term of 6 years . . . would relieve 
    it. . . . (The amendment) has as one of its purposes the relief of 
    the mental and physical strain on the occupant of the Executive 
    Office, enabling the President to give his entire time to the 
    duties of the Presidency. . . .

    The Chairman (17) ruled that the amendment was not 
germane, pointing out that, ``the bill proposes that the President . . 
. be allowed to appoint . . . administrative assistants. The amendment 
offered . . . proposes a constitutional amendment.'' (18) 
The Chairman expressly relied on the principle that, ``to a proposition 
to effect a purpose by one method, a proposition to effect such purpose 
by another method, wholly unrelated, is not germane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wright Patman (Tex.).
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7701, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Foreign Assistance Act--Amendment Authorizing Annual 
    Appropriation to President To Accomplish Objectives of Bill

Sec. 6.38 Where a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
    sought to provide new authorizations and declarations of policy, an 
    amendment proposing alternatives to the several programs authorized 
    in the bill and in the act was held to be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, the Chairman (19) ruled that the 
amendment stated in part below was germane to a bill amending the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert M. Rains (Ala.).
20. See 109 Cong. Rec. 15614, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 22, 1963. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 7885 (Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs).

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

[[Page 7881]]

        In order to more directly, and thus more effectively, and more 
    economically accomplish the humanitarian objectives of the United 
    States . . . there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
    President, as an alternative to the several programs authorized for 
    such purposes by this Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    as amended, the sum of $1,000,000,000 annually. . . .

    The Chair stated only that, ``It is evident from a reading of the 
amendment that (it) is germane.''

Bill Providing for Settlement of Foreign Claims Against United States--
    Amendment Providing for Settlement in Form of Credit Against 
    Indebtedness of Foreign Nation

Sec. 6.39 To a bill directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay out 
    Treasury funds for the settlement of certain claims of foreign 
    individuals against the United States, an amendment providing that 
    such payments should be credited upon any indebtedness due to the 
    United States by the claimants' governments, was held to be 
    germane.

    On July 11, 1949, a bill was under consideration reading in part as 
follows: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 9236, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        937 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is 
    hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum as may be necessary 
    to effect full and final settlement of the following claims against 
    the United States:
        (a) Claim of the Government of Great Britain in [a specified 
    amount] on behalf of John Bailey. . . .

    A proposed amendment stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 9238, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [S]trike out ``pay out of any money in the Treasury not 
    otherwise appropriated'' and insert ``credit upon any indebtedness 
    due to the United States by the claimant governments.''

    Objection was made to the amendment as follows:

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the purposes 
    and intent of the bill.

    The Chairman,(2) however, overruled the point of order 
without further comment. (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Raymond W. Karst (Mo.).
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9238, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1949.

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

[[Page 7882]]

Proposition Empowering President To Take Over Foreign Vessels, and 
    Providing for Compensation Therefor--Amendment Providing That 
    Compensation May Be in Form of Credit Upon Debt Owed by Foreign 
    Nation

Sec. 6.40 To a proposition empowering the President to take over title 
    or possession of foreign merchant vessels and providing just 
    compensation shall be paid owners, an amendment providing that the 
    compensation for such vessels to any nation indebted to the United 
    States shall be in the form of a credit upon such debt was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 77th Congress, the following proposition was being 
considered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 3668, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4466 (Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That during the existence of the present emergency, the 
    President is authorized and empowered . . . to purchase . . . or 
    take over the title to . . . any foreign merchant vessel which is 
    lying idle in waters within the jurisdiction of the United States 
    and which is necessary to the national defense: Provided That just 
    compensation shall be determined and made to the owner or owners of 
    any such vessel in accordance with [certain statutory provisions].

    An amendment to the proposition stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3678, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That in the event any vessel taken over under 
    the provisions of this act belongs to any government now indebted 
    to the United States, the compensation to be paid . . . shall be 
    paid by crediting the same upon such existing debt. . . .

