[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions]
[Â§ 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8682-8703]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations

Prohibition on Military Operations in North Vietnam

Sec. 32.1 To a bill authorizing supplemental appropriations for 
    military procurement, research, and construction, an amendment 
    declaring it to be the sense of Congress that none of the funds 
    therein authorized shall be used to carry out military operations 
    in North Vietnam was held to be a restriction on the authorizations 
    contained in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(12) an amendment was offered 
(13) as stated above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5143, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a

[[Page 8683]]

    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California on the ground that the amendment is not germane. It is 
    in the realm of policy.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair thinks the present amendment simply places a restriction 
on authorizations contained in this bill and relates only to the funds 
in this bill.
    The Chair holds that the amendment is germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 4.32, supra, for discussion of another amendment, in the 
        form of a statement of congressional policy, which was offered 
        to the same bill and ruled out as not being within the 
        jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibition on Use of Funds to Relocate Vietnam War Evacuees in High 
    Unemployment Areas

Sec. 32.2 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims of South Vietnam, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such assistance to relocate or to create 
    employment opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in 
    the United States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the 
    bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
to which a point of order was made and sustained. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the 
        end of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or create employment opportunities in 
        any congressional district where the unemployment rate exceeds 
        the national unemployment rate as defined by the Bureau of 
        Labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor.''. . 
        .

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

[[Page 8684]]

    in the amendment in the nature of a substitute deals with the 
    national unemployment rate. . . .
        Mr. Clay: . . . The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule. For 
    the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    and for the fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's 
    amendment is not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Construction of Naval Ships To Be Postponed Pending Arms Limitation 
    Conference

Sec. 32.3 To that paragraph of a naval authorization bill increasing 
    the authorized tonnage of the Navy with respect to certain 
    categories of vessels, an amendment providing that the construction 
    of capital ships shall be postponed pending the call of a naval 
    limitation of armament conference, and that such construction shall 
    be governed by the results of the conference, was held germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Naval Authorization Bill of 1938 
(19) was under consideration, which provided in part: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
20. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3593, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 17, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That in addition to the tonnages of the 
    United States Navy as agreed upon and established by the treaties 
    signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 
    1930, and as authorized by the act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 
    503), as amended by the act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1926), the 
    authorized composition of the United States Navy in under-age 
    vessels is hereby increased by the following tonnages:

            (a) Capital ships, 105,000 tons, making a total authorized 
        under-age tonnage of 630,000 tons;
            (b) Aircraft carriers, 30,000 tons, making a total 
        authorized under-age tonnage of 165,000 tons. . . .

    An amendment was offered (1) as described above. Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, raising the point of order that the amendment 
``is not germane at this part of the bill,'' stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 3610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This is a section dealing with categories of ships, 
    whereas the amendment deals with a restriction with respect to when 
    the ships shall be built.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While it is true that in the committee amendment appearing at 
    the top of page 7 there are provisions re

[[Page 8685]]

    ferring to some sort of a conference, at the same time the 
    amendment . . . is a limitation. The place of its insertion in the 
    bill does not go to its germaneness at this particular point, even 
    though the amendment has some reference to another provision of the 
    bill.
        The amendment is therefore in order at this point as a 
    limitation, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Restrictions on Use of Margarine by Navy

Sec. 32.4 To a bill to amend the Navy Ration Statute to permit 
    oleomargarine to be served to naval personnel, an amendment 
    providing that no oleomargarine be acquired for use by the Navy 
    when surplus butter stocks are available to the Navy through the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
amending the Navy Ration Statute as indicated above. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 912 (Committee on Armed Services).
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 6931, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Add 
    the following new section:

            Sec. 2. During any period when surplus butter stocks are 
        available to the Navy through the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        no oleomargarine or margarine shall be acquired for use by the 
        Navy, or any branch or department thereof. . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes additional duties upon the officers and expands 
    on the purpose of the bill, which is of the single purpose to amend 
    the Navy ration statute so as to permit the use of oleo or 
    margarine, whereas the amendment offered imposes additional duties 
    upon the officials of the Department in connection with the 
    procurement of supplies.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under this amendment it is purely a limitation placed upon the 
    Navy. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 8.30, supra, discussing a contrary ruling with respect to 
        a similar but more broadly worded amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on Contributions to International Financial Organization

Sec. 32.5 To a bill continuing authority under existing law to make 
    contributions to an international financial organization and 
    authorizing ap

[[Page 8686]]

    propriations for those contributions, an amendment adding a further 
    restriction on the use of United States contributions to those 
    already contained in that law is germane.

