[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters]
[Â§ 3. Waiver of Points of Order; Perfecting Text Permitted to Remain]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5264-5317]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 3. Waiver of Points of Order; Perfecting Text Permitted to Remain

    Points of order against provisions of an appropriation bill may be 
waived by unanimous consent or special rule. Such waiver will not 
preclude points of order against amendments offered from the floor; 
but, of course, the waiver of points of order may be made applicable to 
such amendments, or to specified amendments.
    In addition, language of the bill or amendment that is subject to a 
point of order may be permitted to remain through mere failure to make 
the point of order.
    Language that has been permitted to remain in the bill or amendment 
may be modified by a further amendment, provided that such amendment is 
germane and does not contain additional legislation or additional 
separately earmarked unauthorized items of appropriation.
    The precedents which follow discuss these 
principles.                          -------------------

Waiver by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.1 The House may grant unanimous consent that points of order be 
    waived against all of the provisions contained in an appropriation 
    bill, even before such bill is reported to the full committee by a 
    subcommittee.

    On May 23, 1944,(8) a unanimous-consent request was 
granted, as follows, relating to H.R. 4879, the national war agencies 
appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 90 Cong. Rec. 4917, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order to take up the war agencies bill 
    immediately after disposition of business on the Speaker's table on 
    Thursday next, that points of order on the bill be waived, and that 
    general debate be confined to the bill.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: Is there objection to the 
    request of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cannon)?
        Mr. [John] Taber of New York: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, the gentleman means points of order on matters contained 
    in the bill?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Yes; only points of order on matters 
    reported by

[[Page 5265]]

    the committee, not points of order that may be raised during 
    consideration of any amendment that may be offered to the bill in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Taber: Did the gentleman incorporate in his request that 
    debate be confined to the bill?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Yes; that debate be confined to the 
    bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]?
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, may I ask the chairman of the 
    Appropriations Committee if any arrangements have been made as to 
    the period of general debate, so that it may be in the Record?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: General debate will not exceed 1 day. 
    We hope to begin reading the bill before the close of the day.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]? There was no objection.

     On May 25, 1944,(9) H.R. 4879 was reported to the House 
and the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 4990-92, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
    reported the bill (H.R. 4879) making appropriations for war 
    agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, and for other 
    purposes (Rept. No. 1511), which was . . . with the accompanying 
    report, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union and ordered to be printed.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order on the 
    bill, and I desire to propound a parliamentary inquiry at this 
    time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon prior to 
    adjournment the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked 
    unanimous consent in substance that it might be in order to take up 
    this bill today and that all points of order against it be waived. 
    There being no objection, that consent was given.
        My parliamentary inquiry is: That bill not having been reported 
    by the subcommittee to the full Committee on Appropriations or by 
    the full Committee on Appropriations of this House, were points of 
    order against the bill waived? . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it has been 
    my observation that unanimous-consent requests to waive points of 
    order against appropriation bills have always been submitted after 
    the bill has been reported, I am not aware of any practice of 
    coming in 2 days ahead of the reporting of a bill at a late hour in 
    the afternoon when very few Members are on the floor and obtaining 
    unanimous consent to waive points of order against a bill which has 
    not even been formulated, not even introduced, not even as yet 
    considered by the committee from which it is to be reported.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I have known of at least 10 cases in 
    the last 10 years where the same practice has been followed.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        . . . It has been held that the Committee on Rules may report a 
    resolu

[[Page 5266]]

    tion providing for the consideration of a bill which has not been 
    introduced. When a rule is reported it can be adopted only by a 
    majority vote of the House.
        It would seem to the Chair that a unanimous-consent request 
    about which there was no contest would be even stronger than that.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Would the Chair hold that 
    the Committee on Appropriations, which does not have legislative 
    authority, would have no right to report a legislative provision, 
    unanimous consent having been obtained before the bill was even 
    reported to the full committee, no matter what objectionable 
    legislative features may have been put in the bill by the full 
    committee, and yet when it comes to the House it would not be 
    subject to a point of order?
        The Speaker: Any time that any Member of the House desires to 
    object to a request of this kind he may exercise his right to do 
    it.
        The Chair holds that points of order against the provisions in 
    this bill have been waived.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, in view 
    of the importance of this as a matter of setting a precedent, I 
    respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair and ask for 
    recognition. . . .
        The question involved is whether or not you want the Speaker to 
    recognize Members to ask for the consideration of appropriation 
    bills with points of order waived and let that recognition come at 
    any time regardless of whether or not the bill has been reported to 
    the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on 
    the table.
        The Speaker: The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    preferential.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided; and there were--ayes 175, noes 54.
        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Twenty-six Members have risen, not a sufficient 
    number.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is agreed to, and the decision of the Chair 
    sustained.

Waiver by Special Rules, Generally

Sec. 3.2 The House may adopt a resolution waiving points of order 
    against a section of an appropriation bill which contains 
    legislative provisions in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 27, 1969,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 14055, 14056, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 424 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 5267]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 424

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11582) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
        Departments, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
        independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
        and for other purposes, all points of order against section 502 
        of said bill are hereby waived.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Pepper] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) and myself 
    such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 424 provides for a rule waiving 
    all points of order against section 502 of H.R. 11582, the 
    Treasury, Post Office, and Executive Office appropriation bill, 
    1970.
        The reason for the waiver is that section 502 constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This section 502 would set aside, Mr. Speaker, only for 1 year 
    the personnel ceiling on the Treasury, Post Office, and Executive 
    Office which ceiling was placed on the governmental agency by 
    Public Law 90-364.

    The resolution was agreed to.

Use and Importance of Special Rules

Sec. 3.3 A statement was made by the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations as to the use of resolutions, reported by the 
    Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, waiving points of 
    order against legislation in appropriation bills; the chairman then 
    indicated to government departments and legislative committees of 
    the House that, in the next session, nothing would be included in 
    an appropriation bill, however customary or urgent, that was not 
    specifically authorized by law.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(12) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
made the following statement concerning House Resolution 194, a 
resolution waiving points of order against legislative provisions of 
H.R. 2689, the Agriculture Department appropriation for 1946:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 2672, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The resolution] is not in contravention of the rules 
    because the rules specifically provide in rule XI that the 
    Committee on Rules can at any time come in here and report a 
    resolution giving a legislative committee appropriating power or 
    giving an appropriating committee legislative power. The 
    proposition before us is entirely and completely within the purview 
    of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, what has brought about the necessity for this 
    rule? We

[[Page 5268]]

    have brought in and considered all the appropriation bills of this 
    session up to this time without such a rule.
        And we would have brought in this bill without a rule, but for 
    the fact that certain Members of the House . . . objected to every 
    minor legislative provision inserted. . . .
        . . . In this instance, the great Committee on Agriculture, 
    which has jurisdiction, approved the bill and the Committee on 
    Rules approved it; otherwise we would not have reported it to the 
    House. But I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to add 
    as an individual member of the committee that in view of the fact 
    that points of order have been so persistently raised on this bill 
    that the Committee on Appropriations should in the future, 
    notwithstanding the needs of the departments in the transaction of 
    their routine business, be like Caesar's wife: innocent of even the 
    implication of any infringement upon any rule or practice of the 
    House. I should like to give notice to the departments, to the 
    legislative committees of the House and to all concerned that in 
    the next session nothing will be included in any appropriation 
    bill, however customary or however urgent, that is not specifically 
    authorized by law. I trust this notice is in ample time to permit 
    any department to make application to legislative committees having 
    jurisdiction, and in time for such committees to report such 
    authorization, if they so desire.

Sec.  3.4 On an occasion when the Committee on Rules failed to grant a 
    rule waiving points of order against provisions in an appropriation 
    bill, a member of the Committee on Appropriations cited the need 
    for such rule and made points of order against several paragraphs 
    of the bill as it was read for amendment, for purposes of 
    demonstrating the desirability of waiving points of order against 
    provisions in appropriation bills.

