Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11 (Sections 25-end, plus index) - § 36. Amendment Repealing Existing Law to Bill Amending That Law

[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law]
[§ 36. Amendment Repealing Existing Law to Bill Amending That Law]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 8970-8974]

CHAPTER 28

Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW

Sec. 36. Amendment Repealing Existing Law to Bill Amending That Law

To a bill amending existing law in one particular,⁽²⁰⁾
or in a limited respect,⁽¹⁾ an amendment repealing the law
is not germane. Thus, to a bill establishing a new office within a
government department, an amendment to abolish the department is not
germane.⁽²⁾ Similarly, to an amendment proposing to amend
existing law in some particulars, an amendment proposing to repeal the
law in its entirety is not germane,⁽³⁾ unless the
proposition being amended changes law in a comprehensive and diverse
way, in which case an amendment proposing repeal of the law may be
germane.⁽⁴⁾ And to a bill referring to certain provisions of
existing law, an amendment repealing a portion of that law has been
held not to be germane.⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 36.2, infra.
1. See Sec. 42.43, infra.
2. Id.
3. See Sec. 36.3, infra.
4. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5824.
5. See Sec. 41.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Tax Exemptions for Property Used by Government--Amendment
Repealing Other Exemptions

Sec. 36.1 To a bill to continue the tax-exempt status of certain
property owned by others but used and occupied by government
agencies or by the Red Cross, an amendment seeking to repeal the
law granting tax exemptions with respect to property occupied by
the Daughters of the American Revolution was held not to be
germane.

In the 79th Congress, a bill ⁽⁶⁾ was under consideration
which stated in part as follows: ⁽⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. H.J. Res. 236 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 9911, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 22, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas in times of national stress it is necessary for the
United States of America and its various instrumentalities to use
and occupy additional space necessary for the proper execution of
their enlarged functions: Therefore be it

Resolved, etc., That the use and occupancy of real property in
the District of Columbia by any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States of America, or by the American
Red

[[Page 8971]]

Cross, on a basis which does not result in the receipt of rent or
income to the owner thereof within the meaning of section 2 of the
act of December 24, 1942 (56 Stat. 1089), shall not operate to
terminate the tax exempt status of such property if exempted from
taxation prior to such use and occupancy. . . .

The purpose of the bill was indicated as follows:

Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: . . . This is
merely to correct a technicality. Although the District of Columbia
Code exempts . . . property belonging to various institutions,
associations, societies, etc., when the latter use and occupy their
respective properties, the Commissioners of the District have held
that when such institutions furnish space to the Government
gratuitously the exemption ceases since such property is not then
``used and occupied'' by the owner to whom the exemption is
granted. . . .

The following amendment was offered to the bill: ⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 9912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. Biemiller: On page 2, following line
17, add a new section as follows:

That the property situated in square one hundred and
seventy-three in the city of Washington, District of Columbia .
. . occupied by the Daughters of the American Revolution, shall
no longer be exempt from taxation, as heretofore provided [by
law] and that the said exemption . . . is . . . repealed.

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

Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
amendment is not germane to this legislation. We are only concerned
in providing for the Red Cross in connection with conditions that
arose during the war while a Government agency used the facilities
rent free. Frankly, the gentleman from West Virginia will not allow
this District of Columbia legislation to become involved in the
subject matter of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin. . . .

In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated, as follows:

Mr. [Andrew J.] Biemiller [of Wisconsin]: On the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the bill deals with the question
of tax-exempt property in the District of Columbia and furthermore
deals with an organization which has been chartered by the
Congress, the American Red Cross. My amendment deals with those
same categories, tax-exempt property and an organization that has
been chartered by the Congress of the United States.

The Speaker,⁽⁹⁾ in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bill provides only for Government-chartered organizations
that have given their facilities to the Government of the United
States during the war period. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin would make an absolute repeal of law on
the statute books and therefore is not germane. The Chair sustains
the point of order.

[[Page 8972]]

Bill Amending Law as to Transfer of Rice Acreage Allotments--Amendment
To Repeal Law

Sec. 36.2 To a bill amending a single aspect of that agricultural law
relating to the transfer of rice acreage allotments, an amendment
to repeal the entire provision of law regulating such transfers was
ruled out as not germane.