    On July 2, 1974,(7) during consideration of a bill 
continuing United States participation under the International 
Development Association Act, an amendment prohibiting the use of United 
States contributions as loans for the purchase of nuclear weapons or 
materials was held germane as a restriction on the use of loans by 
recipient nations which added to several restrictions already contained 
in the Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 22026, 22028, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C. 284 et 
        seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec, 14. (a) The United States Governor is hereby 
        authorized to agree on behalf of the United States to pay to 
        the Association four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        as the United States contribution to the Fourth Replenishment 
        of the Resources of the Association.
            ``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution, 
        there is hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal 
        year limitation four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.

        The Chairman: (8) Are there any amendments to this 
    section? There being no amendments the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Public Law 93-110 (87 
        Stat. 352 are repealed and in lieu thereof add the following:
            ``(b) No rule, regulation, or order in effect on the date 
        subsections (a) and (b) become effective may be construed to 
        prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or 
        otherwise dealing with gold in the United States or abroad. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 2, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:
            Sec 2. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 15. No moneys contributed by the United States to 
        the Association may be loaned to, or utilized by, any country 
        for the purpose of purchasing nuclear materials, or nuclear 
        energy technology or for the purpose of developing nuclear 
        explosive devices or nuclear weapons.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    purports to amend subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Public Law 93-110 
    (87 Stat. 352). Public

[[Page 8687]]

    Law 93-110 is the Par Value Act which affected the gold value of 
    the dollar. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) attempts to amend the International Development 
    Association Act, this has to do with nuclear materials, it is, 
    therefore, entirely nongermane to the act which it seeks to amend. 
    . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply seeks to 
    add a new section to this bill, section 15. This section would 
    condition any of the moneys to be spent in the event IDA is 
    successful this afternoon, or any of the moneys to be loaned, and I 
    use that as a euphemism because, in fact, it is an outright grant 
    in its nature, and we have recognized it as such, and I do not 
    think anyone thinks that we will ever have the money returned, but 
    it represents a condition under which the money can be loaned.
        The fact of the matter is, the money, if it is to be loaned, 
    cannot be used to provide nuclear technology or nuclear material in 
    any of the proposed countries, and it is my judgment that the 
    appropriate manner in which to do that is to add an additional 
    section, and we do that in my amendment by creating section 15.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss).
        The bill is drafted as a continuation of the U.S. Governor's 
    authority to agree to make U.S. money available to IDA under terms 
    of the International Development Association Act. That statute 
    already contains several restrictions on the Governor's authority 
    to cast dissenting votes for loans to nations lacking certain 
    qualifications. Therefore an amendment to further restrict the use 
    of funds for loans under IDA, part of which are authorized by the 
    bill, would be germane, and the point of order is 
    overruled.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. In response to a further point of order, the Chair ruled that the 
        Biaggi amendment came too late, because section 2 of the bill 
        had already been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratification of International Monetary Fund Articles--Prohibition 
    Against Alienation of Gold to IMF Trust Fund and Other Parties

Sec. 32.6 While an amendment may be germane which limits for certain 
    purposes the authorities granted in a bill, the amendment must be 
    confined to the agencies, authority and funds addressed by the bill 
    and may not be more comprehensive in scope; thus, to a bill 
    amending the Bretton Woods Agreement Act to ratify proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, to approve an increase in the United States quota in the 
    Fund and to authorize dealing in gold in connection with the Fund, 
    an amendment prohibiting the alienation of gold to any IMF

[[Page 8688]]

    trust fund, to any other international organization or its agents, 
    or to any person or organization acting as purchaser for any 
    central bank or governmental institution was held not germane, 
    being more general in scope.