     On July 14, 1955,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 10573, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1956, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate proceed not to 
    exceed 4 hours. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, with malice 
    toward nobody but with determination to do my duty as I see it, I 
    want to report to this House that yesterday I appeared before the 
    Committee on Rules, as was the request of the full Committee on 
    Appropriations. I told the Committee on Rules that this bill was 
    filled with paragraphs that were subject to points of order; that 
    the bill probably contained very few pages where a ruling could be 
    denied against points of order, and the bill would be

[[Page 5269]]

    bad. I said there were so few pages that I limited it to about four 
    pages that would not be subject to a point of order.
         I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber), the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Phillips), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Davis) were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a
    rule. To my surprise the committee
    failed to act, and we find ourselves
    with a bill involving approximately
    $1,650,000,000. . . .
        Rather than to have a field day on points of order I intend to 
    ask unanimous consent to ask for deletion from the bill of all the 
    paragraphs subject to a point of order so the House may work its 
    will on that part of the bill on which the decision of the Rules 
    Committee permits us to function. This will represent a big saving 
    in time and much useless talk. . . .
        . . . So this is my notice that I intend to cite the paragraphs 
    that are subject to points of order and ask for their deletion from 
    this bill.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I opposed 
    the rule because there was a paragraph in the bill that I felt was 
    not proper, and I do not believe that the Members of the House will 
    feel it is proper if they read it. When that point is reached I 
    propose to offer a point of order against it.
        On the other hand, there are in the bill an enormous number of 
    items, as always appear in a supplemental bill at the end of the 
    session, that contain language that makes them particularly subject 
    to a point of order. Those paragraphs have been before the House 
    time after time and very seldom, if ever, have points of order been 
    raised against them.
        Frankly, I do not see how we can meet our responsibility in 
    connection with the Government without consideration of a very 
    large number of items that are covered in this bill. I cannot 
    understand just why any Member of the House would feel that he 
    should want to make a point of order against an item unless that 
    item was, in his opinion, against the interests of the Government. 
    That will be my approach to the problem and I will confine my 
    points of order to what I believe may not be in the interest of the 
    Government.
        With that statement, I shall feel obliged to object to an 
    omnibus request to be made before the reading of the individual 
    paragraphs.

    In the proceedings that followed with respect to the bill, Mr. 
Rabaut made numerous points of order against provisions of the bill.

Illustrative Forms of Special Rules

Sec. 3.5 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, waiving 
    points of order against consideration of a general appropriation

[[Page 5270]]

    bill which had not been reported for three calendar days, and 
    waiving points of order against certain provisions in the bill 
    which were not authorized by law or which constituted legislation.

    On May 14, 1970,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 15575, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1004 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1004

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 6 of Rule XXI to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 17575) making appropriations 
        for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and 
        Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1971, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
        against the provisions contained under the following headings 
        are hereby waived: ``Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration'' beginning on page 19, line 14 through line 19; 
        ``Economic Development Administration'' beginning on page 23, 
        line 5 through line 23; ``National Bureau of Standards'' 
        beginning on page 29, line 7 through line 16; ``Maritime 
        Administration'' beginning on page 30, line 13 through page 33, 
        line 12; ``Arms Control and Disarmament Agency'' beginning on 
        page 43, line 8 through line 12; ``Commission on Civil Rights'' 
        beginning on page 43, line 14 through line 17; and ``Small 
        Business Administration'' beginning on page 45, line 17 through 
        page 46, line 10.

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.6 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against 
    certain paragraphs in an appropriation bill not authorized by law 
    or containing legislative language is set out below, accompanied by 
    related proceedings.

     On June 24, 1969,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 17045, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 449 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 449

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        12307) making appropriations for sundry independent executive 
        bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, offices, 
        and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order

[[Page 5271]]

         against the provisions contained under the following headings 
        are hereby waived: ``Appalachian Regional Development 
        Programs'' beginning on page 3, line 22, through page 4, line 
        3, ``Independent offices--Appalachian Regional Commission'' 
        beginning on page 4, line 15 through page 4, line 21, 
        ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration'' beginning on 
        page 21, line 13, through page 23, line 3; and ``National 
        Science Foundation'' beginning on page 23, line 5, through page 
        25, line 2.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Smith) and pending that I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, the three specific waivers of points of order are 
    necessary because the items on which the waivers are given or 
    proposed by this resolution have not been authorized by law. I 
    explained this to the House during the colloquy between the 
    majority and minority leaders last Thursday. The items are, as 
    anyone who listened to the reading of the resolution knows, the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science 
    Foundation, and a part of the Appalachian development programs. The 
    waiver makes it possible for Members of the House to work their 
    will on the specific provisions of the appropriation, and the 
    Committee on Rules felt that it was wiser to handle the matter in 
    this fashion rather than permitting a situation to develop in which 
    the Senate almost surely would add the items on the Senate side 
    when the matter came up, and the only participation of the House 
    would be in conference, and on the conference report.
        Therefore the Committee on Rules recommends the waiver on these 
    three points of order.
        I urge the adoption of the resolution.

     The resolution was adopted.

Sec. 3.7 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against one 
    title of an appropriation bill is set out below. On June 16, 
    1964,(17) a rule in the following form was adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 13953, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 785, and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11579), making appropriations for certain civil functions 
        administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, 
        certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic 
        Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
        Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Delaware 
        River Basin Commission, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1965, and for other purposes, all points of order against title 
        III of said bill are hereby waived.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution waiving points of order was 
        requested since the atomic energy authorization bill, H.R. 
        10945, had not passed the Senate at the time this appropriation 
        bill was called up in the House.

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

[[Page 5272]]

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.8 The form of a resolution providing that during the 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill all points of order 
    against a specified chapter thereof or any provision contained 
    therein be waived, and further waiving points of order against a 
    designated amendment containing legislation, is set forth below.

    On May 9, 1950,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 6725, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 593 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution (H. Res. 593), as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government 
        for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other 
        purposes, all points of order against chapter XI of said bill 
        or any provision contained therein are hereby waived and all 
        points of order against the following amendment to such chapter 
        are hereby waived:

        On Page 425, after line 13, insert:

            ``Sec. 1113. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of any officer or employee of the Department of 
        State or of the Foreign Service of the United States whenever 
        he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the 
        interests of the United States.
            ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the act of 
        August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of any other 
        law, the Secretary of Commerce may, in his absolute discretion, 
        during the current fiscal year, terminate the employment of any 
        officer or employee of the Department of Commerce whenever he 
        shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the best 
        interests of the United States.''

    Following debate, the resolution was adopted.

Sec. 3.9 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against the 
    legislative provisions of a supplemental appropriation bill.

    On Sept. 23, 1940,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 12480, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois], from the Committee on 
    Rules, submitted the following report on the bill (H.R. 10539) 
    making supplemental appropriations for the support of the 
    Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for other 
    purposes, which was read and referred to the

[[Page 5273]]

    House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                              House Resolution 609

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        10539) making supplemental appropriations for the support of 
        the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and 
        for other purposes, all points of order against the legislative 
        provisions of the bill are hereby waived.

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.10 The form of a resolution making in order, during the 
    consideration of the foreign aid appropriation bill, the offering 
    of a specific amendment containing legislation.

    On May 26, 1949,(1) the following resolution was 
considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 6890, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, it shall be in 
        order to consider without the intervention of any point of 
        order the following amendment:
            ``On page 4, line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon, 
        and the following: `Provided further, That the entire amount 
        may be apportioned for obligation or may be obligated and 
        expended, if the President after recommendation by the 
        Administrator deems such action necessary to carry out the 
        purposes of said act during the period ending May 15, 1950'.''

Form of Resolution Providing for Consideration of Joint Resolution

Sec. 3.11 The form of a resolution providing for consideration of a 
    joint resolution making appropriations, waiving all points of order 
    against provisions in the joint resolution, making in order without 
    the intervention of any point of order any amendment offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Appropriations.

    On May 12, 1938,(2) the following resolution was called 
up and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 6777, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 497.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              House Resolution 497

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 5274]]

        House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
        of House Joint Resolution 679, a joint resolution making 
        appropriations for work relief, relief, and otherwise to 
        increase employment by providing loans and grants for public 
        works projects, and all points of order against said joint 
        resolution are hereby waived. That upon the expiration of the 
        general debate fixed by order of the House of May 4, 1938, the 
        joint resolution shall be read by sections for amendment under 
        the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
        intervention of any point of order any amendment offered by 
        direction of the Committee on Appropriations. At the conclusion 
        of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the 
        joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have 
        been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the joint resolution and the amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit with or without instructions.

Amendment of Waiver in Special Rule

Sec. 3.12 Where the Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a 
    waiver of points of order against unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill but not against legislative language therein, 
    the Member calling up the resolution offered an amendment to 
    reflect that intention.

    On July 21, 1970,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order against said bill for failure to comply with 
        the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a 
    resolution waiving points of order against certain provisions of 
    H.R. 18515, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
    Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1971. . . .
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule--so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error.

[[Page 5275]]

        Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''
            The amendment was agreed to. . . .
            The resolution was agreed to.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 3.13 The previous question was rejected on a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against a 
    general appropriation bill, and the resolution was amended to 
    permit consideration of an amendment to the bill containing 
    legislation.

    On May 10, 1973,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 15273-81, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 389

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        7447) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against said bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are hereby 
        waived.

