[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]
[E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law]
[Â§ 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8974-8988]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law

    To a bill repealing several sections of an existing law, an 
amendment proposing to repeal the entire law may be 
germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 37.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill repeals a provision of law, an amendment modifying 
that provision rather than repealing it may be germane; but the 
modification must relate to the provision of law being 
repealed.(19) Thus, where a bill seeks to repeal a provision 
of existing law, an amendment proposing modification of that law may be 
held germane (20) or not germane,(1) depending on 
whether the amendment relates specifically to the fundamental purpose 
of the bill and to the provision of law being repealed by the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 37.8, infra.
20. See Sec. 37.13, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, 41.1-41.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill consisting of two sections, the first stating the title 
of the bill, the second repealing a narrow provision of an existing 
act, an amendment inserting a statement of congressional policy 
applicable not only to the pending bill but to the administration of 
the whole act is not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 37.9, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Labor Relations Act

Sec. 37.1 To a bill repealing a provision of existing labor law, 
    thereby depriving the states of the power to prohibit ``closed shop 
    contracts,'' an amendment modifying the provision of law, to permit

[[Page 8975]]

    states to retain the power to bar the application of ``closed 
    shop'' agreements to veterans of military service, was ruled out as 
    not germane.

    The following proceedings took place on July 28, 
1965,(3) during consideration of a bill (4) 
repealing portions of the National Labor Relations Act as described 
above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For other important rulings on the germaneness of 
        amendments offered during consideration of this bill, see 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra.
 4. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 1, line 4 strike the 
    word ``repealed'' and insert the following: ``amended to read as 
    follows:

            ``With respect to any individual who has served the United 
        States on active military duty during wartime or during the 
        Korean or Vietnam conflicts, nothing in this act shall be 
        construed as authorizing the execution or application of 
        agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a 
        condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such 
        execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial 
        law.''

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane.
        The Chairman (Mr. Leo O'Brien [of New York]): The gentleman 
    from New York makes the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane, and the Chair must rule that it is not germane.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: May I be heard on the point 
    of order? . . . I was on my feet seeking recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, the amendment just read deals only 
    with the language of 14(b); in fact, the amendment contains the 
    exact language of 14(b) with a very simple but clear limitation. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois is not germane.

Sec. 37.2 To a bill repealing a provision of existing labor law, 
    thereby depriving the states of the power to prohibit ``closed 
    shops,'' an amendment permitting the states to retain the power to 
    prohibit such shops but authorizing labor organizations to enter 
    into agreements requiring nonunion members to pay an agency fee for 
    collective bargaining representation, was held not to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
repealing portions of the National Labor Relations Act as described 
above.

[[Page 8976]]

The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 18637, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
            For other important rulings on the germaneness of 
        amendments offered during consideration of this bill, see 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of 
    Maryland]: On page 1, lines 3 and 4, strike out lines 3 and 4 and 
    in lieu thereof insert: ``Subsection (b) of Section 14 of the 
    National Labor Relations Act is amended to read as follows:

            ``(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing 
        the execution or application of agreements requiring membership 
        in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any 
        State or territory in which such execution or application is 
        prohibited by State or Territorial law. The Act, however, does 
        authorize the execution or application of agreements requiring 
        all members of a collective bargaining unit to pay in equal 
        proportion for the services rendered by a certified collective 
        bargaining agent.''

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made a point of order against 
the amendment as not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated:

        . . . [The amendment] is so intimately connected with the 
    right-to-work issue that it meets the objections to the repeal of 
    14(b) and yet obtains the objectives of the repeal of 14(b). . . .

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, also speaking on the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    attempts to amend the section that deals with right-to-work laws by 
    adding an amendment having to do with what the gentleman termed 
    ``the agency shop.'' Agency shop arrangements or provisions are in 
    nowise affected by H.R. 77, the bill before us. I contend, 
    therefore, that the amendment is not germane to the bill.