    On July 27, 1976,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13955 (amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
Act), when a point of order against the amendment described above was 
sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 24040, 24041, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendments: page 2, line 23, strike out ``Sec. 3'' 
    and insert ``Sec. 5''.
        Page 3, line 11, strike out ``Sec. 4'' and insert ``Sec. 6''.
        Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
        Sec. 7. Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 
    U.S.C. 822a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval 
    of the President, directly or through such agencies as he may 
    designate, is authorized, for the account of the fund established 
    in this section, to deal in gold and foreign exchange and such 
    other instruments of credit and securities as he may deem necessary 
    to and consistent with the United States obligations in the 
    International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
    annually make a report on the operations of the fund to the 
    President and to the Congress.''. . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: On page 5, add the following 
        new section:
            ``Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither 
        the President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the 
        United States alienate any gold to any trust fund established 
        by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, 
        or to any other international organization or its agents, or to 
        any person or organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of 
        any central bank or governmental institution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: . . . The legislation 
    before us is to provide for amendment of the Bretton Woods 
    Agreements Act and only the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and only 
    those things in the U.S. statute that are directly thereto attached 
    to the purpose of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. This amendment 
    is not limited to the International Monetary Fund because there is 
    the language at about page 5 of the amendment, ``or to any other 
    international organization or its agents, or to any person or 
    organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of any central bank or 
    governmental institution.''
        It goes about 5 miles beyond the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. 
    Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, on 
    page 18, Article 5, Section 12, of the Jamaican Agreements, which 
    is something which we are partially ratifying with this leg

[[Page 8689]]

    islation, it does refer to this special trust fund.
        On page 18 of the communication sent to us from the Secretary 
    of State it refers to this special trust fund and the conditions 
    under which our governor and others will be expected to abide, and 
    it is very much a part of what we are ratifying.
        So I believe that it can be shown, because we are ratifying the 
    Jamaica Agreements with this legislation, that in fact we are 
    speaking and the gentleman from Texas is speaking to this issue and 
    he wishes to put conditions on our Governor in this International 
    Monetary Fund. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is not 
    germane to the bill H.R. 13955.
        The bill has as its major purpose the ratification of proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, and to consent to an increase in the quota of the United 
    States in the International Monetary Fund.
        The amendment would prohibit the President or the Secretary of 
    the Treasury from alienating or selling any gold to any trust fund 
    established by the IMF or to any other international organization 
    or its agents, or to any person or organization acting as a 
    purchaser on behalf of any central bank or governmental 
    institution, unless Congress authorizes such action by law.
        While the Chair is not completely aware of the impact which the 
    gentleman's amendment would have on international organizations 
    other than the International Monetary Fund, it is apparent from the 
    text of the amendment that it is far more comprehensive in scope 
    than the bill to which offered. Since the amendment is not limited 
    by its terms as a restriction upon U.S. authority to alienate gold 
    to the IMF, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane to 
    H.R. 13955 and sustains the point of order.

Medical Facilities for Agency Employees--Prohibition on Performance of 
    Abortions

Sec. 32.7 To a bill establishing a new Department of Education and 
    authorizing the furnishing of medical services, supplies and 
    facilities for employees of said department, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such services to perform certain abortions 
    was held germane as a restriction on use of authorized facilities.

    During consideration of H.R. 2444 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 11, 1979,(13) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Department of Education Organization Act.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 18022, 18051, 18052, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 428. (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide, 
        construct, or

[[Page 8690]]

        maintain, as necessary and when not otherwise available, the 
        following for employees and their dependents stationed at 
        remote locations:
            (1) emergency medical services and supplies;
            (2) food and other subsistence supplies. . . .
            (b) The furnishing of medical treatment under paragraph (1) 
        of subsection (a) and the furnishing of services and supplies 
        under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) shall be 
        at prices reflecting reasonable value as determined by the 
        Secretary. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 84, in line 6, 
        strike out the semicolon and insert in its place: ``, provided 
        that such services and supplies shall not include any services 
        or supplies for the performance of abortions, except where the 
        life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
        carried to term;''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        This amendment is in the guise of a limitation on the 
    authorization contained in section 436. It is, in effect, an 
    amendment to repeal a statute not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations. It would prevent the payment of 
    salaries, prevent the execution of laws transferred by the bill to 
    the new department. If you extend this concept, Mr. Chairman, it 
    would certainly not be germane to this reorganization. It is 
    expressly devoted to the preservation and reorganization of the 
    educational institutions of this country.
        Mr. Chairman, I think to allow this amendment would circumvent 
    the authorities of other committees and would be certainly not 
    germane in any shape, form or fashion to this legislation on 
    reorganization. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . A clear reading of section 428 clearly 
    indicates that the Secretary is authorized to provide services. 
    Subparagraphs 1 through 7 clearly delineate these services. 
    Emergency medical services and supplies, food and subsistence 
    supplies, dining facilities, living and working quarters and 
    facilities.
        A reading of section 428 would seem to negate the entire 
    argument of the able gentleman from Texas.
        This section creates authority in a reorganization bill, 
    authority for the Secretary to construct, maintain as necessary the 
    following for employees and their dependents.
        My amendment simply offers a limitation on one of these 
    services that is established in section 428, and for that reason I 
    would suggest it is clearly germane.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined section 428 and agrees that the section 
    does provide for the furnishing of certain services.
        Paragraph 1 does provide for the furnishing of emergency 
    medical services and supplies to departmental employees.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is limited to 
    restricting such services and supplies for certain medical purposes 
    and is germane to that section.