        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the rule for the purpose of asking the House to vote 
    down the previous question in order that an amendment to H.R. 7447 
    can be offered, which will correct a grievous error which was made 
    in the urgent supplemental, which restricted the allocation of 
    funds under impact aid for category B children to the rate of 54 
    percent.
        The rule which we are now considering, which waives in other 
    instances 109 points of order, did not offer us this same 
    opportunity to present this amendment to the House to permit the 
    House to work its will. . . .
        Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
    a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 5276]]

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    184, nays 222, not voting 27, as follows: . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: Strike out the period at 
        the end of House Resolution 389 and insert ``and it shall be in 
        order to consider, without the intervention of any point of 
        order, an amendment on page 10, after the heading on line 13, 
        in the following form: . . .
            `` `The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 93-25 is 
        amended by striking out ``54%''. . . .' ''
            [The resolution as amended was agreed to.]

Extent of Waiver; Applicability to Amendments

Sec. 3.14 Where a general appropriation bill is considered under terms 
    of a special resolution ``waiving points of order against said 
    bill,'' the waiver applies only to the provisions of the bill and 
    not to amendments thereto.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18381, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 27417, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Glenard P.] Lipscomb [of California]: 
    On page 2, after line 10 insert: . . .

                ``Procurement of Aircraft and Missiles, Navy

        ``For an additional amount for `Procurement of aircraft and 
    missiles, Navy,' $431,000,000, to remain available until 
    expended.'', and renumber the succeeding chapter and section 
    numbers accordingly.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the Committee on 
    Appropriations operates under authorizing legislation, which we 
    often refer to as ``412,'' providing annual authorization for the 
    procurement of aircraft, ships, missiles, and so forth. The House 
    Armed Services Committee has not reported, and Congress has not 
    authorized these additional funds, this $431 million for the 
    procurement of additional aircraft.
        So I make the point of order against the amendment on the 
    grounds that it would exceed the authorization. I would withhold 
    the point of order if the gentleman wishes to discuss the 
    amendment, but I must insist upon the point of order. . . .
        It is true that we are operating under a rule waiving points of 
    order,(8)

[[Page 5277]]

    but the rule waived points of order only with respect to the 
    content of the bill, not with respect to amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See H. Res. 1058, 112 Cong. Rec. 27405, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        18, 1966, stating:
            ``Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18381) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1967, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clearly it seems to me that this amendment is subject to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas has stated the content of the 
    resolution providing for the consideration of the bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole correctly. The resolution waives points of 
    order against the bill but it does not waive points of order 
    against amendments to the bill.
        Inasmuch as there seems to be agreement between the gentleman 
    from Texas and the gentleman from California that the funds 
    contained in the amendment are not authorized by legislation 
    enacted into law, the point of order is sustained.
        The Clerk will read.

Sec. 3.15 Where the House had adopted a resolution providing that 
    ``during the consideration of'' a general appropriation bill ``the 
    provisions of Rule XXI clause 2 are hereby waived,'' the Chair, 
    based on legislative history during debate on the resolution, ruled 
    that the waiver extended only to provisions in the bill and not to 
    amendments offered from the floor.

    On June 22, 1973,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8825), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 20981-83, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Robert O.] Tiernan [of Rhode 
        Island]: Page 4, line 18, strike out ``to remain available'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and 
        expended for such assistance as authorized by such title, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.
            Page 5, line 2, strike out ``to remain available'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and expended 
        for such grants as authorized by such title and section, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.
            Page 5, line 13, strike out ``to remain available'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and expended 
        for such grants and assistance as authorized by such title, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland ]of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on all three amendments. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, [the provision] is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and mandates spending for which there is no 
    legislation. It appears in statutory responsibility otherwise 
    provided by law relating to the Secretary.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tiernan: Yes, I do.
        First of all, the chairman said this would provide for 
    mandatory spending

[[Page 5278]]

    in programs that are not authorized. Under the rule we adopted 
    today, all points of order with regard to that would be waived. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
    is correct in asserting that if the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Tiernan) is out of order at all it 
    is out of order because of the second sentence of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI, which contains the provisions that ``nor shall any provision 
    in any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in 
    order,'' and so forth, setting forth exceptions. But the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends and the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The 
    Chair has again read the rule. It says:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development . . . the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived.

        It does not say that points of order are waived only with 
    respect to matters contained in the bill. It says ``During the 
    consideration of the bill'' the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
    are waived.
        The Chair was troubled by that language and has examined the 
    statements made by the members of the Committee on Rules who 
    presented the rule to see if their statements in any way amplified 
    or explained or limited that language. The Chair has found that 
    both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their explanations of the resolution did, 
    indeed, indicate that it was their intention, and the intention of 
    the committee, that the waiver should apply only to matters 
    contained in the bill and that it was not a blanket waiver.
        Therefore whatever ambiguity there may have been in the rule as 
    reported, the Chair is going to hold, was cured by the remarks and 
    legislative history made during the presentation of the rule, which 
    were not disputed in any way by the gentleman from Connecticut or 
    anyone else. However, the Chair recognizes that it is a rather 
    imprecise way of achieving that result and would hope that in the 
    future such resolutions would be more precise in their application. 
    . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    provides: ``These funds shall be expended.''
        These are the words used by the amendment. Affirmative 
    direction by a long line of precedents has been held to be 
    legislation on appropriation bills.
        The Chair is not holding that it is not within the power of 
    Congress to give such affirmative directions. It may or it may not; 
    that is a subject of some dispute right now. The Chair simply holds 
    that an appropriation bill is no place to do it, and the Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Extent of Waiver; Applicability to House Resolutions Incorporated in 
    Bill

Sec. 3.16 Where the House is considering a general appropriation bill 
    under a resolution waiving all points of order

[[Page 5279]]

    against the bill, a paragraph enacting the provisions of several 
    House-passed resolutions as permanent law, though concededly 
    legislative in character, is not subject to a point of order.

    On Dec. 10, 1970,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
19928), a point of order was raised against the following provision, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 40941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provisions of House Resolutions 1270 and 1276, relating to 
    certain official allowances; House Resolution 1241, relating to 
    compensation of the clerks to the Official Reporters of Debates; 
    and House Resolution 1264, relating to the limitation on the number 
    of employees who may be paid from clerk hire allowances, all of the 
    Ninety-first Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
    thereto.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23 of page 12 
    and running through line 4 of page 13 as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not a retrenchment.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    point of order would be appropriate except, of course, for the fact 
    that we do have a rule waiving points of order against the bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Claude D. Pepper (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: No, sir.
        The Chairman: Under the resolution the House adopted points of 
    order against the bill are waived. The point of order is not 
    sustained.

Legal Effect of Legislative Language After Enactment

Sec. 3.17 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but if not challenged it 
    becomes permanent law where it is permanent in its language and 
    nature and as such may serve as sufficient authorization in law for 
    subsequent appropriations.

    On May 20, 1964,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriations 
bill (H.R. 11202), the following point of order was raised, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: My point of order is to lines 
    3 through 9, the portion of the section beginning with the figure 
    in parentheses 5. I will read it. It reads as follows:

            (5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase 
        domestic con

[[Page 5280]]

        sumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority contained in 
        Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount $2,000,000 
        shall remain available until expended for construction, 
        alteration and modification of research facilities.

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (14)  The gentleman will include the 
    word ``and'' on line 2, I assume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the section in the bill, last year where Congress 
    passed permanent legislation authorizing this in the appropriation 
    act in which we said hereafter this could be done. It is in last 
    year's appropriation act which was written for this specific 
    purpose and provides hereafter not to exceed $25 million may be 
    appropriated for these purposes. We cite chapter and verse there, 
    so to speak, and it is quite clear.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that? . . .
        My point is that the activity which would be appropriated for 
    in this paragraph (5) has not been authorized in legislation 
    heretofore.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Findley: The language authority cited in the public law was 
    a reference to a public law which was an appropriation act; am I 
    correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair pointed that out. The Chair might say, 
    incidentally, that while legislation on an appropriation bill may 
    be subject to a point of order, if none is made it is perfectly 
    valid legislation and becomes permanent law if it is permanent in 
    its language and nature.

Amendments Adding Further Legislation

Sec. 3.18 The fact that legislative provisions restricting the uses of 
    funds in other acts for certain purposes have been permitted to 
    remain in a general appropriation bill by failure to make a point 
    of order does not permit the of

[[Page 5281]]

    fering of an amendment adding additional legislation prohibiting 
    the availability of funds in other acts for certain other purposes.

    On Aug. 1, 1973, (15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 27292, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 36, after line 
        23, insert a new section: . . . .
            (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this or any 
        other Act, or of funds available for expenditure by any 
        corporation or agency, shall remain available to any agency 
        whenever either House of Congress, or any committee or 
        subcommittee thereof (to the extent of matter within its 
        jurisdiction) requests the presence of an officer or employee 
        of an agency for testimony regarding matters within the 
        agency's possession or under its control unless the officer or 
        employee shall appear and supply all information requested. . . 