    The Chairman (7) ruled without elaboration that the 
amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair ruled on the germaneness of six 
amendments to this bill. In four of the rulings, carried in 
Sec. Sec. 41.1 through 41.4, infra, the amendments ruled nongermane 
clearly raised issues beyond the narrow purpose of the bill and 
affected other portions of the law in question. In the two rulings 
cited above, the amendments were drafted as limitations or exceptions 
from the repeal in question, in order to preserve to the states 
authorities to ban certain closed shop agreements involving particular 
employees or permit alternative ``agency'' shop agreements under 
certain circumstances. Because the fundamental purpose of the bill was 
to achieve a uniform federal law prohibiting the states from barring 
``closed shops,'' amendments which deviated from

[[Page 8977]]

that purpose and related instead to the coverage of certain classes of 
employees under that and other sections of the law were held not 
germane.

Neutrality Act

Sec. 37.3 To a bill seeking to repeal a portion of the Neutrality Act 
    for purposes of permitting the President to arm American vessels, 
    an amendment relating to insurance for certain persons on military 
    duty was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.J. Res. 237 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. See 87 Cong. Rec. 8026, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939 
    (relating to the arming of American vessels) is hereby repealed; 
    and, during the unlimited national emergency proclaimed by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the President is authorized, through 
    such agency as he may designate, to arm, or to permit or cause to 
    be armed, any American vessel as defined in such act. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edouard V.M.] Izac [of California]: 
    In line 11, after period, add the following: ``For life insurance 
    protection to the families of armed guard detachments detailed as 
    guns' crews on American vessels so armed, all personnel on active 
    duty in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard . . . shall be 
    granted insurance under sections 602 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the 
    National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940. . . .''

    The Chairman,(10) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8027, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. It relates to a provision 
    for insurance for men who arm these vessels, a provision fairly 
    within the jurisdiction of committees other than the Foreign 
    Affairs Committee. Unquestionably the amendment is not germane to 
    this resolution and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 37.4 To a joint resolution repealing several sections of an 
    existing neutrality law, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    proposing to repeal the entire law was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a joint resolution (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
13. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.

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

[[Page 8978]]

           Proclamation of a State of War Between Foreign States

        Section 1. (a) That whenever the President shall find that 
    there exists a state of war between foreign states, and that such 
    war endangers the lives of citizens of the United States and 
    threatens the peace of the United States, the President shall issue 
    a proclamation naming the states involved; and he shall, from time 
    to time, by proclamation, name other states as and when they may 
    become involved in the war.
        (b) Whenever the conditions which have caused the President to 
    issue any proclamation under the authority of this section have 
    ceased to exist, he shall revoke the same.

    A later section of the bill, Section 15, referred to by Mr. Fish in 
his point of order against the amendment offered here, stated:

        Sec. 15. The act of August 31, 1935 (Public Res. No. 67, 74th 
    Cong.), as amended by the act of February 29, 1936 (Public Res. No. 
    74, 74th Cong.), and the act of May 1, 1937 (Public Res. No. 27, 
    75th Cong.), and the act of January 8, 1937 (Public Res. No. 1, 
    75th Cong.), are hereby repealed.
Section 15 was modified by a committee amendment subsequently agreed to 
on June 30.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8501, 8502, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 8288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert G.] Allen of Pennsylvania: 
    Page 2, line 1, strike out all of section 1 and insert in lieu 
    thereof the following as a substitute for the joint resolution:

                 Repeal of Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937

            The act of August 31, 1935 (Public Res. No. 67, 74th 
        Cong.), as amended by the act of February 29, 1936 (Public Res. 
        No. 74, 74th Cong.), and the act of May 1, 1937 (Public Res. 
        No. 27, 75th Cong.), and the act of January 8, 1937 (Public 
        Res. No. 1, 75th Cong.), are hereby repealed.