[[Page 8691]]

        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Provisions Permitting Use of Facilities of Department of Education--
    Restriction on Use by Certain Educational Institutions

Sec. 32.8 To a bill establishing a new Department of Education and 
    authorizing the department to allow the use by public and private 
    agencies of facilities maintained by the department at remote 
    locations, an amendment prohibiting the use of such facilities by 
    any higher education institution which uses mandatory student fees 
    to perform certain abortions was held germane.

    On July 11, 1979,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2444 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment offered to the following section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 18022, 18052, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The Department of Education Organization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 429. (a) With their consent, the Secretary may, with 
        or without reimbursement, use the research, equipment, 
        services, and facilities of any agency or instrumentality of 
        the United States, of any State or political subdivision 
        thereof, or of any foreign government, in carrying out any 
        function vested in the Secretary or in the Department.
            (b) In carrying out his duties, the Secretary, under such 
        terms, at such rates, and for such periods (not exceeding five 
        years), as the Secretary may deem to be in the public interest, 
        is authorized to permit the use by public and private agencies, 
        corporations, associations, or other organizations, or by 
        individuals of any real property, or any facility, structure, 
        or other improvement thereon, acquired pursuant to sections 427 
        and 428, under the custody and control of the Secretary for 
        Department purposes. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 85, in line 18, 
        strike out the period and insert in its place: ``; except that 
        the Secretary may not permit such use by any institution of 
        higher education which uses mandatory student fees to pay for 
        the performance of abortions, except where the life of the 
        mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
        term.''.

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        I think this is a little different from the other. The other 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio had to do with the 
    services that were rendered or to be under the control of the 
    Secretary with regard to employees at remote locations.
        In this one, it seems to me that it is different. It seems to 
    me that we are creating a new law. This is not under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.
        It is inappropriate for our committee to be acting on this. 
    This is a reorga

[[Page 8692]]

    nization plan. It seems to me we ought not to be legislating new 
    law with regard to this section of the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . My colleague from New York is correct in 
    one important instance. This is a different section; but a full 
    reading of section 429, particularly lines 13 through 21, clearly 
    indicate the Secretary may require permittees under this section to 
    recondition or maintain to a satisfactory standard at their own 
    expense the real property, facilities, structures, and improvements 
    involved.
        This is merely a limitation on the authorization the Secretary 
    has to permit the use by public and private agencies of the 
    facilities.
        For the reasons indicated before on the previous point of 
    order, it is also a limitation on a specific authority given to the 
    Secretary and does not impose any new duties.
        I suggest that it is germane for that reason.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair concurs that section 429 involves or covers the use 
    of facilities.
        Pursuant to subparagraph (b) of that section, the Secretary is 
    authorized to permit the use by public and private agencies of 
    certain facilities under this statute, including facilities by its 
    terms which are made available under sections 427 and 428 which 
    could include medical facilities.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio seeks to limit that 
    authorization by restricting the use of such facilities for certain 
    medically related purposes.
        Accordingly, the Chairman overrules the point of order.

Restrictions on Activities of State and Local Agencies Receiving 
    Federal Funds

Sec. 32.9 To a proposition amending several laws providing federally 
    funded assistance, an amendment restricting the activities of the 
    state and local agencies which are the recipients of those funds 
    and also providing a judicial remedy where the restrictions imposed 
    upon those agencies are not complied with is germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 3.15, supra.

