[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]
[F. Procedural Matters]
[Â§ 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9225-9235]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; 
    Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings

    The Chair ordinarily does not give anticipatory rulings and 
declines to prejudge the germaneness of any amendment not actually 
before the House. The Chair does not indicate in advance what his 
ruling would be as to the germaneness of an amendment if 
offered.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8706, 8707, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1939 
        (remarks of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Costello).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, where there was pending to a bill both an amendment in 
the form of a new section and a substitute therefor, the Chair 
(4) declined to indicate, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, whether the pending substitute, if defeated, would thereafter 
be germane and in order if subsequently offered as an amendment in the 
form of a new section.(5) In this instance, there

[[Page 9226]]

was pending, in addition to the above, an amendment to the substitute. 
The Chairman did indicate, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that 
defeat of the amendment to the substitute and of the substitute would 
not preclude the offering of another germane substitute; and that 
adoption of the amendment in the form of a new section would not 
preclude the offering of additional germane amendments as new sections 
to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 5. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 25811, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Chair does not anticipate the content of a motion 
to recommit and will not rule in advance as to whether particular 
instructions which might be offered as part of such a motion would be 
germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See the remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) at 109 Cong. 
        Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963, in response to 
        a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Halleck. See also Sec. 45.7, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Chair on occasion has indicated that it is not 
within its province to advise Members as to where an amendment to a 
bill could properly be offered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See the remarks of Chairman Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.) at 84 Cong. Rec. 
        7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair rules on points of order as raised and does not determine 
whether an amendment ruled out at one point as not germane may be 
offered at some later stage.
    The Chair, however, may sometimes be seen to depart from the above 
principles. Thus, the Chairman on infrequent occasion has expressed an 
opinion as to whether a proffered amendment might be germane to a 
different part of the bill.(8) For example, the Chairman, 
while ruling out an amendment as not germane to a particular part of a 
bill, has indicated that the amendment would be germane to a later 
section of the bill. On Mar. 23, 1933, during consideration of the 
District of Columbia Beer Bill,(9) the Chairman 
(10) first held that an amendment imposing general 
restrictions on the sale of beverages was not germane to that part of 
the bill which merely described types of beverage licenses to be 
issued; then he stated that the amendment was germane to a later 
section of the bill and could be offered during consideration of such 
section.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 21.8, supra.
 9. H.R. 3342 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
10. Ralph Fulton Lozier (Mo.).
11. 77 Cong. Rec. 835, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, while ruling an amendment out of order, the

[[Page 9227]]

Chairman on occasion has indicated how the amendment could properly be 
offered.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 18.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other instances, the Chair may decline to rule. Thus, the 
Speaker does not rule on such questions of germaneness as may be the 
province of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 45.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on the question as to whether an amendment 
is ambiguous.(14) And the Chair has declined to pass upon 
constitutional questions.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 46.4, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 30.21, 33.8, 35.86, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Speculation as to Motives 
    Behind Amendment

Sec. 46.1 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
    relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
    offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment 
    which circumstances may suggest, nor by the fact that the 
    amendment, offered to a public bill, may in substance be 
    characterized as private legislation benefiting individuals.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the Defense 
Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in Sec. 3.45, 
supra.

Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Conjecture as to Further 
    Legislation That Might Result From Amendment

Sec. 46.2 In ruling on a question of germaneness, the Chair confines 
    his analysis to the text of the amendment and is not guided by 
    conjecture as to other legislation or administrative actions which 
    might--but are not required to--result from the amendment.

    On July 27, 1977,(16) it was held that to a title of a 
bill (17) reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
providing for benefits under, and administration of, the food stamp 
program, an amendment which provided for recovery of benefits from 
persons whose income exceeded specified levels was germane even though 
it required the Secretary of the Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal 
Revenue

[[Page 9228]]

Service to collect any liability imposed by the amendment's provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 7171, the Agriculture Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            ``Sec. 1210(a)(1) if--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,
        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to such 
        individual for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and 
        payable on April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall 
        be collected in accordance with the procedures prescribed 
        pursuant to subsection (g). . . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would not be in 
    order and would not be within the jurisdiction of this committee. . 
    . .
        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over

[[Page 9229]]

    the place. We do not interfere with any statutes which are under 
    committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have not done so 
    here. The question is, do we change any statute which is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we do not. They 
    are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not the guardian 
    over any agency which happens to be involved with those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall collect any liability, clearly the intention is that 
    the Internal Revenue Service shall collect W-2 forms, match them 
    against income figures which are now under the law not to be given 
    even to the Secretary of Treasury, but are for collecting income 
    tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment. Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent collection 
    procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the Internal 
    Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the germaneness 
    of the amendment by contemplating possible future legislative 
    actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program--a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 9230]]

Anticipatory Rulings

Sec. 46.3 While the Chair will not ordinarily render anticipatory 
    rulings as to the propriety of amendments which have not been 
    offered, the Chair may respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to the 
    germaneness and form of an amendment (in the nature of a 
    substitute) which has been printed in the Record and is at the desk 
    and is manifestly not in order as a substitute for a pending 
    perfecting amendment.