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

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    to me this amendment is not germane to section 1 but would be 
    germane to section 15, now called section 16, on page 15, the 
    repeal of the acts of 1935, 1936, 1937 . . . . It seems to me there 
    is but one place for [the amendment] and that would be that section 
    of the bill where reference is made to the specific laws that are 
    repealed. There is no reference to any of these laws in the first 
    section of the bill.

    The Chairman,16 in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is clearly 
    germane to the pending resolution, because the pending resolution 
    contains a section repealing certain provisions of existing 
    neutrality laws. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania seeks to repeal the neutrality law. The amendment is, 
    therefore, germane. As to the point of order made by

[[Page 8979]]

    the gentleman from New York that it is not germane to the section 
    the Chair invites attention to section 2905 of volume VIII of 
    Cannon's Precedents of the House which state:

            A substitute for an entire bill may be offered only after 
        the first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the 
        bill for amendment has been concluded.

        The Chair is of opinion, in keeping with the precedent to which 
    attention has been invited, that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is in order at this point.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair properly treated the Allen 
amendment as ``in the nature of a substitute'' for the entire joint 
resolution, since it substituted language for the entire text, although 
not drafted to ``strike out all after the resolving clause and insert. 
. . .''

Sec. 37.5 To a proposition to repeal the neutrality laws, a substitute 
    amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the world ``be put 
    on notice'' that Congress would not declare war except in certain 
    situations involving the safety of the United States was held not 
    to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of the Neutrality Act of 
1939,17 an amendment was offered, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs). For further 
        description of the joint resolution, see Sec. 37.4, supra.
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 8294, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin J.] Kennedy [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: On page 2, line 1, 
    after the enacting clause strike out all of the language of the 
    resolution down through and including section 14, and insert the 
    following: . . .

            Whereas under the Constitution the Congress of the United 
        States has the sole power to declare war; and
            Whereas the neutrality law has come to a termination: 
        Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress . . . that 
        the entire world be put on notice that the Congress . . . will 
        not declare war on any country unless our own safety is 
        directly . . . involved by a hostile force or by an actual 
        violation of international law which endangers the safety of 
        our country. . . .

    Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. The Chairman (19) sustained the 
point of order, relying in part on the rule that a preamble can

[[Page 8980]]

be in order only after the body of a bill or joint resolution has been 
perfected. The Chairman further stated that, ``the resolving clause 
contained in the amendment offered by [Mr. Kennedy] is not germane to 
the [pending amendment to the] joint resolution. . . .'' 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 8295, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese Exclusion Acts

Sec. 37.6 To a bill seeking the repeal of Chinese Exclusion Acts, an 
    amendment relating to immigration generally was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3070 (Committee on Immigration and Naturalization).
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 8633, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [A. Leonard] Allen of Louisiana: Page 
    4, after line 4, add a new section, to read as follows:

            Sec. 4. That, beginning with the end of hostilities of the 
        present war, no immigrant (as defined in sec. 203, title 8, 
        U.S.C.) shall be admitted into the United States during any 
        calendar year until the number of unemployed persons, including 
        United States war veterans, within the United States, is less 
        than 1,000,000. . . .

    Mr. Thomas E. Scanlon, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order 
against the amendment on the ground that it was not germane to the 
bill. The point of order having been conceded,(3) the 
Chairman (4) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 8635.
 4. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Repealing Narrow Subsection of Selective Service Act--Amendment 
    Proposing Comprehensive Revision of Law

Sec. 37.7 To a bill repealing one narrow subsection of existing law, an 
    amendment proposing a comprehensive revision of the whole law in 
    question was conceded not to be germane and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
which stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services), amending the Selective 
        Service Act.
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 32464, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
    be cited as the ``Selective Service Amendment Act of 1969.''

[[Page 8981]]

        Sec. 2, Section 5(a)(2) of the Military Selective Service Act 
    of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 455(a)(2)) is hereby repealed.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [II, of Missouri]: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 
    . . .