    In response to a point of order against the amendment, the Chairman 
(6) stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Costello (Calif.).
 7. 87 Cong. Rec. 3678, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the bill provides that vessels may be purchased 
    by the American Government, and the provisions of this amendment 
    merely go to the method whereby that purchase may be carried out. 
    It provides for one method of payment. Therefore, the Chair holds 
    it is germane to the purpose of the bill, and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Bill Giving Administrator of Veterans' Affairs Authority To Establish 
    Maximum Interest Rate for Loans to Veterans--Amendment Changing 
    Existing Authority of Administrator to Manage Loan Program

Sec. 6.41 To a bill giving the Administrator of Veterans' Af

[[Page 7883]]

    fairs authority, for a two-year period, to establish a maximum 
    interest rate for insured loans to veterans, an amendment changing 
    the existing authority of the Administrator to finance and manage 
    the loan program was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during the consideration of a proposition 
relating to the authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to 
establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed veterans' loans, an 
amendment was offered for purposes of changing the existing authority 
of the Administrator to finance and manage the loan program. The effect 
of the basic proposition and the amendment thereto, and the basis for 
ruling that the amendment was not germane, were discussed by the 
Chairman (8) as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 27343, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1969. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proposition before the Committee has a narrow purpose: To 
    grant the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs authority, for a 2-
    year period, to establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed or 
    insured veterans loans. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright 
    Patman], authorizes and directs the Administrator, in certain 
    situations, to purchase loan commitments from the lender-mortgagee 
    in a veterans loan transaction. Such purchases would be funded 
    through a revolving fund in the Treasury, with assets transferred 
    from the national service life insurance fund. Commitments 
    purchased by the Administrator under this authority could then be 
    sold through the Participation Sales Act of 1966.
        It has been suggested that the purpose of the two propositions 
    is similar in that both the committee amendment and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas are designed to help veterans 
    obtain housing loans. In a very broad sense this may be true, but 
    the precedents indicate that where a bill is drafted to achieve a 
    purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose 
    by an unrelated method, not contemplated by the bill, is not 
    germane.

Bill and Amendment as Stating Different Conditions To Be Used in 
    Determining Veterans' Pensions

Sec. 6.42 To that section of a bill providing a pension for certain 
    veterans to be paid monthly under certain conditions, an amendment 
    providing that such monthly payments be paid under other conditions 
    was held to be germane.

    During consideration of that section of a bill providing pensions 
for veterans based on age and

[[Page 7884]]

physical condition,(10) an amendment was offered basing such 
pension payments in part on service performed during a period of open 
hostilities or in an actual theatre of war.(11) In ruling on 
a point of order against the amendment, the Chairman (12) 
stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 95 Cong. Rec. 3058, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2681 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3063, 3064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949.
12. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 3064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the amendment . . . makes reference to periods of 
    service in arriving at an amount to be paid per month, it 
    nevertheless refers to a monthly amount of pension. Therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Free Postage for Armed Forces in Time of War--
    Amendment Proposing That Members of Armed Forces Be Furnished 15 
    Postage-free Envelopes Each Month

Sec. 6.43 To a section of a bill dealing with free postage for members 
    of the armed forces in time of war, an amendment proposing that 
    each member of the armed forces be furnished 15 postage-free 
    envelopes each month was held to be germane.

    On Feb. 28, 1942,(14) a bill relating in part to free 
postage for members of the armed forces was being considered. The 
following statement (15) by the Chairman (16) 
related to a proposed amendment to the bill and a point of order raised 
against such amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 1792-94, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 1793, 1794, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 28, 1942.
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. It provides every member 
    of the military or naval forces of the United States . . . shall be 
    furnished 15 penalty envelopes each month during the war. The title 
    of the bill to which the amendment is offered provides free postage 
    for soldiers, sailors, and marines.
        The Chair thinks the question involved is that of free postage 
    for men in the military service. Whether a man is handed a certain 
    number of envelopes that require no postage or is handed a certain 
    number of postage stamps to be placed on some other envelope is a 
    matter of mere detail. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is on the same subject as the provision of this title of 
    the bill, and therefore, is of the opinion that it is germane, and 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7885]]

Bill Authorizing Funds To Reimburse Post Office for Costs of Air 
    Transportation of Military Mail--Amendment Authorizing Direct 
    Payments To Air Carriers

Sec. 6.44 To a bill authorizing use of funds to reimburse the Post 
    Office Department for costs of air transportation of military mail, 
    an amendment authorizing the Secretary of Defense in certain 
    instances to make direct payments to air carriers for such 
    transportation was held to be germane.