Limitation on Discretionary Authority of Federal Energy Administrator

Sec. 32.10 To a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, 
    including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
    energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict 
    the manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action 
    pro

[[Page 8693]]

    posals to Congress was held germane to the law being extended as a 
    limitation on discretionary authority conferred in that law, and 
    therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), it was held that to a bill 
continuing and reenacting an existing law, a germane amendment 
modifying the provisions of the law being extended was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to cite from Deschler's 
    Procedure 28, section 5.10 and section 5.11, as follows:

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

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

            To a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
        sub

[[Page 8694]]

        stitute having as its fundamental purpose the funding of urban 
        highway transportation systems, an amendment broadening that 
        section to include rail transportation within its ambit is not 
        germane. . . .

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

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

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the production, 
    conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and allocation 
    of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection with only 
    those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Adminis

[[Page 8695]]

    tration Act to restrict the discretion of the Administrator in the 
    method of submitting energy action proposals to Congress, a 
    function delegated to him by the President under the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973. Section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act directs the Administrator to prepare for and 
    conduct programs for production, conservation, use, control, 
    distribution, rationing, and allocation of energy in connection 
    with authorities transferred to him by law or delegated to him by 
    the President.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Texas would place a 
    specific restriction on the exercise of that discretion to perform 
    functions under other laws.
        On March 6, 1974, when the original Federal Energy 
    Administration Act was being considered for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered to section 5 of 
    the bill, the section of the act presently in issue. The amendment 
    would have prohibited the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    on domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in the bill, and Chairman Flynt ruled 
    that the amendment was germane as a limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred on the Administrator in that section and as a 
    limitation not directly amending another existing law.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration and to the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act which it extends, and overrules the point of 
    order.

Development of Synthetic Fuels--Restriction on Contracts With Major Oil 
    Companies

Sec. 32.11 To a bill authorizing appropriations and providing 
    contracting authority, an amendment restricting the use of the 
    authorization or contracting authority for the benefit of a certain 
    class of recipients is germane; thus, to a bill authorizing 
    appropriations to enter into contracts for the development of 
    synthetic fuels, an amendment prohibiting the use of the funds 
    authorized to enter into contracts with any major oil company was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (20) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(1) Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, held 
the following amendment germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3930.
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 16694-96, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 11, after line 2, 
    insert the following:
        ``(3) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first word of section (a) 
    and by inserting the following after the last sentence.

[[Page 8696]]

        ``(2) No funds authorized in subparagraph (1) above to carry 
    out the purposes of Sections 305(d)(3) and 305(d)(5) may be used to 
    contract for the purchase or the commitment to purchase any amount 
    of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock with any major 
    oil company. For the purposes of this section:
        (A) The term `major oil company' means any person, association, 
    or corporation which, together with its affiliates, either produces 
    or refines a daily world-wide volume of 1,600,000 barrels of crude 
    oil, natural gas liquids equivalents, and natural gas equivalents. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Steve] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, according to rule 
    XVI, clause 7--that is the germaneness rule of the House--one of 
    the tests is the jurisdiction of the committee of jurisdiction. 
    Certainly a bill of this nature which we are talking about, when we 
    have sort of a divestiture of certain oil companies, legislation of 
    this sort should come from the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Second, the title of the bill is another test of jurisdiction. 
    According to the title, this is a bill ``to amend the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 to extend the authority granted by such act 
    and to provide for the purchase of synthetic fuels and synthetic 
    chemical feedstocks, and for other purposes.''
        Certainly that does not come under germaneness test and the 
    defense title of the bill. If there is any purpose to this bill, it 
    is to provide for the production because of defense purposes, and 
    this is an attempt to interfere and stop a substantial section of 
    our country from participating in the program.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly under rule XVI, clause 7, 
    my argument stands up. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The amendment is 
    carefully drafted as a limitation on authorization. It says, ``No 
    funds authorized . . . to carry out the purposes of sections'' so-
    and-so ``may be used to contract for the purchase or the commitment 
    to purchase any amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical 
    feedstock with any major oil company.''
        The amendment is clearly germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to suggest that the point of order is not well taken. The 
    provisions of this act that provide for an opportunity for 
    Government-based cooperation provides for the limitation on the 
    size of the contract in terms of 100-billion-a-day equivalent 
    synthetic fuels. It has all sorts of parameters in the nature of 
    purchases by contractors and the nature of the agreement. I think 
    this is one further limitation that is in order in terms of this 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair cannot see any questions of germaneness raised by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). It 
    appears to the Chair to be simply an additional restriction or 
    condition on the contracting authority granted under this act and, 
    therefore, to be germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8697]]