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 5 of the Military Selective Service Act 
        of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 455) is amended by striking out 
        subsection (a), by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 
        subsections (g) and (h), respectively, and by inserting 
        immediately before subsection (g) (as so redesignated) the 
        following new subsections: . . .
            (b) The order of induction of registrants found qualified 
        for induction shall be determined as follows:
            (1) Selection of persons for induction to meet the military 
        manpower needs shall be made from persons in the prime 
        selection group, after the selection of delinquents and 
        volunteers.
            (2) The term ``prime selection group'' means persons who 
        are liable for training and service under this title, and who 
        at the time of selection are registered and classified and are 
        nineteen years of age and not deferred or exempted. . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (h)(1) of section 6 of the Military 
        Selective Service Act of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 456) is amended 
        to read as follows:
            (h)(1) The President is authorized under such rules, and 
        regulations as he may prescribe, to provide for the deferment 
        from training and service in the Armed Forces of persons [under 
        specified conditions]. . . .

    A point of order having been raised by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of 
Louisiana, Mr. Ichord conceded that the amendment was not germane, and 
the Chairman (7) thereupon sustained the point of 
order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 32465, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Modifying Subsection in Manner Not Relating to Subject of 
    Bill

Sec. 37.8 To a bill repealing a narrow subsection of law relating to 
    the order of induction of selective service registrants, amendments 
    modifying that subsection of law for the purpose of placing 
    restrictions on the assignment of personnel to Vietnam without 
    their consent was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
amending the Selective Service Act, an amendment was offered which 
provided that, subject to certain limitations, ``[N]o person inducted 
under this title on or after such date of enactment may be assigned, 
without his express consent, to active duty in Vietnam. . . .'' 
(10) Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, the proponent

[[Page 8982]]

of the amendment, stated as follows in response to a point of order 
raised by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services). See Sec. 37.7, supra, for 
        further discussion of the bill.
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 32466, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment which I have offered 
    is germane to the bill in that my amendment would permit the 
    President to institute a random selection method, it does repeal 
    the section 5(a)(2)) of the Military Selective Service Act which is 
    the same section the bill before us repeals.
        At the same time, it says that no one inducted under the 
    Selective Service Act of 1967, regardless of how he is inducted, 
    shall be sent to Vietnam without his consent unless there is a 
    declaration of war.
        It seems to me that nothing could be more germane to the 
    question of the draft than where and under what conditions one is 
    going to be asked to give his life. (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 32467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 5(a)(2)) deals only with the order of the induction for 
    registrants within the various age groups found to qualify for 
    induction. . . .
        The amendment . . . refers to the assignment of personnel after 
    their induction. . . .
        The Chair does not believe that, because this bill provides for 
    the induction of personnel, that it opens up for general 
    consideration the subsequent military service and careers of those 
    inducted. The assignment of personnel . . . (is) not within the 
    contemplation of the present bill.
        The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane, 
    and sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Ryan then offered a modified version of the amendment. Such 
version contained the following language: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 32467, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [N]o person inducted pursuant to any such change as may 
    be made under the authority of the preceding provisions of this 
    paragraph may be assigned, without his express consent, to active 
    duty in Vietnam. . . .

    Mr. Hebert again made a point of order against the amendment, and 
Mr. Ryan stated:

        . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I have offered is 
    considerably more restrictive than the previous amendment. I submit 
    it is germane because it deals, as does the pending bill, H.R. 
    14001, only with the order of induction of various age groups which 
    would be changed under the proposed repeal.
        The bill . . . repeals section 5(a)(2)) of the Military 
    Selective Service Act of 1967. In other words, it repeals the 1967 
    prohibition upon the President effecting a change in the method of 
    determining the relative order of induction of registrants from the 
    method in effect upon the date of enactment of the 1967 act. . . .
        . . . [T]he bill . . . repeals the prohibition. My amendment 
    repeals it in part. Certainly, it is germane, to limit

[[Page 8983]]

    the repeal in that fashion, and I submit it is very much germane 
    because it is on the very subject of the method of selection, and 
    under the rules of the House an amendment is germane if it is on 
    the subject under consideration.

