Section 129(e) of Pub.L. No.102-138 and section 503 of Pub.L.No. 102-140 are unconstitutional to the extent that they purport to limit the President's ability to issue more than one official or diplomatic passport to United States government personnel. The single-passport requirements set forth in section 129(e) and section 503 are severable from the remainder of the statutes in which they appear.

The President is constitutionally authorized to decline to enforce the portions of section 129(e) and section 503 that purport to limit the issuance of official and diplomatic passports.

The Congressional Pay Amendment, which was originally proposed by Congress to the States for ratification in 1789, and having been ratified by three-fourths of the States, has been ratified pursuant to Article V and is accordingly now part of the Constitution.

Under 1 U.S.C. § 106b, the Archivist was, upon receipt of formal instruments of ratification from the requisite number of States, required to publish the Congressional Pay Amendment along with his certificate specifying that the Amendment has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution.

The formulas in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, under which farmers repay loans from the Department of Agriculture, contain a scrivener's error in the organization of the subsections, and the provisions should be read as if the error, which arose in the process of enrollment, had not been made.

Under section 1302 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, marketing loan provisions that previously had been discretionary would be mandatory for the 1993 through 1995 crop years, if an agricultural trade agreement under the Uruguay Round Negotiations pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade were not entered into by June 30, 1992, or if this agreement had not entered into force for the United States by June 30, 1993.

The proposed legislation would enact a federal statutory regime of abortion regulation that leaves the States with substantially less regulatory authority than they have under Roe v.Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The proposed legislation would represent a doubtful exercise of Congres's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and would rest on a questionable link to Congres's power to regulate interstate commerce.