        Mr. [Howard W.] Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order again on the proposed amendment as amended by the 
    gentleman from Florida on the ground that it is still legislation 
    on an appropriation act, resting that again on the basis that the 
    language makes it apply to ``this or any other act.''
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to be strictly a 
    limitation within the purview of the rule. I call the attention of 
    the Chair to the language in 607(a), which says--

            No part of any appropriations contained in this or any 
        other Act, or of funds available for expenditure by any 
        corporation or agency, shall be used for publicity . . .

        Once having done that in this legislation, it seems to me that 
    where language is clearly a limitation within the purview of the 
    legislation or extending the legislation, that the amendment would 
    be in order.
        The Chairman: (16) The mere fact that this similar 
    language remains in the bill does not protect the gentleman's 
    amendment from the fact that it adds additional legislation to that 
    which has been permitted to remain in the bill and is itself 
    subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 3.19 To a section of an appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of the Army be authorized to require from the Chief of 
    Engineers a planning report for each river and harbor project, and 
    each flood control project, an amendment seeking to give such 
    authority to the Secretary of the Interior as well was held to add 
    further legislation.

    On Aug. 20, 1951,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5215, a supplemental appropriation bill. When the fol

[[Page 5282]]

lowing section was pending for amendment, a motion to strike out the 
section was offered. A perfecting amendment to the section was then 
offered and was ruled out as legislation, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 10406, 10408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 1313. In the administration of the various acts 
    authorizing construction of river and harbor and flood-control 
    projects, the following shall be hereafter applicable:
        (a) The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to 
    have the Chief of Engineers prepare a planning report for each 
    river and harbor project, and for each flood-control project, 
    heretofore or hereafter adopted and authorized by law. 
    Appropriation for construction of an adopted and authorized 
    project, or authorized modification thereof, is authorized only 
    after submission by the Secretary of the Army of a planning report 
    to Congress and the printing thereof as a document of Congress. . . 
    .
        After the planning report for a project has been submitted to 
    Congress, and after initial construction funds have been 
    appropriated, such project shall be reviewed by the Chief of 
    Engineers in the first half of each succeeding fiscal year, and a 
    statement of progress thereon, in such form as to permit of ready 
    comparison with the planning report, shall be filed by him with the 
    Appropriations Committees of Congress not later than the following 
    1st day of February.
        (b) The Chief of Engineers is directed to make a report to the 
    Congress not later than December 31, 1952, upon all river and 
    harbor projects, and flood-control projects, adopted and authorized 
    since March 3, 1925, the construction or further improvement of 
    which under present conditions is undesirable, inadvisable, or 
    uneconomical, or in which curtailment of the projects should be 
    made for any other reason.
        Mr. [Henry] Larcade [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Larcade: On page 42, line 3, 
        strike out all of section 1313.

        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Louisiana is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Larcade: I yield briefly.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I would like 
    to offer as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Louisiana. May I offer that subsequent to his presentation and 
    debate and prior to the vote on his amendment?
        The Chairman: The proposed substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) is rather in the nature of a perfecting 
    amendment and would have to be taken up by the committee first.
        The gentleman may offer his amendment after the gentleman from 
    Louisiana has concluded. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Ford:
        Page 42, line 6, strike out the word ``is'' and insert ``and 
    the Secretary of the Interior are.''
        Page 42, line 7, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
    following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation''.

[[Page 5283]]

        Page 42, line 13, after the word ``Army'' insert the following, 
    ``and the Secretary of the Interior.''
        Page 43, line 23, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
    following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation''.
        Page 44, line 1, strike out the word ``him'' and insert the 
    word ``them.''
        Page 44, line 3, strike out the word ``is'' and insert ``and 
    the Commissioner of Reclamation are.''
        Mr. [John J.] Dempsey [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dempsey: The amendment is not germane to this section, and 
    in addition to that, it is purely legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to 
    address himself to the point of order?
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from New Mexico, I would like to say first that under 
    the rule adopted at the time this legislation came to the floor all 
    points of order were waived. Secondly, I think that the amendment 
    is germane because it does apply to engineering and construction of 
    Federal projects, and section 1313 in itself applies to engineering 
    and construction of Federal projects. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With respect to the question of waiving all points of order, 
    that runs only to the provisions of the bill and not to amendments 
    offered to the bill. A proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add further 
    legislation. The Chair is of the opinion that this amendment does 
    add further legislation, and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.20 To an amendment containing legislation (because prohibiting 
    activities from funds ``in this or any other act'') but permitted 
    to be offered to a general appropriation bill pursuant to a 
    resolution waiving points of order against that amendment, an 
    amendment adding additional legislation (making the activities 
    illegal) to that permitted to remain was ruled out in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 29, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9055), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 22352, 22362, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Mr. [John J.] Flynt Jr., [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: Page 57, line 21, strike 
        out all of section 307 and insert a new section 307, as 
        follows:

        Sec. 307. None of the funds herein appropriated under this Act 
    or heretofore appropriated under any other

[[Page 5284]]

    act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat 
    activities in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or 
    over Laos by the U.S. forces. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Flynt: At the end of the Flynt Amendment strike the 
        period and insert a semicolon and the words ``and from the date 
        of the enactment of this law it shall be illegal for anyone to 
        participate in, or order, any such activities.''

        The Chairman: (20) All time under the limitation 
    having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Cederberg: Legislation on an appropriation bill is subject 
    to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) was protected by the rule. An amendment to 
    that amendment which would add language making an act illegal would 
    be in effect legislation on an appropriation bill, in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 3.21 Legislative language in a general appropriation bill which is 
    permitted to remain therein because of a waiver of points of order 
    may be perfected by germane amendment but such amendment may not 
    contain additional legislation.

    On June 26, 1973,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and 
Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 8877), which read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Office of Education

                     elementary and secondary education

        For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, title I 
    ($1,810,000,000), title III ($146,393,000) . . . and section 
    222(a)(2) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, $2,105,393,000: 
    Provided, That the aggregate amounts made available to each State 
    under title 1-A for grants to local education agencies with that 
    State shall not be less than such amounts as were made available 
    for that purpose for fiscal year 1972: Provided further, That the 
    requirements of section 307(e) of Public Law 89-10, as amended, 
    shall be satisfied when the combined fiscal effort of the local 
    education agency and the State for the preceding fiscal year was 
    not less than such combined fiscal effort in the second preceding 
    fiscal year.

[[Page 5285]]

    An amendment was then offered:

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie: On page 18, line 7, insert 
        ``(1)''' before ``shall'', strike out line 9, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: purpose for fiscal year 1972; but 
        (2) shall not be more than \3/4\ the difference between the 
        amounts which would be made available to such State under this 
        Act without application of this clause and the amounts made 
        available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, 
        and (3) shall not be more than 110 percent of the amounts made 
        available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, 
        plus \1/2\ the difference between such amounts and the amounts 
        which would be made available to such State under this Act 
        without application of this clause or clause (2) of this 
        proviso: Provided further, that the

        Mr. [Neal] Smith [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: That is the sum and substance of it. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        It might be said that the provision it seeks to amend is also 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, but that point was waived in 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. Quie: . . . I believe the gentleman is correct in saying 
    that the language the amendment seeks to amend would have been 
    subject to a point of order if the committee had not gone to the 
    Rules Committee to get a waiver of points of order. However, under 
    the Holman Rule there is permitted language which would retrench 
    expenditures, and the effect of this amendment would be to retrench 
    expenditures. For that reason I believe the amendment is in order. 
    . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, which forbids legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, it is made clear that if an amendment modifies 
    such legislation as has been left in the bill--and it is admitted 
    that this is legislation which is left in by reason of the 
    resolution under which we are considering it--that amendment 
    modifying legislation which is already in the bill will be 
    permitted, although if it attempts to add something new it will not 
    be permitted.
        I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Quie 
    amendment simply modifies that language. The language says:

            Shall receive not less than the amount received in 1972.

        The Quie amendment says:

            Shall receive not less than \3/4\ of the amount received in 
        1972.

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my 
    amendment says, ``Not more than,'' so it is truly a limitation.
        Mr. O'Hara: ``Not more than''.
        In any event, it is simply a modification of the 100-percent 
    figure that is already in the bill.

[[Page 5286]]

        The Chairman: . . . The Quie amendment does strike out words in 
    line 9, but it also adds a considerable amount of language to that 
    already in the bill.
        The language is as follows:

            (2) but shall not be more than 3/4 the difference between 
        the amounts which would be made available to such State under 
        this Act without application of this clause and the amounts 
        made available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 
        1972, and (3) shall not be more than 110 percent of the amounts 
        made available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 
        1972, plus \1/2\ the difference between such amounts and the 
        amounts which would be made available to such State under this 
        Act without application of this clause or clause (2) of this 
        proviso:

        The amendment would add language which the Chair feels is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and it is not in order as a 
    certain retrenchment of expenditures.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.22 Where a general appropriation bill containing legislative 
    provisions is being considered under a procedure waiving all points 
    of order against the bill, amendments which add further legislation 
    are not in order.