Transfer of Property to Provide Homeless Shelter--Restriction on 
    Noncharitable Use of Property

Sec. 32.12 To a bill authorizing the transfer of Federal property to 
    accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment rescinding the 
    transfer if the use of the property is not consistent with that 
    purpose (as defined in another law) is germane if that law refers 
    to the same purpose covered by the bill; thus, to a bill providing 
    for the transfer of a specified property in the District of 
    Columbia solely for the purpose of providing shelter to homeless 
    and to protect the public health, amended to include restrictions 
    on liability and maintenance responsibilities, an amendment 
    requiring reversion of the property if not used for that charitable 
    purpose as defined under a provision of the Internal Revenue Code 
    was held germane as a further restriction on the same use of the 
    property.

    During consideration of H.R. 4784 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 5, 1986,(2) Chairman Pro Tempore John P. Murtha, of 
Pennsylvania, overruled a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 132 Cong. Rec. 12592-94, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 4784

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Administrator of General Services shall, within five days after 
        the date of enactment of this Act, transfer jurisdiction over 
        the property located at 425 Second Street, Northwest, in the 
        District of Columbia, to the municipal government of the 
        District of Columbia in accordance with section 1 of the Act of 
        May 20, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 122), other than the first proviso of 
        such section, solely for purposes of administration and 
        maintenance of such property for providing shelter and related 
        services to homeless individuals in the District of Columbia 
        and for other use in the protection of the public health. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: At the end of the bill add the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 2. Upon the transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to the 
        first section of this Act, the Federal Government (1) shall not 
        be liable for injuries or damages that occur while the property 
        is under the jurisdiction of the municipal government of the 
        District of Columbia and that arise out of the operation, 
        maintenance, repair, renovation, reconstruction, or other 
        capital improvement of that property by such municipal 
        government; and (2)

[[Page 8698]]

        shall not be responsible for the operation, maintenance, 
        repair, renovation, reconstruction, or other capital 
        improvement of that property while the property is under the 
        jurisdiction of such municipal government. Nothing in this 
        section shall be deemed to prohibit the Federal Government from 
        funding the renovation of the property. . . .

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph J.] DioGuardi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. ;
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. DioGuardi. At the end of the bill 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 4. (a) If any organization selected by the municipal 
        government of the District of Columbia to administer such 
        property as a shelter for homeless individuals uses such 
        property in a manner that would cause a charitable organization 
        as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1954 to lose its tax exempt status under section 501(a) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1954--
            (1) the property shall be considered to have ceased being 
        used for the purposes described in the first section of this 
        Act; and
            (2) jurisdiction over such property shall revert to the 
        United States. . . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to 
    H.R. 4784. It places restrictions on the use of the building in 
    question that are not within the jurisdiction of the Government 
    Operations Committee, have nothing to do with the transfer of 
    Federal property, which this bill addresses, and is otherwise in 
    violation of rule XVI. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair agrees with the 
    gentleman from New York that this amendment merely places 
    additional restrictions on the use of the property covered by this 
    bill in addition to those other restrictions which are already in 
    the bill. So the Chair thinks the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Juvenile Delinquency Control Act--Limitation on Assistance to Projects 
    in District of Columbia

Sec. 32.13 To a bill authorizing federal assistance on the city, state, 
    and national levels for projects designed to prevent juvenile 
    delinquency, an amendment to limit the federal assistance to 
    projects within the District of Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Juvenile 
Delinquency Control Act of 1961,(3) an amendment was offered 
(4) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8028 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 17612, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 30, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on the ground that if

[[Page 8699]]

    this amendment is in order it would take the legislation completely 
    out of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor and 
    transfer it to the Committee on the District of Columbia and, 
    therefore, would completely change the character of the bill.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 17613, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 30, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered is clearly a 
    limitation and actually confines the activity, and for that reason 
    the amendment is germane and the point of order is overruled.