    The Chairman again sustained the point of order. He stated in part:

        The Chair must hold that the language of the amendment would 
    open up for present consideration a broader field than that which 
    is contained in the language of the bill. The situation is four-
    square with that of the amendment offered immediately prior by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan). The Chair therefore holds that 
    the amendment is not germane. . . .

--Amendment Stating Congressional Policy as to Application of Whole Act

Sec. 37.9 To a bill repealing one subsection of the Selective Service 
    Act relating to the President's authority to determine the relative 
    order of induction for selective service registrants within certain 
    age groups, an amendment inserting in the bill a statement of 
    congressional policy concerning the application of the whole of the 
    Selective Service Act was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) amending the Selective Service Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services). See Sec. Sec. 37.7, 37.8, 
        supra, for further discussion of the bill.
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 32465, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leonard] Farbstein [of New York]: On 
    page 1, insert between lines 4 and 5 the following:

            Sec. 2. The Congress declares that . . . although the 
        implementation of . . . a random system of selection would be a 
        significant step toward achieving fairness in the existing 
        conscription system, it would be still more equitable to 
        suspend such system as soon as possible. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 32466, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill is aimed at the accomplishment of a single, narrow 
    objective: the repeal of one subsection of the Military Selective 
    Service Act, which it relates only to the President's authority to 
    determine the relative order of induction for selective service 
    registrants within age groups.
        Since the amendment is of more general application and goes to 
    the whole subject of the existing selective service system, the 
    Chair holds that it is not germane. The point of order . . . is, 
    therefore, sustained.

[[Page 8984]]

Federal Judgeship in Missouri--Amendment Affecting Jurisdiction of 
    Federal Courts

Sec. 37.10 To a bill relating to the permanency of a federal judgeship 
    in Missouri, an amendment relating to requirements for jurisdiction 
    of federal courts was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which provided: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 7009 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 96 Cong. Rec. 12018, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the judgeship for the eastern and western districts of 
    Missouri provided for by the act entitled ``An act to provide for 
    the appointment of an additional district judge for the eastern and 
    western districts of Missouri,'' approved December 24, 1942 (Public 
    Law 837, 56 Stat. 1083), shall hereafter be a permanent judgeship. 
    Accordingly, in order to incorporate the permanent provisions of 
    the said act into the United States Code, as a continuation of 
    existing law and not as a new enactment, title 28, United States 
    Code, section 133, is amended to read as follows, with respect to 
    the eastern and western districts of Missouri:
        [Missouri, eastern and western districts--2 judges]
        Sec. 2. The act entitled ``An act to provide for the 
    appointment of an additional district judge for the eastern and 
    western districts of Missouri,'' approved December 24, 1942 (50 
    Stat. 1083), is hereby repealed, but its repeal shall not affect 
    the tenure of office of the incumbent of the judgeship created by 
    such act who shall henceforth hold his position under title 28, 
    United States Code, section 133, as amended by this Act.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 3, line 10, add a new section:

            Sec. 3. That sections 1331 and 1332 of title 28, United 
        States Code, are amended to read as follows: . . .
            Sec. 1332. Diversity of citizenship;

                             Amount in Controversy

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 
        the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 
        and is between--
            ``(1) citizens of different States. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walter) to the bill to repeal the proviso against 
    the filling of the vacancy in the office of district judge for the 
    eastern and western districts of Missouri is not germane to the 
    main purposes of the bill. . . . [The amendment] increases 
    jurisdiction, lifting the present minimum amount from $3,000

[[Page 8985]]

    to a higher amount, and it certainly has no relation whatever to a 
    judgeship in the State of Missouri. It is general legislation on a 
    specific bill for a specific purpose.