    On Dec. 8, 1971,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole, under a resolution waiving points of order, of 
the foreign assistance appropriation bill (H.R. 12067), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 45495, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: 
        On page 10 after line 21 insert the following: ``Sec. 114. No 
        part of any appropriations contained in this Act may be used to 
        provide assistance to Ecuador, unless the President determines 
        that the furnishing of such assistance is important to the 
        national security of the United States and reports within 30 
        days such determination to the Congress.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    insist on and desire to be heard on his points of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Passman: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I do so reluctantly, 
    because there is a lot of merit to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pelly), but I think it would impose 
    additional duties upon the President. I believe it would be subject 
    to a point of order. I shall not press the point further, or 
    elaborate at length, but ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: Unless the gentleman from Washington desires to 
    be heard the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pelly) submitted an 
    amendment

[[Page 5287]]

    to limit the funds available in this bill to Ecuador, contingent 
    upon a decision and a report to be made by the President of the 
    United States. The key words of the amendment are: ``unless the 
    President determines and reports within 30 days to the Congress.'' 
    Obviously, in the opinion of the Chair, that is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Germane Exception From Legislative Provision

Sec. 3.23 An amendment which comprises legislation on an appropriation 
    bill but which has been permitted to remain because no point of 
    order was raised against it, may be perfected by germane 
    amendments.

    On Jan. 31, 1938, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The following 
amendment was agreed to: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ambrose J.] Kennedy of Maryland: Page 
    13, line 2, after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For the use of the House District of Columbia Committee to 
    employ such clerical help as will be necessary to make a complete 
    study of the various surveys previously made of the government of 
    the District of Columbia for the express purpose of forming such 
    legislation as will effect a more efficient and economic handling 
    of the government affairs of the District of Columbia, $5,000.''

    An amendment was then offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: 
    Page 13, line 2, after the amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy, insert 
    a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For a complete investigation of the administration of public 
    relief in the District of Columbia, to be made under the 
    supervision and direction of the Commissioners, including the 
    employment of personal services without reference to the 
    Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and civil-service 
    requirements, $5,000.''

    Subsequently Mr. Caldwell offered an amendment to his amendment: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Caldwell to the amendment pending: 
        After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        'not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, furthermore, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation for an item not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (7) Objection is heard. The Chair is 
    ready to rule. The

[[Page 5288]]

    gentleman from Florida offers an amendment to the pending amendment 
    in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        That is the amendment to the amendment offered and to which the 
    gentleman from Arkansas addresses his point of order. The original 
    amendment proposed legislation on an appropriation bill, but no 
    point of order was raised against it. That being so, an amendment 
    that would contain an exception would be germane and in order, 
    certainly. Therefore, the point of order that the gentleman directs 
    to the amendment to the amendment must be overruled.

    Mr. Fuller then contended that his right to make a point of order 
against the original Caldwell amendment was renewed by the attempt to 
amend that amendment. The Chair rejected this conclusion, reiterating 
the grounds for his ruling.

Sec. 3.24 To a legislative section permitted to remain in an 
    appropriation bill and providing that hereafter no funds shall be 
    available to pay for annual leave accumulated and unused at the end 
    of a year, an amendment exempting a designated class of employees 
    from the operation of such provision was held to be in order as a 
    valid exception which did not add further legislation to that 
    permitted to remain.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 2690, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Title IV--General Provisions

        Sec. 401. Hereafter no part of the funds of, or available for 
    expenditure by any corporation or agency included in this or any 
    other act, including the government of the District of Columbia, 
    shall be available to pay for annual leave accumulated by any 
    civilian officer or employee during any calendar year and unused at 
    the close of business on June 30th of the succeeding calendar year: 
    Provided, That the head of any such corporation or agency shall 
    afford an opportunity for officers or employees to use the annual 
    leave accumulated under this section prior to June 30 of such 
    succeeding calendar year: . . . Provided further, That this section 
    shall not apply with respect to the payment of compensation for 
    accumulated annual leave in the case of officers or employees who 
    leave their civilian positions for the purpose of entering upon 
    active military or naval service in the Armed Forces of the United 
    States.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Rees of Kansas: On page 62, line 
        17, after

[[Page 5289]]

        the words ``United States'', insert ``or employees who are 
        entitled to less than 15 days of annual leave.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, it adds additional duties and it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to analyze the language of the 
    amendment and feels that the amendment is an exception to the 
    legislative limitation starting on line 5 of page 62 of the pending 
    bill. Section 401, which starts on line 5 of page 62, is a 
    legislative provision allowed by waiver of points of order to 
    remain in an appropriation bill. The pending amendment appears to 
    the Chair merely to be a perfecting amendment which is germane to 
    the provision to which it applies and one which does not add 
    legislation. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 3.25 Where a legislative provision in a general appropriation bill 
    is permitted to remain by the adoption by the House of a resolution 
    waiving points of order, and where there is pending an amendment in 
    the form of a limitation to that provision, it is in order to offer 
    an amendment to such amendment which provides a germane exception 
    from the limitation and which does not constitute additional 
    legislation.

    On May 7, 1970,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
17399), the following occurred after the Clerk had read a legislative 
paragraph protected by the special rule waiving points of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 14569-71, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 501. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        of the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1971, shall not exceed $200,771,000,000: Provided, That 
        whenever action, or inaction, by the Congress on requests for 
        appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the 
        President's recommendations reflected in the Budget for 1971 
        (H. Doc. 91-240, part 1), the Director of the Bureau of the 
        Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his 
        estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on budget 
        outlays, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
        correspondingly adjusted: Provided further, That the Director 
        of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and 
        to the Congress his estimate of the effect on budget outlays of 
        other actions by the Congress (whether initiated by the 
        President or the Congress) and the limitation set forth herein 
        shall be correspondingly adjusted, and reports, so far as 
        practicable, shall indicate whether such other actions were 
        initiated by the President or by the Congress.

[[Page 5290]]

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boland: On page 53 on line 25 
        after the amount ($200,771,000,000), insert the following: ``, 
        of which expenditures none shall be available for use for 
        American ground combat forces in Cambodia.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Boland: In front of the period insert the following: 
        ``except those which protect the lives of American troops 
        remaining within South Vietnam.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: I make a point of order on the ground that the 
    amendment requires particular and special duties.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The imposition of additional duties on officials as constituting a 
        ``legislative'' enactment is discussed in detail in 
        Sec. Sec. 52 and 53, infra. The Chair here apparently took the 
        view that the determination of the purpose of American troops 
        in Cambodia was not such a newly required duty as would 
        constitute a change in existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it does not impose any 
    specific duties. No report is required. No determination is 
    required. It applies simply to troops that are there for a specific 
    purpose.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the proposed amendment to 
    the amendment. In the opinion of the Chair the proposed amendment 
    to the amendment constitutes an exception to the limitation that 
    was offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, does not 
    constitute additional legislation, and is germane. Therefore the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Contract Authority Contained in Bill

Sec. 3.26 To a section of an Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    containing legislation authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    make such additional commitments as may be necessary in order to 
    provide full parity payments, an amendment providing that the 
    payments shall not exceed an amount necessary to equal parity 
    ``when added to the market price and the payment made for 
    conservation . . . of agricultural land resources,'' was held a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of

[[Page 5291]]

    funds which did not add further legislation to that already 
    contained in the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
bill, the Clerk read the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 2124, 2125, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              parity payments

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make parity payments 
    to producers of wheat, cotton, corn (in the commercial corn-
    producing area), rice, and tobacco pursuant to the provisions of 
    section 303 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, there are 
    hereby reappropriated the unobligated balances of the 
    appropriations made under this head by the Department of 
    Agriculture Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1941 and 1942, 
    to remain available until June 30, 1945, and the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to make such additional obligations as may 
    be necessary in order to provide for full parity payments: . . . 
    Provided further, That such payments with respect to any such 
    commodity shall be made with respect to a farm in full amount only 
    in the event that the acreage planted to the commodity for harvest 
    on the farm in 1943 is not in excess of the farm acreage allotment 
    established for the commodity under the agricultural conservation 
    program, and, if such allotment has been exceeded, the parity 
    payment with respect to the commodity shall be reduced by not more 
    than 10 percent for each 1 percent, or fraction thereof, by which 
    the acreage planted to the commodity is in excess of such 
    allotment. The Secretary may also provide by regulations for 
    similar deductions for planting in excess of the acreage allotment 
    for the commodity on other farms or for planting in excess of the 
    acreage allotment or limit for any other commodity for which 
    allotments or limits are established under the agricultural 
    conservation program on the same or any other farm.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: On page 
    77, line 5, after the word ``farm,'' strike out the period, insert 
    a colon and a proviso as follows: ``Provided further, That parity 
    payments, under the authority of this paragraph, shall not exceed 
    such amount as is necessary to equal parity when added to the 
    market price and the payment made or to be made for conservation 
    and use of agricultural land resources under sections 7 to 17, 
    inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act 
    approved February 29, 1936, as amended; and the provisions of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended; Provided further, 
    That the total expenditures made and the contracts entered into in 
    pursuance of this paragraph shall not exceed in all $212,000,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I submit a 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber]. . . .
        Mr. Taber: . . . The bill, on page 75, provides that the 
    Secretary is au