    On May 9, 1979,(19) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (20) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 10485, 10486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--

            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $508,200,000,000 and the amount by which the aggregate level of 
        Federal revenues should be decreased is $6,500,000,000. . . .
            Sec. 4. In 1979, each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall report by July 1 to the House of 
        Representatives its recommendations and the status of its 
        actions with respect to new spending authority including all 
        legislative savings, and other reforms, targeted by the first 
        concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year ending 
        on September 30 of that same year. This report shall include 
        any additional legislative savings which the committee believes 
        should be considered by the House in the programs for which 
        such committee has responsibility.
            In 1980, each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall include in its March 15 report to the 
        Budget Committee of the House of Representatives specific 
        recommendations as to all possible legislative savings for the 
        programs for which the committee has responsibility. . . .

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, this 
    gentleman had planned to offer his amendment as a substitute for 
    the Holt-Regula amendment.
        It is my understanding that when the gentlewoman spoke to her 
    amendment, the gentlewoman called it a perfecting amendment. I do 
    not know whether that embraces fiscal year 1979 and 1980. My 
    amendment does.
        This inquiry is whether mine can be offered as a substitute to 
    the Holt-Regula amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland

[[Page 9231]]

    (Mr. Mitchell) that since the gentleman's amendment which is at the 
    desk would go to the fiscal years 1979 and 1980 and is in the 
    nature of a substitute for the entire resolution, it would not be 
    germane or otherwise in order, since the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Holt) is perfecting in nature and 
    only goes to the fiscal year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question of Ambiguity: ``Provisions'' of Supreme Court

Sec. 46.4 To the proposition that specified funds shall not be allotted 
    to any state failing to comply with the ``provisions'' of the 
    Supreme Court, an amendment to strike ``provisions'' and insert 
    ``decisions'' was held to be germane without regard to possible 
    ambiguities in the terms.

    In the 84th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(2) to authorize federal aid to states and local communities 
in financing a program of school construction, the proposition and 
amendment thereto as described above came under 
consideration.(3) Mr. Ross Bass, of Tennessee, made the 
point of order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(4) Subsequently, after a ruling by The 
Chairman,(5) that the amendment was germane, Mr. Bass 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7535 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 3. See 102 Cong. Rec. 11873, 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
 4. Id. at p. 11875.
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I make the point of order that the word ``provisions'' is 
    ambiguous and has no meaning whatever and would make the amendment 
    not germane.

    The Chairman responded that,

        The Chair does not rule on the question of ambiguity. It is a 
    question of germaneness solely, and the Chair has ruled that the 
    amendment is germane.

Question of Consistency

Sec. 46.5 While the Chair must rule on points of order which call into 
    question the germaneness of an amendment to the proposition to 
    which offered, the Chair may decline to make a germaneness ruling 
    when the point of order as stated goes to the consistency (and not 
    the relevancy) of the amendment.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(6) during consideration of H.R. 8410 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in holding 
that a proper point of order had not been raised, reiterated the 
principle that the

[[Page 9232]]

Chair does not rule on the consistency of an amendment with the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 32495, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, beginning on line 
        10, strike out ``during a period of time that employees are 
        seeking representation by a labor organization,'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``within the 7-day period prior to a 
        representation election.''.
            Page 17, line 15, insert immediately before the semicolon 
        the following: ``, except that no rule issued pursuant to the 
        requirements of this paragraph shall require an employer to 
        reimburse employees for time used to obtain such information 
        from such labor organization''. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    point of order is that this amendment is inconsistent with the 
    substitute as we have just amended it. It expands the substitute to 
    include decertification and other matters which are not relevant. . 
    . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that this simply 
    limits the provisions which the substitute would provide and that 
    it does not affect the language of the substitute. On the contrary, 
    it expands upon it. It simply makes an addition to the substitute 
    as a section of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Thompson) that the Chair cannot rule on the consistency of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. 
    Myers) to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford).
        Therefore, the Chair would have to state that the gentleman has 
    not raised a proper point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Thompson's remarks did make 
reference to the relevance of the amendment, the Chair apparently did 
not take note of the reference, and understood the point of order to 
relate only to the consistency of the two propositions.

Question of ``Workability'' of Amendment

Sec. 46.6 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair does 
    not consider the workability of an amendment which establishes as a 
    measure of availability of spending authority in the bill a 
    referenced level contained in another document relating to that 
    spending authority, so long as the amendment does not directly 
    affect other provisions of law or impose conditions predicated upon 
    other unrelated actions of Congress.

    The proceedings of June 11, 1987, relating to H.R. 4, the Hous

[[Page 9233]]

ing Authorization Act are discussed in Sec. 34.2, supra.