Restrictions on Subsidies to Copper Producers

Sec. 32.14 To a bill authorizing funds for stabilizing production of 
    copper, lead, and certain other commodities through subsidies to 
    domestic producers, an amendment prohibiting subsidy payments to 
    any producer who declares a dividend or transfers funds to a 
    surplus account was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to stabilize production of copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade 
fluorspar, and tungsten from domestic mines. The following exchange 
(8) concerned a point of order raised by Mr. John J. Rhodes, 
of Arizona, against the amendment, which had been offered by Mr. John 
James Flynt, Jr., of Georgia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. S. 4036 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 18960, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 21, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, may I say that the amendment is as 
    germane to the bill as the provision in the bill which precedes the 
    point at which the amendment is offered, providing a time limit on 
    the disbursement of payments under the act. My amendment would 
    simply provide and place a limitation on eligible producers who can 
    participate under the proceeds of the act. . . .
        The Chairman,(9) without elaboration, overruled the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Panama Canal Employees Required To Be American Citizens

Sec. 32.15 To an amendment relating to compensation of employees on the 
    Panama Canal and authorizing, under certain conditions, engagement 
    of persons having specified qualifications, an amendment requiring 
    that des

[[Page 8700]]

    ignated classes of employees be American citizens was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 5129 (Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries).
11. See 84 Cong. Rec. 10725, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the improvement and enlargement of 
    the capacity of the Panama Canal . . . is hereby authorized to be 
    prosecuted by the Governor of the Panama Canal. . . . For the 
    purposes aforesaid, the Governor of the Panama Canal is authorized 
    to employ such persons as he may deem necessary and to fix their 
    compensation without regard to any other law affecting such 
    compensation, to authorize the making of any contracts . . . deemed 
    necessary for the prosecution of the work herein authorized . . . 
    and in general to do all things proper and necessary to insure the 
    prompt and efficient completion of the work herein authorized.

    The following committee amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 10725, 10726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. Bland: Page 2, line 9, 
    insert after the word ``authorized'', the letter ``a'' in 
    parentheses, strike out the word ``with'' on line 10 and all of 
    lines 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, insert a colon and the following: 
    ``Provided, That the compensation of such persons shall not be 
    lower than the compensation paid for the same or similar services 
    to other employees of the Panama Canal: . . . [and] That the 
    Governor of the Panama Canal, with the approval of the Secretary of 
    War, is authorized to engage, under agreement, when deemed 
    necessary, expert assistance in the various arts and sciences upon 
    terms and rates of compensation for services and incidental 
    expenses in excess of the maximum compensation provided by law for 
    employees of the Panama Canal. . . .''

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered which provided: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 10728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Starnes of Alabama to the 
    committee amendment: On page 1, line 3, after the word ``Canal'' 
    strike out the colon and insert a comma and the following: ``and 
    all such persons occupying skilled, technical, clerical, 
    administrative, and supervisory positions shall be citizens of the 
    United States.''

    Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. The Speaker,(14) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . . From a . . . hurried reading of the committee amendment 
    it appears that the first part of that proviso deals with the 
    compensation of such persons; that is, persons who may be employed 
    on the Canal. As the Chair reads the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama, it is a limitation upon the nature and 
    character of such employees. The Chair is, therefore, of the

[[Page 8701]]

    opinion that the amendment is germane to the committee amendment, 
    and overrules the point of order.

More Limited Treatment of Subject of Bill: Variances in Permitted 
    Levels of Concentration of Pollutants