[[Page 5292]]

    thorized and directed to make such additional commitments or incur 
    such additional obligations as may be necessary in order to provide 
    for full parity payments.
        That is legislation. It is brought in order under the rule. The 
    language that I have submitted is clearly germane to that provision 
    because it provides a method. It is purely a limitation to the 
    payments that shall be made for parity under the authority of this 
    paragraph. For this reason it is clearly germane and it is clearly 
    in order.
        It would be in order if there was no legislation in the 
    paragraph because it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 14. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I make the 
    observation that if the proposal is clearly a limitation, even 
    though it embraces some legislation, it is in order under the 
    Holman rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] if there are any funds other than those 
    appropriated in this bill to be used for parity payments?
        Mr. Taber: None.
        The Chairman: Just the funds in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The amendment the gentleman is offering is to 
    limit the funds offered in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is my intention. I think perhaps I ought to 
    insert after the word ``payments'' in the third line the words 
    ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' With that in, it would 
    clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] ask 
    to modify his amendment?
        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word 
    ``payments'' ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber]?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has 
    offered an amendment, on page 77, line 5, undertaking to provide 
    further limitations on the payment and the administration of parity 
    payments, to which the gentleman from Georgia has made a point of 
    order.
        It seems to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York constitutes a limitation 
    upon the funds appropriated by this paragraph or proposed to be 
    appropriated by this paragraph and does not constitute legislation.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Increasing Limitation on Expenditures

Sec. 3.27 Where the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of 
    order against a section of an appropriation bill setting a 
    limitation on fiscal year expenditures and con

[[Page 5293]]

    taining legislative provisions, an amendment increasing the 
    limitation by an amount equal to certain budgetary fixed costs was 
    allowed as a germane amendment perfecting that portion of the bill.

    On May 21, 1969,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11400), the following section of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 13270, 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 113 
        Cong. Rec. 32886, 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1967, 
        and 113 Cong. Rec. 32966, 32967, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 
        1967 (proceedings relating to H.R. 13893).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Title IV

               limitation on fiscal year 1970 budget outlays

        Sec. 401. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) of 
    the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
    shall not exceed $192,900,000,000: Provided, That whenever action, 
    or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and 
    other budgetary proposals varies from the President's 
    recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of 
    the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net 
    lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
    correspondingly adjusted.
        (b) The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report 
    periodically to the President and to the Congress on the operation 
    of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of 
    the first month which begins after the date of approval of this 
    Act; subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar 
    month during the first session of the Ninety-first Congress, and at 
    the end of each calendar quarter thereafter.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan of California: On 
    page 62, line 3, add the following as a new section:
        ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as adjusted 
    in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, shall be 
    increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount by which 
    expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the fiscal year 
    1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended programs and 
    fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of the Budget for 
    the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the aggregate expenditures 
    and net lending (budget outlays) estimated for those items in the 
    April review of the 1970 budget.''

    The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5294]]

        The Chair has examined title IV. This [amendment] is a new 
    subparagraph to title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and all points of order have been waived 
    (against) title IV, as a result of [its] being legislation. 
    Therefore the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    provisions contained in title IV and overrules the point of order.

Striking Out Legislation Permitted to Remain, Inserting Identical 
    Language With Numerical Change

Sec. 3.28 An amendment striking out a legislative provision that had 
    been allowed by waiver of points of order to remain in the 
    independent offices appropriation bill, and reinserting said 
    provision in identical terms except for a change in the number of 
    housing units authorized by such provision, was held proper as not 
    adding further legislation.

    On Mar. 20, 1952,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill, which 
read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 2626-29, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       public housing administration

        Annual contributions: For the payment of annual contributions 
    to public housing agencies in accordance with section 10 of the 
    United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1410), 
    $29,880,000: . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 
    the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect to 
    projects initiated after March 1, 1949, (1) authorize during the 
    fiscal year 1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 
    25,000 dwelling units, or (2) after the date of approval of this 
    act, enter into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which 
    will bind the Public Housing Administration with respect to loans, 
    annual contributions, or authorizations for commencement of 
    construction, for dwelling units aggregating in excess of 25,000 to 
    be authorized for commencement of construction during any one 
    fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year 1953, unless a greater 
    number of units is hereafter authorized by the Congress. . . .

    An amendment was offered by Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 24, line 11, after the 
    words ``Provided further'', strike out the remainder of line 11 and 
    all lines thereafter through the word ``Congress'' in line 25, and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Public 
    Housing Administration shall not, with respect to projects 
    initiated after March 1, 1949, authorize during the fiscal year 
    1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 50,000 
    dwelling units.''

[[Page 5295]]

    Subsequently, Mr. O. Clark Fisher, of Texas, offered a substitute 
amendment: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 2628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 24, strike out line 11, all 
    the language down to and including the word ``Congress'' in line 25 
    and insert the following: ``Provided further, That notwithstanding 
    the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
    amended, the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect 
    to projects initiated after March 1, 1949 (1) authorize during the 
    fiscal year 1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 
    5,000 dwelling units, or (2) after the date of approval of this act 
    enter into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which will 
    bind the Public Housing Administration in respect to loans, annual 
    contributions, or authorizations for commencement of construction, 
    for dwelling units aggregating in excess of 5,000 to be authorized 
    for commencement of construction during any one fiscal year 
    subsequent to the fiscal year 1953, unless a greater number of 
    units is hereafter authorized by the Congress.''

    Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., of New York, here ascertained by 
parliamentary inquiry that a waiver of points of order against the 
above provisions of the bill did not apply to amendments.

        Mr. Roosevelt: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in the future as well as at present.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to read and to analyze the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher]. The 
    gentleman's amendment is identical with the language in the bill on 
    page 24, beginning with line 11 through the word ``Congress'' in 
    line 25, except for the figures in lines 16 and 22, where the 
    gentleman's amendment would strike the words ``twenty-five'' in 
    each instance and insert ``five.'' That, to the Chair, is a 
    perfecting amendment, and under the rules it is entirely possible 
    for this procedure to be followed. The section of the bill to which 
    the amendment is offered is legislation which has been permitted to 
    remain by waiver of points of order. Such legislative provisions 
    can be perfected by germane amendments which add no further 
    legislation. The amendment before us is germane and adds no further 
    legislation. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Examples of Perfecting Amendments Ruled Out as Adding Legislation to 
    That in Bill

Sec. 3.29 A section which proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, being permitted to remain, may be perfected by 
    a germane amendment, but this does not permit an amendment which 
    adds further legisla

[[Page 5296]]

    tion; thus, where a provision in the Defense Department 
    appropriation bill required the Secretary of Defense to furnish 
    certain information on proposed purchases to small business 
    enterprises, an amendment requiring expenditures to be made in 
    accordance with provisions of other laws relating to small business 
    was held to be additional legislation and not in order.

    On May 10, 1956,(1) a section of the Defense Department 
appropriation bill (H.R. 10986) was read in Committee of the Whole, and 
an amendment offered, as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 7967, 7968, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 609. Insofar as practicable, the Secretary of Defense 
        shall assist American small business to participate equitably 
        in the furnishing of commodities and services financed with 
        funds appropriated under this act by making available or 
        causing to be made available to suppliers in the United States, 
        and particularly to small independent enterprises, information, 
        as far in advance as possible, with respect to purchases 
        proposed to be financed with funds appropriated under this act, 
        and by making available or causing to be made available to 
        purchasing and contracting agencies of the Department of 
        Defense information as to commodities and services produced and 
        furnished by small independent enterprises in the United 
        States, and by otherwise helping to give small business an 
        opportunity to participate in the furnishing of commodities and 
        services financed with funds appropriated by this act.

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roosevelt: On page 36, line 13, 
        section 609 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following language:
            ``The expenditures of all appropriations contained in this 
        act effected by this section shall be made in accordance with 
        the policies and provisions of Public Law 413, 80th Congress, 
        Section 2(b) and Public Law 163, 83d Congress, section 203.''

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Roosevelt] was 
    good enough to give me in advance a copy of his proposed amendment, 
    and I have submitted it to a number of my committee colleagues. We 
    are all very much in favor of helping small business. The bill as 
    written is designed to that end. Because of the views entertained 
    by those with whom I have conferred, however, I feel constrained to 
    insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: No, Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.