    The following exchange, on July 21, 1956, concerned an amendment to 
certain proposals made with respect to the costs of air transportation 
of military mail: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 13855, 13856, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania on the ground, first, that it relates to payment for 
    air transportation of mail, and to methods of handling matters 
    within the Post Office Department, two subjects which are entirely 
    within the jurisdiction of two other committees, and not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . This deals not 
    with matters before the Post Office Department; this deals with the 
    Department of Defense, it deals with problems in the Department of 
    Defense, it deals only with persons who can be covered by the 
    Department of Defense.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 18. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Flood] has offered an 
    amendment to strike section 32 which reads:

            There is herewith authorized to be made available 
        appropriations of the Department of Defense for reimbursement 
        to the Post Office Department for payment of costs of 
        commercial air transportation of military mail between the 
        United States and foreign countries.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Flood] reads:

            The Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide for the 
        commercial air transportation of military mail between the 
        United States and foreign countries--

        With further language. It appears from the reading of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Flood] 
    that it is germane, and the point of order is overruled.

Proposal To Withhold Pay of Retired Military Officers Who Engage in 
    Selling of Products to Defense Department--Amendment To Penalize 
    Defense Contractors Who Hire Retired Officers

Sec. 6.45 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute pro

[[Page 7886]]

    viding in part for the withholding of retired pay of military 
    officers who engage in the selling of products to the Department of 
    Defense within two years after their retirement, an amendment 
    making it unlawful for contractors to hire such retired officers 
    within the two-year period and disqualifying contractors who 
    violate this provision from engaging in government contracts was 
    held to be not germane.

    The following exchange,(19) during consideration of a 
proposition (20) respecting activities of retired military 
officers, related to the germaneness to such proposition of an 
amendment having the same basic purposes but applying to persons other 
than retired military officers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
20. See 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960 
        (amendment offered by Mr. Paul J. Kilday [Tex.]). For further 
        discussion, see Sec. 4.39, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kilday: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane. In that connection, 
    I call the Chair's attention to the fact that it includes the 
    prohibition as to the person employing, that phrase not being 
    included in either the amendment or the original bill. It creates a 
    new civil penalty for violation which was not included in either 
    the pending original bill or the pending amendment. For that reason 
    it is not germane to the pending bill and amendment. . . .
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: . . . The title of the 
    bill is ``A bill relating to the employment of retired commissioned 
    officers by contractors of the Department of Defense and the Armed 
    Forces and for other purposes.'' . . .
        . . . I submit that the amendment which I have offered provides 
    as to the activity of the contractor and provides a penalty for a 
    violation of law not with a jail sentence or a criminal 
    prosecution, but with a civil penalty. . . .
        [The amendment] deals with officer and contractor relations, 
    and I certainly think the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (1) . . . The Chair has had an 
    opportunity to study the amendment and finds that in paragraphs (c) 
    and (d) the amendment refers to contractors. It imposes a penalty 
    on contractors in the form of a suspension of the privilege of 
    doing business with the Federal Government for a period of 2 years. 
    The bill and amendment now under consideration deal solely with 
    retired commissioned officers of the armed services. It is entirely 
    outside the scope of the bill or of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Kilday]. Therefore, the Chair holds that 
    the

[[Page 7887]]

    amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Construction of Life Science Research Facility--
    Amendment Authorizing Expansion of Existing Life Science Research 
    Facilities

Sec. 6.46 To a bill including an authorization for Ames Research Center 
    in California for construction of a life science research 
    laboratory, an amendment reducing that authorization and providing 
    allocation of other sums authorized by the bill for expansion of 
    existing life science research facilities at other locations was 
    held to be germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1963, a bill was under consideration authorizing funds 
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. An amendment to 
the bill was offered which provided in part that,(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 13899, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7500 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of the amount authorized to be appropriated . . . $2,000,000 
    shall be for use in the expansion of the existing life sciences 
    research facilities at Wright-Patterson Field, Ohio, or Brooks 
    Medical Center, Texas, as determined by the Administrator.

    A point of order was made based in part on the following argument:

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment refers to installations and the construction of 
    facilities which are not set out in the original bill. . . .
        Second, the amendment is defective in that these are both 
    Department of Defense installations. . . .
        . . . Obviously, it is not germane to the bill nor is it within 
    the jurisdiction of the Science and Aeronautics Committee for the 
    legislation now before us to determine authorization for Department 
    of Defense facilities such as these two facilities are.