    The Chairman,(20) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.  Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Termination of Powers of President Relating to Issuance of United 
    States Note--Amendment Affecting Powers of Federal Reserve and 
    Treasury as to Limitations on Credit Expansion

Sec. 37.11 To that section of a bill terminating the powers of the 
    President regarding the issuance of United States notes, an 
    amendment was held not germane which sought to enable the President 
    to establish a parity between gold and silver and to enable the 
    Federal Reserve in connection with the Treasury Department to issue 
    directions to the Federal Reserve banks to limit credit expansion.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the Federal Reserve Act and which stated in part: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3000 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. See 91 Cong. Rec. 5289, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 29, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. All power and authority of the President and the 
    Secretary of the Treasury under section 43(b)(1) of the act 
    approved May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 31, 52), with respect to the 
    issuance of United States notes, shall cease and terminate on the 
    date of enactment of this act.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] Page 
    4, line 15, strike out all of section 4 and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following:

            Sec. 4. Section 43 of the act approved May 12, 1933 (48 
        Stat. 3152) is hereby repealed.

    The effect of the amendment was described as follows by Mr. Brent 
Spence, of Kentucky, who raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane:

        Mr. Chairman, that amendment repeals the Thomas amendment. The 
    gentleman's amendment goes very much further than the bill, and 
    provides that the President may establish a parity between gold and 
    silver and it also provides that the Federal Reserve in connection 
    with the Treasury Department may issue directions to the Federal 
    Reserve banks to limit credit expansion. It makes legal tender the 
    Federal Reserve notes; and if you strike out this amendment, there 
    will be no legal tender or money except sil

[[Page 8986]]

    ver certificates and the small coins to the extent of $10. It does 
    not do any thing to silver, because those who are interested in 
    silver rely on the Silver Purchase Act, which provides that one-
    fourth of the monetary stock of the United States shall be in 
    silver bullion.
        I do not think that the amendment is germane in any respect. It 
    is a most far-reaching amendment--one that if adopted, I am sure, 
    would delay the passage of this bill and might cause a delay which 
    would be very injurious to the activities of the Federal Reserve 
    System in regard to our public-debt transactions. . . .

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, it 
    appears clearly, goes beyond the language of section 4 and 
    therefore is not germane to the bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky.

District of Columbia Changes in Zoning

Sec. 37.12 To a bill relating to dwellings situated in alleys in the 
    District of Columbia, a committee amendment proposing to change 
    zoning provisions in the District by authorizing improvements to be 
    made on specified property so as to facilitate the operation of a 
    gasoline station thereon was held not to be germane.

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which read in part as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 3506 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 5. See 100 Cong. Rec. 13807, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the act entitled ``An act to provide, 
    in the interest of public health, comfort, morals, and safety, for 
    the discontinuance of the use as dwellings of buildings situated in 
    the alleys in the District of Columbia,'' approved September 25, 
    1914 (38 Stat. 716), as amended (secs. 5-101, 102, D.C. Code, 1951 
    edition), is hereby repealed.
        Sec. 2. Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 4 of the act 
    entitled ``An act to provide for the discontinuance of the use of 
    dwellings of buildings situated in alleys in the District of 
    Columbia, and for the replatting and development of squares 
    containing inhabited alleys, in the interest of public health, 
    comfort, morals, safety, and welfare, and for other purposes,' 
    approved June 12, 1934 (48 Stat. 932), as amended (sec. 5-106, D.C. 
    Code, 1951 edition), are hereby repealed. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        The Clerk read the committee amendment as follows:
        On page 2, line 8, insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 3. The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia 
    are authorized to permit the erection, construction, alteration, 
    conversion, maintenance, and use of such buildings and

[[Page 8987]]

    other improvements on square 1928, lot numbered 800 (southeast 
    corner of the intersection of Wisconsin and Massachusetts Avenues 
    Northwest), situated in the District of Columbia, as the 
    Commissioners may deem appropriate for the purpose of conducting 
    the business which is being conducted on such land on the date of 
    enactment of this act.