[[Page 5297]]

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.30 Where an appropriation for an object not authorized by law is 
    allowed to remain in an appropriation bill under a resolution 
    waiving points of order, an amendment requiring not less than a 
    certain portion of that appropriation to be used for a different 
    purpose not authorized by law was held to be legislation in 
    violation of the rule.

    On July 27, 1954,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
10051), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 12286, 12287, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 3, line 24, 
        after ``$100,000,000'', insert ``of which not less than 
        $4,100,000 shall be made available to the Food and Agriculture 
        Organization of the United Nations for carrying out 
        multilateral technical cooperation programs authorized by 
        section 306.''

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The language is not 
    authorized by law. There is no authorization for any of these items 
    here except the rule under which the bill was brought in.
        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I will have to 
    concede the point of order. In other words, everything in the bill 
    would be subject to a point of order, except for the fact that the 
    Committee on Rules waived points of order against the printed bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.31 To a provision in an appropriation bill imposing a penalty 
    upon persons who accept employment, the compensation for which is 
    paid from funds in the bill, if such persons belong to a specified 
    type of organization, an amendment extending such penalty to 
    persons who refuse to answer questions before a committee of 
    Congress regarding their membership in such an organization was 
    ruled out of order as adding further legislation to that in the 
    bill and as not being germane to the section to which offered.

[[Page 5298]]

    On July 2, 1953,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Defense Department appropriation bill (H.R. 5969), 
which, in part, provided for penalties upon persons who accept 
employment for which compensation is paid from funds in the bill, if 
such persons belong to an organization which asserts the right to 
strike against the government or which advocates overthrow of the 
government. An amendment was offered to such provision, and a point of 
order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 99 Cong. Rec. 7974, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sutton: On page 46, line 10, after 
        ``violence'', insert the following: ``or refuses to answer 
        questions before any committee of Congress regarding his or her 
        membership in or affiliation with such organization on the 
        ground that such testimony may incriminate such person.''

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Scrivner: Mr. Chairman, although the committee understands 
    the purpose of the amendment and knows the results it might obtain, 
    we nevertheless feel that the amendment is subject to a point of 
    order, and insist on the point of order that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Tennessee desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, this is a restriction on an 
    appropriation. I talked with the chairman of the full Committee on 
    Appropriations about this amendment and also talked to the chairman 
    of the subcommittee handling the bill and also the ranking minority 
    member of the subcommittee. I was hopeful they would accept this 
    amendment. To me it is a restriction on an appropriation and is 
    something I believe the entire Congress would be in favor of. I 
    hope the gentleman will withdraw his point of order and let this 
    amendment go into the appropriation bill. I still insist, Mr. 
    Chairman, that it is a restriction.
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee adds further legislation to 
    that in the bill, and the amendment is not germane to the section 
    to which it is offered. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.32 Where a provision in a general appropriation bill established 
    a continuing fund in the ``Southeastern Power Area,'' to be 
    available for designated expenditures in such area, an amendment 
    establishing a similar fund from receipts of the ``Southwestern 
    Power Administration'' for similar expendi

[[Page 5299]]

    tures in the southwestern area was held to add legislation 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Apr. 24, 1951(7), the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following paragraph was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 4293, 4294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All receipts from the transmission and sale of electric power 
    and energy under the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control 
    Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), generated or purchased 
    in the southeastern power area, shall be covered into the Treasury 
    of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, except that the 
    Treasury shall set up and maintain from such receipts a continuing 
    fund of $50,000, and said fund shall be placed to the credit of the 
    Secretary, and shall be subject to check by him to defray emergency 
    expenses necessary to insure continuity of electric service and 
    continuous operation of Government facilities in said area.
        Mr. [Boyd] Tackett [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: Strike out the period on 
        line 18, page 3, following the word ``area'' and insert the 
        following language: ``Provided, further, That all receipts from 
        the transmission and sale of electric power and energy under 
        the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
        December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), generated or purchased by 
        the Southwestern Power Administration, shall be covered into 
        the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, 
        except that the Treasury shall set up and maintain from such 
        receipts a continuing fund of $250,000. . . .''

        Mr. [James W.] Trimble [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and that the language used 
    changes the purpose of the legislation to be considered.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Arkansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tackett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I contend, Mr. Chairman, that this is a limitation upon 
    legislation and that it is germane to the provisions of the bill, 
    because the Southwestern Power Administration and the Southeastern 
    Power Administration are both authorized under section 5 of the 
    Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, and that this amendment 
    places the Southwestern Power Administration and other such 
    agencies under the Department of the Interior under the same 
    provisions and entitlement so far as the continuing fund is 
    concerned. It is certainly germane, Mr. Chairman, for the simple 
    reason that both such agencies are set up under the Flood Control 
    Act of 1944, and this is a limitation upon the legislation that is 
    provided by this section of the proposal now before the committee. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has offered an 
    amendment on page 3, line 18, to a paragraph of the bill which has 
    to do with the con

[[Page 5300]]

    tinuing fund of the Southeastern Power Administration. The 
    gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Trimble] makes a point of order 
    against the amendment. The Chair has had an opportunity to read and 
    analyze the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, which 
    has to do with the generation or purchase of electric power by 
    another agency than the Southeastern Power Administration, the 
    Southwestern Power Administration. The amendment contains language 
    that is clearly legislation.
        In answer to the suggestion of the gentleman from New York, 
    even though legislation may appear in an appropriation bill, that 
    language cannot be amended by other language which adds 
    legislation. Briefly, a proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law, but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, but such amendments may not add 
    legislation, and it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas proposes to add legislation 
    not authorized by law.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Trimble].

Sec. 3.33 A paragraph which proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill being permitted to remain may be perfected by a 
    germane amendment, but this does not make in order an amendment 
    which contains additional legislation.

    On June 1, 1944,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4899, a Department of Labor and Federal Security 
Agency appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 5152, 5153, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Employment office facilities and services: For all necessary 
    expenses of the War Manpower Commission in connection with the 
    operation and maintenance of employment office facilities and 
    services, and the performance of functions, duties, and powers 
    relating to employment service transferred to the War Manpower 
    Commission by Executive Order No. 9247, including the recruitment 
    and placement of individuals for work or training in occupations 
    essential to the war effort; such expenses to include . . . travel 
    expenses (not to exceed $2,268,000); and rent in the District of 
    Columbia: . . . Provided further, That the Chairman of the War 
    Manpower Commission may transfer funds from this appropriation to 
    the Social Security Board for ``grants to States for unemployment 
    compensation administration'' as authorized in title III of the 
    Social Security Act, as amended to meet costs incurred by States in 
    making available to the War Manpower Commission premises, 
    equipment, supplies, facilities, and services, needed by the 
    Commission in the operation and maintenance of employment office 
    facilities and services, any sum so transferred and not expended in 
    accordance with this proviso to be retransferred to this 
    appropriation, $57,968,079. . . . Provided further, That no portion 
    of the sum herein appropriated shall be expended by any Federal 
    agency for the salary of any person who is engaged for more than 
    half of the time, as determined by the State director of

[[Page 5301]]

    unemployment compensation, in the administration of the State 
    unemployment compensation act, including claims taking but 
    excluding registration for work.

    At this point, an amendment was offered.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: On page 61, line 4, strike 
        out the period, insert a semicolon, and insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That pending the return of the employment 
        offices and services to the States, the Federal agency 
        administering the United States Employment Service shall 
        maintain that service as an operating entity, and during the 
        period of its administration shall maintain all functions 
        performed by State employment offices on the date said offices 
        were loaned to the Federal Government.''