    In response, the proponent of the amendment, Mr. James D. Weaver, 
of Pennsylvania, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this is intended to maintain a life sciences 
    research unit but to remove the funds allocated for the Ames 
    Research Center and apply them at existing facilities either at 
    Wright-Patterson Field or the Brooks Medical Center, Tex. That is 
    the purpose of this amendment. It is related to the bill. . . .

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (3) 
stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Albert Thomas (Tex.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 13899, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that the amendment is germane. It deals with the same subject 
    matter. . . .

[[Page 7888]]

Arts and Humanities: Additional Program To Assist Artists

Sec. 6.47 Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by diverse 
    methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to accomplish 
    that result may be germane; thus, to a bill containing three 
    diverse titles authorizing grant programs for support of the arts 
    and humanities, including subsidies through the National Endowment 
    for the Arts to encourage and assist artists, an amendment in the 
    form of a new title authorizing the employment of unemployed 
    artists through the National Endowment for the Arts was held 
    germane as a specific additional program related to the general 
    programs already in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12838 (to amend the National 
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965) on Apr. 26, 
1976,(5) Chairman Pro Tempore Edward I. Koch, of New York, 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 11098-101, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE I--ARTS AND HUMANITIES

                         state humanities councils

        Sec. 101. (a) Section 7 of the National Foundation on the Arts 
    and the Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new subsection:
        Sec. 11. (a)(1)(A) For the purpose of carrying out section 5, 
    there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal 
    year 1977, and $113,500,000 for fiscal year 1978. . . .

                         TITLE II--MUSEUM SERVICES

                                short title

        Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Museum Services 
    Act''.

                     TITLE III--CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM

                          establishment of program

        Sec. 301. The National Foundation on the Arts and the 
    Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new section. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: Page 34, after line 11, 
        insert the following new title:

           TITLE IV--EMERGENCY PROGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARTISTS

                            establishment of program

            Sec. 401. (a) The Congress of the United States recognizes 
        the contributions which artists make to the

[[Page 7889]]

        cultural life of each community throughout the Nation as well 
        as to the Nation as a whole. . . .
            (b) The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
        of 1965, as amended by section 301, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                 ``emergency program for employment of artists

            ``Sec.13. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for 
        the Arts with the advice of the National Council on the Arts, 
        shall carry out a program, directly and through grants-in-aid 
        to States, during any fiscal year in which the seasonally 
        adjusted national rate of unemployment published by the Bureau 
        of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor exceeds 6.5 per 
        centum as determined by the Chairman, of employment of 
        unemployed artists in projects or products. . . .
            ``(b) In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the 
        Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts shall 
        coordinate such program with programs for public service 
        employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
        of 1973 and with other appropriate public programs providing 
        employment for unemployed individuals. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reading the 
    amendment, I question the germaneness of this amendment. The jobs 
    provision added into the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs 
    Act, it seems to me fits better in the next bill coming up, the 
    emergency job programs bill, and I raise a point of order on 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane to the bill before 
    us. It has to do with providing additional jobs of a public service 
    nature. It fits more in the legislation next on the agenda. I do 
    not see that it fits within the purview of the legislation we have 
    before us. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I disagree. I think it is germane to 
    the purposes of this act. This act recognizes the contributions 
    which artists make to the cultural life of the communities 
    throughout the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to provide for the 
    employment of artists in the program which is to be conducted and 
    determined, the eligibility for which programs as well as the 
    employment in the programs is determined by the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts. I think it is germane. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the ``Ramseyer'' in the committee report on page 
    23. Title I of the committee amendment extends the law which 
    provides subsidies for projects and productions which would 
    otherwise be unavailable for economic reasons and which will 
    encourage and assist artists and enable them to achieve wider 
    distribution of their works, to work in residence at an educational 
    or cultural institution, or to achieve standards of professional 
    excellence. This is a general purpose of the bill and the amendment 
    provides a specific program of grants through the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts to accomplish that.
        The amendment is germane as a new title to the bill which 
    presently contains three diverse titles and the gentlewoman from 
    New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 7890]]