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

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill as passed by the Senate. That bill related only 
    to the amendment of the Alley Dwelling Act of the District of 
    Columbia on June 12, 1934, so as to remove therefrom provisions 
    which would make it unlawful after June 30, 1955, to use or occupy 
    any alley building or structure as a dwelling in the District of 
    Columbia. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Committee of the House 
    amended S. 3506 so as to add thereto a provision which would permit 
    the reconstruction of nonconforming gasoline filling stations 
    located in an area of the District which has been zoned as 
    residential (A). This amendment to the bill is in effect an 
    amendment to the Zoning Act of 1935 and not in any way related to 
    the matter of alley dwellings. . . . In other words, the bill as 
    passed by the Senate referred to alley dwellings and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Carolina dealt with an entirely 
    different subject--zoning law and zoning regulations. . . .

    Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, in support of the 
amendment, stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I contend the amendment is germane to the bill, S. 
    3506, on the ground the purposes of the amendment and the purposes 
    of the bill, S. 3506, relate to alley improvement. I also contend 
    it is germane on the ground that both the bill S. 3506 and the 
    amendment is for the purpose of granting permission to repair and 
    improve property here in the District of Columbia.

    The Speaker,(6) both responding to a parliamentary 
inquiry and ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In response to the parliamentary inquiry propounded by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Miller] the Chair may say that the 
    committee amendment assumes the same status in the House as any 
    other amendment that might be offered from the floor. That is why 
    the Committee on Rules is sometimes asked to report special rules 
    waiving points of order against committee amendments. Those points 
    of order usually involve questions of germaneness.
        The Chair has examined the bill and the committee amendment.
        The bill itself relates solely to the use of alley dwellings 
    and the prohibition against the erection of structures in alleys 
    for dwelling purposes. The proposed committee amendment has for its 
    purpose a change in the zoning provisions in the District of 
    Columbia.

[[Page 8988]]

    It does not seem to the Chair that the committee amendment has any 
    direct relationship to the purpose of the bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane 
    and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

--School Appropriations: Amendment To Modify Rather Than Repeal 
    Provisions Relating to Teaching or Advocating Communism

Sec. 37.13 To a bill seeking to repeal a provision of existing law, an 
    amendment proposing a modification in such provision of the law was 
    held to be germane as an alternative exception from the prohibition 
    contained in the law sought to be repealed.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 148 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 8. See 81 Cong. Rec. 998, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the proviso appearing in the 
    fourteenth paragraph, under the subheading ``Miscellaneous'', under 
    the heading ``Public Schools'', in the District of Columbia 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, 
    approved June 14, 1935 (49 Stat. 356), and reading as follows: 
    ``Provided That hereafter no part of any appropriation for the 
    public schools shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
    any person teaching or advocating communism'' is hereby repealed.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: On page 1, line 11, after 
    the word ``communism'', strike out ``is hereby repealed'' and 
    insert in lieu thereof ``is hereby amended to read as follows: 
    `Provided, That hereafter no part of any appropriation for the 
    public schools shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
    any person advocating . . . but no official or teacher shall be 
    required to make any special declaration of nonviolation hereof as 
    a condition for payment of salary.' ''

    Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(10) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that the test of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is whether it would have been germane 
    to the so-called ``red rider'' amendment. If it would have been 
    germane to that amendment, it is germane to this bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts simply 
    deletes from the so-called ``red rider'' the inhibition against 
    teaching but retains the advocacy of such doctrine, and the Chair 
    thinks it would have been germane to the original amendment, and, 
    therefore, is germane to the pending bill. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. But see Sec. 37.8, supra, and Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra, for 
        discussion of instances where an amendment modifying a 
        provision of law was held not to be germane to a bill repealing 
        such provision. Such a proposed modification of law must, to be 
        germane, bear sufficient relationship to the provision of law 
        being repealed and to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

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

[[Page 8989]]