Probable Effect of Bill and Amendment--Change in Law, Permanent in 
    Form, Construed as Temporary

Sec. 46.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effect of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment which in form amounted to a permanent 
    change in law could in fact be understood to be a temporary change 
    in law, in light of the fundamental purpose demonstrated by prior 
    legislative treatment of the subject in question (the statutory 
    ceiling on public debt), and thus could properly be offered to a 
    bill whose fundamental purpose was to provide a temporary increase 
    in the statutory ceiling on the debt.

    During consideration of H.R. 2360 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings of May 13, 1987,(10) were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Extension of the Public Debt Limit.
10. 133 Cong. Rec. 12344, 12345, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Pursuant to House Resolution 165, 
    the bill is considered as having been read for amendment under the 
    5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of H.R. 2360 is as follows:

                                   H.R. 2360

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this Act and ending on July 17, 1987 the public debt limit set 
        forth in subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 
        States Code, shall be equal to $2,320,000,000,000.
            (b) Effective on and after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, section 8201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
        of 1986 is hereby repealed. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rostenkowski: Strike out 
        subsection (a) of the first section of the bill and insert the 
        following: ``That (a) subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 
        31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar 
        limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 
        thereof `$2,578,000,000,000'.''
            Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to increase 
        the statutory limit on the public debt.''. . . .

        Mr. [Connie] Mack [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the grounds that it violates 
    clause 7 of the

[[Page 9234]]

    rule XVI, the germaneness rule, and ask to be heard on my point of 
    order.
        Madam Chairman, subsection (a) of H.R. 2360, the reported bill, 
    makes a temporary and indirect change in the permanent public debt 
    limit through July 17, 1987.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] makes a permanent and direct change in existing law. 
    It directly amends title 31, section 3101 of the United States 
    Code. The base does not.
        Let me cite three precedents in support of my position:
        Procedure in the House, 97th Congress, chapter 28, section 
    19.1:

            To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment 
        making permanent changes in that law is not germane.

        Chapter 28, section 19.3:

            To a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
        providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling 
        for the current fiscal year not directly amending the Second 
        Liberty Bond Act, an amendment proposing permanent changes in 
        that Act and also affecting budget and appropriations 
        procedures was held not germane.

        Chapter 28, section 19.4:

            To a proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal 
        year, an amendment making permanent changes in law is not 
        germane. . . .

        Mr. Rostenkowski: Madam Chairman, in 1983 the rule providing 
    for the consideration of H.R. 2990, to increase the public debt 
    limit, provided for a waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI, the 
    germaneness rule, against an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
    germaneness waiver was necessary because the committee amendment to 
    repeal the temporary debt limit and to make the entire ceiling 
    permanent was not germane to the original bill which only provided 
    for an increase in the temporary debt limit.
        With the enactment of H.R. 2990 into law in 1983, the 
    distinction between the temporary and permanent public debt limit 
    was eliminated. It was only with the passage of the 1986 Budget 
    Reconciliation Act that we again temporarily increased the public 
    debt limit.
        I would argue that the committee amendment to the bill before 
    us is germane because, first of all, the fundamental purpose of the 
    committee amendment is consistent with that of the bill, namely a 
    temporary increase in the public debt. The bill before us provides 
    debt authority, which is estimated to be sufficient until July 17, 
    1987. The committee amendment provides debt authority until October 
    1, 1988. Both the bill and the amendment provide debt authority, 
    which eventually will prove to be insufficient and, therefore, both 
    are temporary in nature. In addition, the bill has the effect of 
    amending the same section of the United States Code as the 
    committee amendment. Finally, I would argue that the amendment is 
    germane because it passes the common sense test of not introducing 
    a subject matter which is ``different from that under 
    consideration.''
        The issue before us is how long to increase the public debt. 
    The amendment gives the House two choices on these issues. I urge 
    the Chair to rule the amendment germane.

[[Page 9235]]

        The Chairman: If there are no further speakers on the 
    germaneness issue, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mack] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] is not germane. The amendment would directly amend 
    existing law by striking the existing dollar limitation in section 
    3101 of title 31 of the United States Code and inserting a new 
    dollar figure, with the intention to increase the Government's 
    borrowing authority for an unspecified but necessarily temporary 
    period of time.
        However, the bill, H.R. 2360, in subsection (a), refers to, and 
    in the opinion of the Chair, is tantamount to, a change in the same 
    provision of the law as the amendment.
        Both the bill and the amendment are based upon estimates of 
    sufficiency of the total amount of borrowing authority over 
    different periods of time. For this reason, the Chair believes the 
    amendment to be closely related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill, and to accomplish that purpose by amending the same section 
    of law referenced in the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Speaker Declines To Decide Questions That Are Province of Chairman of 
    Committee of Whole; Hypothetical Questions

Sec. 46.8 The Chair may decline to give an opinion on hypothetical or 
    anticipatory questions; and the Speaker has declined to rule on 
    questions that are the province of, and must be decided by, the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    For an illustration of circumstances in which the Speaker may 
decline to give an opinion on certain questions, see the proceedings 
discussed at Sec. 45.7, supra.

[[Page 9235]]