Sec. 32.16 For an amendment to the Clean Air Act authorizing state 
    governors to permit variances affecting permitted levels in 
    concentration of two pollutants from stationary sources in two 
    classes of areas, a substitute authorizing governors to permit 
    increases in concentration of one of those pollutants in one class 
    of areas was held germane as a more limited approach to the subject 
    treated in the amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 6161 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole, it was demonstrated that for an amendment changing 
certain language in a pending section, a substitute changing that text 
and also additional language in the section may be germane if it has 
the effect of dealing with the same subject in a related and more 
limited way, when a point of order against the amendment described 
above was overruled. The proceedings of May 25, 1977,(16) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 16648, 16652, 16653, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 296, strike out lines 4 through 23 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``(c)(1) Each applicable implementation plan shall contain 
        an area classification plan based on maximum allowable 
        increases in ambient concentrations of, and maximum allowable 
        levels of ambient concentrations of, sulfur dioxide and 
        particulate matter, in the case of increases based on 
        concentrations permitted under national ambient air quality 
        standards for any period of twenty-four hours or less, such 
        regulations shall provide that the Governor of the State may, 
        upon application of any person and after notice and opportunity 
        for hearing, permit the maximum allowable increases specified 
        for each pollutant to be exceeded during five percent of the 
        hours of the year with respect to such pollutant in Class I and 
        Class II areas. . . .

        Mr. [K. Gunn] McKay [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McKay as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Breaux: Strike out the text of the 
        Breaux amendment and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(c)(1) Except as may otherwise be permitted under 
        subsection (d) in the case of air pollutants other than sulfur 
        oxides and particulates, each applicable implementation plan 
        shall

[[Page 8702]]

        contain an area classification plan based on maximum allowable 
        increases in ambient concentrations of, and maximum allowable 
        levels of ambient concentrations of, any air pollutant for 
        which a national ambient air quality standard is established. 
        In the case of an increase based on concentrations permitted 
        under national ambient air quality standards for any period of 
        twenty-four hours or less, such regulations shall permit such 
        limitations to be exceeded during one such period per year and, 
        in addition, in the case of the maximum allowable increase of 
        sulfur dioxide for the three-hour period of exposure, a class 
        II increment variance may be granted as provided in section 
        162. Such classification plan shall apply to all areas in each 
        State where the national primary and secondary ambient air 
        quality standards for any air pollutant are not being exceeded. 
        Such classification plan shall provide for designation of all 
        such areas as either class I, class II, or class III as to each 
        such pollutant. Until such designation is effective, all such 
        areas shall be deemed to have been designated as class II, 
        except as may be otherwise provided under paragraph (3)(B). . . 
        .

        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the author 
    of the amendment, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay), and I think 
    the amendment should be offered. However, I do not think it should 
    be offered as a substitute for the particular amendment that is now 
    pending:
        The reason is, No. 1, that I think the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay) goes considerably farther in 
    bringing in other sections of the act that is before us than does 
    my amendment.
        My amendment does not speak to any duties or obligations of the 
    Administration of EPA. It does not put any authority on or require 
    the Federal land manager to take any steps or actions in this 5-
    percent exception that my amendment provides for.
        My amendment regulates class I in two areas. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay) only talks to class 
    II areas.
        My amendment regulates and pertains to two potential 
    pollutants, SO2 and particulates. The gentleman's 
    amendment, as I understand it, only relates to particulates.
        While the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
    McKay) may be proper at some other point in this particular 
    legislation, I would object to his offering it at this point 
    because it is not germane and because it goes considerably farther 
    than does the pending amendment . . .
        Mr. McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) seeks to do is also what I seek to do in 
    many respects, except that my amendment merely narrows what he is 
    trying to do. It only deals with one pollutant, SO2, as 
    the gentleman has indicated. It does not violate the principle or 
    the intent of the act here proposed.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is just a narrowing of the 
    language and becomes very valid in connection with the amendment . 
    . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, both of 
    the amendments to section 108 concern the same issues. They go to 
    the increments and

[[Page 8703]]

    variances, and I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah (Mr. McKay) is very much in order as a substitute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair has heard 
    and considered the point of order and the arguments in support of 
    and in opposition thereto and will now rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The McKay amendment is germane as a substitute for the Breaux 
    amendment. The McKay amendment deals with the same subject of 
    variances for sulfur dioxide pollutants. The Breaux amendment is 
    broader insofar as it affects particulate matter pollutants as well 
    as sulfur dioxide. The McKay substitute, while technically 
    containing more language inserted at another place in section 108, 
    nevertheless deals with the same subject in a more limited way.
        The point of order is overruled.

Amendment in Guise of Limitation

Sec. 32.17 A different subject from that under consideration may not be 
    proposed in the guise of a limitation; thus, to propose an 
    amendment in the mere form of a limitation does not make the 
    amendment germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 31.35, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------