[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§ 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or Matter]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8989-8992]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW

Sec. 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or 
    Matter                          -------------------

Bill and Amendment as Applying Making Different Provisions of Same Law 
    Applicable to Terms of Emergency Assistance to India

Sec. 38.1 To a bill authorizing emergency food relief assistance to 
    India on credit terms as provided in one designated section of 
    another act, an amendment making such assistance subject to all 
    provisions of that act ``applicable to and consistent with the 
    purposes'' of the bill was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
to furnish emergency food relief assistance to India. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 5832, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Shelley: On page 2, after line 20, 
    insert a new section:
        Sec. 3. Assistance provided under this act shall be provided 
    under the provision of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as 
    amended, applicable to and consistent with the purposes of this 
    act.
        And amend this title.

    Mr. John F. Shelley, of California, explaining the purpose of the 
amendment, stated:

        . . . The purpose I have in offering this amendment at this 
    time is to protect (the) principle . . . that the cargoes carried 
    shall be carried at least 50 percent in vessels of American 
    registry. . . .

    Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(14) He pointed out that the 
section of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 referred to in the bill 
related to credit terms, whereas the amendment sought to incorporate 
provisions of such act relating to shipping. The Chairman 
(15) sustained the point of order,(16) observing 
that while shipping was a subject covered by the bill, the bill's 
provisions did not relate to shipping or other operations under the 
Economic Cooperation

[[Page 8990]]

Administration Act of 1948. He further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 5832, 5833.
15. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 5833, 5834, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Upon close examination, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    proposes the injection of new subject matter, not now within the 
    text of the pending bill, by making the assistance which the 
    pending bill would provide subject to the provisions of the 
    Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 which differ from subsection (c), 
    paragraph (2), of section 111 of said act, specifically referred to 
    by the pending bill.
        The fundamental test of germaneness being whether a proposed 
    amendment would inject new and different subject matter, though not 
    necessarily unrelated matter, into the legislation, the Chair is 
    constrained to feel that the proposed amendment, even though it 
    proposes to subject the pending bill to certain provisions of an 
    act, a limited part of which act is referred to by the pending 
    bill, does not meet the test of germaneness. . . .

Provision Making Law Inapplicable to One Activity--Amendment (In Form 
    of Motion To Strike) Making Law Inapplicable to Other Activities

Sec. 38.2 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(17) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act, in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed in the 
    reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in 
    lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5540

            . . . Sec. 2. Title III of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
        after section 303 the following:
            ``Sec. 303A. (a) It is the purpose of this section to 
        strengthen the domestic capability and capacity of the Nation's 
        defense industrial base. The actions specified in this section 
        are intended to facilitate the carrying out of such purpose.
            ``(b)(1) The President, utilizing the types of financial 
        assistance specified in sections 301, 302, and 303, and any 
        other authority contained in this Act, shall take immediate 
        action to

[[Page 8991]]

        assist in the modernization of industries in the United States 
        which are necessary to the manufacture or supply of national 
        defense materials which are required for the national security 
        or are likely to be required in a time of emergency or war. . . 
        .
            ``(c) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Commerce, shall--
            ``(1) determine immediately, and semiannually thereafter, 
        those industries which should be given priority in the awarding 
        of financial assistance under subsection (b);
            ``(2) determine the type and extent of financial assistance 
        which should be made available to each such industry; and
            ``(3) with respect to the industries specified pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), indicate those proposals, received under 
        subsection (e), which should be given preference in the 
        awarding of financial assistance under subsection (b) based on 
        a determination that such proposals offer the greatest prospect 
        for improving productivity and quality, and for providing 
        materials which will reduce the Nation's reliance on imports. . 
        . .
            ``(m)(1) All laborers and mechanics employed for the 
        construction, repair, or alteration of any project, or the 
        installation of equipment, funded, in whole or in part, by a 
        guarantee, loan, or grant entered into pursuant to this section 
        shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on 
        projects of similar character in the locality as determined by 
        the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act entitled `An 
        Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics 
        employed on public buildings of the United States and the 
        District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors, and for 
        other purposes', approved March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
        seq.), and commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(19) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of 
Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and

[[Page 8992]]

    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings indicate, a motion 
to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not, in any event, a 
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, since 
it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition of the 
perfecting amendment.

[[Page 8993]]