In the 88th Congress, a bill ⁽¹⁰⁾ was under
consideration relating to the transfer of rice acreage allotments. An
amendment as described above was offered by Mr. Paul Findley, of
Illinois: ⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 3742 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, having raised the point of order
that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Findley stated:

Mr. Chairman, the title of the bill makes it clear that it is
to amend the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938,
as amended, relating to the transfer of producer rice allotments.
The amendment that I have offered simply changes the subsection
which is a part of the section dealing with the transfer of
producer rice acreage allotments.

The Chairman,⁽¹²⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Clifford Davis (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to section 2949, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents of the
House of Representatives, I read:

To a bill amending a law in one particular, an amendment
repealing the law is not germane.

The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane.

Bill To Amend Reclamation Act: Amendment Striking Part of Section of
Bill--Substitute Repealing Law

Sec. 36.3 To an amendment proposing to strike out part of a section of
a bill, thereby amending existing law, a substitute proposing to
strike out the entire section and to repeal the existing law is not
germane.

In the 80th Congress, a bill ⁽¹³⁾ was under
consideration amending certain provisions of the Reclamation Act of
1939. An amendment striking a specified part of the bill was offered by
Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa,⁽¹⁴⁾ who indicated that the
purpose of the amendment was to insure that the Secretary of the
Interior not be given

[[Page 8973]]

excessive authority with respect to undertaking certain construction
projects. Mr. Gordon L. McDonough, of California, speaking in support
of the amendment, discussed its purpose as follows: ⁽¹⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2873 (Committee on Public Lands).
14. See 94 Cong. Rec. 403, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1948.
15. Id. at p. 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . I want to read the section of the bill that this
amendment will strike out, so that those who have any doubts about
the authority that the Secretary of the Interior now has under the
present Reclamation Act may understand what this amendment would do
to correct that. The section that this amendment strikes out begins
on line 11, page 6, and reads as follows:

If the proposed construction is found by the Secretary to
have engineering feasibility and if the repayable and
returnable allocations to irrigation, power, and municipal
water supply or other miscellaneous purposes found by the
Secretary to be proper pursuant to subdivisions (3), (4), (5),
and (6) hereof, together with any allocation to flood control
or navigation made under subsection (b) of this section, and
together with any allocation made pursuant to subdivision (7)
hereof, which shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable, equal
the total estimated cost of construction as determined by the
Secretary, then the new project, new division of a project, or
supplemental works on a project, covered by his findings, shall
be deemed authorized and may be undertaken by the Secretary.

Evidently that is a repetition of what is now in the 1939
Reclamation Act as far as authority is concerned. This amendment
amends that out and gives to the Congress the power to determine
whether these projects shall be feasible and shall be initiated. .
. .

The following exchange occurred with respect to the precise effect
of the Jensen amendment: ⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Jensen: This amendment takes nothing away from the weight
and effect of the present law, specifically referring to section 9
of the Reclamation Act. It leaves that intact but simply provides
and assures us that no additional authorization and power will be
given to the Secretary of the Interior to authorize more projects.
Mr. [Frank A.] Barrett [of Wyoming]: I am very much afraid that
the gentleman is entirely mistaken because existing law provides
for all of the elements that are outlined on page 6, from line 11
to the bottom of the page. That is in existing law at the present
time and you are repealing it.

A substitute amendment was then offered, as follows:

Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute for the pending amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Harness of Indiana to
the amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: On page 4, line 15, to
page 7, line 15, delete all and substitute ``Section 9 (a) of
the Reclamation Act of 1939 is hereby repealed.''

The following proceedings then took place with respect to a
question as to the propriety of the Harness amendment:

[[Page 8974]]

The Chairman: ⁽¹⁷⁾ I will say to the gentleman from
Indiana that is not a substitute for the Jensen amendment. The
Jensen amendment applied only to the section at the bottom of page
6 of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Harness of Indiana: It is the same section that I am
striking out by my amendment.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the substitute amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman may offer his amendment after the
Jensen amendment is disposed of. . . .
Mr. Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, the Jensen amendment
proposes to strike out, beginning on page 6, line 11, all of that
section down to line 25 and add the word ``a.'' My amendment
strikes out that same section and also provides for the repeal of
the same section which is in the 1939 act.
The Chairman: The Chair must hold that the amendment is not
germane to the Jensen amendment. The gentleman's amendment can be
offered after the Jensen amendment is disposed of.