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I have two points of order. First, 
    the amendment comes too late. The succeeding paragraph ``training 
    within industry service'' has already been read and the Clerk had 
    begun to read section 702. The amendment is offered at a point 
    preceding the paragraph relating to training within industry. 
    Second, the amendment is legislative in character and proposes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Points of order against all 
    legislative matters contained in the bill were by unanimous consent 
    waived by the House on Monday of this week. But that waiver does 
    not include legislative provisions which may be offered by 
    amendment and which are not contained in the bill, and in this case 
    do not relate to any legislative provision contained in the bill. 
    The Wagner-Peyser Act authorizes the making of appropriations to 
    the employment service which has now been transferred by Executive 
    Order No. 9247 to Federal jurisdiction. But the appropriations for 
    that service are authorized by the Wagner-Peyser Act and the duties 
    of administrative officials in the administration of the Wagner-
    Peyser Act are clearly defined by law. The gentleman by his 
    amendment proposes to place upon them certain designated duties 
    which are not specifically required in existing law, and to that 
    extent proposes an alteration, if not an expansion, of the 
    provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act. . . .
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, addressing myself to [the point of 
    order, that this is legislation upon an appropriation bill], if I 
    understand the gentleman's argument it is that here is a 
    legislative attempt to change the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser 
    Act and to impose conditions upon the employment offices of the 
    country at variance with the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act. . 
    . . The fact of the matter is that the employment offices in many 
    of the States of this Union prior to the enactment of the Wagner-
    Peyser Act in 1933, on the 6th of June, were State offices and 
    State maintained and operated, pursuant to State law, and they were 
    financed in whole by State appropriations. Then, in 1933, we passed 
    the Wagner-Peyser Act, the sole purpose of

[[Page 5302]]

    which was to extend Federal aid to States in connection with the 
    operation of a State employment service. . . . Now then, this is a 
    simple limitation on this appropriation bill in the form of this 
    amendment, simply saying that the Federal Government in the 
    operation of these State offices that have been turned over to the 
    Federal Government for the duration of the war, shall be operated 
    on the same basis and with the same functions that they were 
    operated before the States turned them over to the Federal 
    Government; that they shall not do away with their functions, but 
    shall maintain them as an operating entity. . . . I find no 
    inference so far as I am able to see, which in any way seeks to 
    change the law of 1933, the Wagner-Peyser Act, or which seeks to 
    enact into this bill any legislative provision at all. It is simply 
    a limitation to the extent that they shall not do away with 
    functions that were functions in the offices when the Federal 
    Government took those offices over, when they were maintained as 
    State offices. There is not anything in the Wagner-Peyser Act which 
    is contrary to that position at all, because these State offices 
    with State functions were maintained with Wagner-Peyser Act funds 
    before the Federal Government took them over.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] offered an amendment 
    to which the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] interposed a point 
    of order.
        The general rule relating to this may be stated as follows:

            A paragraph which proposes legislation in a general 
        appropriation bill being permitted to remain may be perfected 
        by a germane amendment; but this does not permit an amendment 
        which adds additional legislation.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane, but 
    it certainly appears that it is additional legislation, in that it 
    directs that something shall be done.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Adding New Class to Those Covered by Legislative Direction; Ruled Out

Sec. Sec. 3.34 To a legislative provision permitted to remain in an 
    appropriation bill, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to 
    allow applicants for mass transit assistance to continue use of 
    preferential fare systems to an existing class covered by those 
    systems, an amendment requiring the applicants to extend their 
    preferential fare systems to a new class of recipients not then 
    covered was ruled out of order as adding legislation to that 
    permitted to remain.

    On June 22, 1983,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Department of Transportation appropriation bill

[[Page 5303]]

(H.R. 3329), when an amendment was offered and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 305. None of the funds provided under this Act for 
        Formula grants shall be made available to support mass transit 
        facilities, equipment, or operating expenses unless the 
        applicant for such assistance has given satisfactory assurances 
        in such manner and forms as the Secretary may require . . . 
        that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during 
        nonpeak hours shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally 
        applicable to other persons at peak hours: Provided, That the 
        Secretary, in prescribing the terms and conditions for the 
        provision of such assistance shall (1) permit applicants to 
        continue the use of preferential fare systems for elderly or 
        handicapped persons where those systems were in effect on or 
        prior to November 26, 1974. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mrazek: Insert the following on 
        page 36, line 24, ending with the phrase ``prior to November 
        26, 1974,'' ``provided that said applicant adopts and 
        implements appropriate standards of eligibility which includes 
        those citizens who reside in the district served by the mass 
        transit system''.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I would remind the House under the rules of the House, though, 
    an issue of this kind with substantive merit needs to come before 
    the House--under the rules adopted primarily with votes from the 
    majority side earlier in this Congress--needs to come before the 
    body in the authorization bills rather than in the appropriations 
    bills.
        In this particular instance, the amendment that we have before 
    us constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        My objection to the amendment rests on that procedural grounds 
    that legislation in an appropriations bill is beyond the scope of 
    the present consideration and that this amendment must properly be 
    brought before the House in the course of the authorization 
    process. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. The gentleman 
    might have and I indeed had considered making a point of order 
    against the section as being not in order for reasons that the 
    gentleman has stated with respect to this amendment.
        No such point of order was made, however. Therefore, it is too 
    late to knock out the legislation on the basis that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This amendment merely seeks to make technical changes in the 
    language which is already there and to which no objection was made. 
    Therefore, it should be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    clear that the amendment proposed now that is in question deals 
    with perfecting language. We are talking about the very same 
    standards in this amendment

[[Page 5304]]

    that are recognized in the bill. All we are talking about is 
    extending those standards to another group of citizens that are 
    covered by this bill and this authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) If no other Member wishes to be 
    heard, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the pending section of the bill includes legislation 
    which was allowed to remain when no point of order was raised, the 
    fact is that the amendment adds additional legislative requirements 
    that appropriate standards of eligibility be determined for an 
    additional category of citizens not covered by section 305 and, 
    therefore, the Chair must rule that it is more than perfecting and 
    in fact does constitute additional legislation on an appropriation 
    and is out of order at this time.

Rule Waiving Rule XXI Pending Authorization

Sec. 3.35 The Chairman and members of the Committee on Armed Services 
    on one occasion first opposed the adoption of a rule waiving points 
    of order against the Defense Department appropriation bill, then 
    agreed to support the rule after the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations announced that the appropriation bill would not be 
    called up pending final conference action on the authorization 
    measure.

    On July 26, 1968,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 23622, 23623, 23627, 23628, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    1273 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1273

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18707) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply makes in 
    order the consideration of the appropriation bill for the 
    Department of Defense for fiscal year 1969. Of course, as the 
    membership is aware, the Appropriations Committee reports and bills 
    are privileged. They do not require ordinarily a rule to bring them 
    to the floor. But in this case a rule was requested and granted 
    simply because the authorizing legislation which ordinarily 
    precedes the reporting and consideration of an appropriation bill 
    has not been finally enacted.
        The matter is now in conference, and the Committee on 
    Appropriations, I understand, with the concurrence of the 
    leadership, came to the Committee on Rules and requested a rule 
    waiving points of order. . . .
        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, of 
    course,

[[Page 5305]]

    there has been cooperation. This is perfectly satisfactory. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from South Carolina and the gentleman from Texas agree that upon 
    the adoption of the rule, the bill will not be called up in the 
    House by the Committee on Appropriations until the conference 
    report on the authorization bill has been adopted by both bodies.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to me. . . .
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Recognition for Debate on Legislation Permitted to Remain

Sec. 3.36 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on one occasion 
    ruled that, during consideration of a general appropriation bill, 
    members of the Committee on Appropriations are ordinarily entitled 
    to preference in recognition, but that when a rule is adopted 
    waiving points of order against legislative provisions in the bill, 
    recognition may be divided between members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations and other Members interested in the bill.

    On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(15) the following proceedings 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Pace] has been seeking recognition. The Chair realizes that this is 
    an appropriation bill, and that ordinarily members of that 
    committee would be entitled to preference, but under the rule 
    adopted yesterday we made this part of it a legislative bill by 
    making certain legislation in order. The Chair is going to divide 
    the time between the members of the Appropriations Committee and 
    the other Members of the House who are vitally interested in this 
    proposition. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Pace], a member of the Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John E. Rankin (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: The Chair made the statement that this is not an 
    appropriation bill; that it is a legislative bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania misunderstood the 
    occupant of the chair. . . .
        Permit the Chair to make a statement.

[[Page 5306]]

        On yesterday the question of recognizing members of the 
    committee to the exclusion of other Members of the House was 
    raised. The Chair stated that since we were operating under a rule 
    that makes in order legislation on an appropriation bill, the Chair 
    did not feel the policy that has grown up in recent years of 
    recognizing members of the committee to the exclusion of other 
    Members of the House should be followed. The Chair does not know 
    what attitude future Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole may 
    assume, but the present occupant of the chair wishes to lay down 
    what the Chair believes to be a sound principle in this respect.
        There are 40 members of the Committee on Appropriations. They 
    have control of all the time for general debate on bills coming 
    from that committee just as members of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, members of the Committee on Ways and Means, or other 
    committees have control of the time under general debate on bills 
    coming from their respective committees. There is no written or 
    adopted rule of this House giving members of the committee in 
    control of the bill the exclusive right to recognition under the 5-
    minute rule over other Members of the House, but a custom to that 
    effect seems to have grown up in recent years which the Chair 
    thinks is wrong.
        It is all right to give preference to the chairman of a 
    subcommittee or to the ranking minority member on that subcommittee 
    in connection with important amendments under the 5-minute rule, 
    but the Chair does not think it is fair to the rest of the 
    membership of the House to follow a policy, and gradually petrify 
    it into the rules of the House, of recognizing all members of a 
    committee handling the bill under the 5-minute rule to the 
    exclusion of other Members of the House.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I trust the 
    Chair has no intention of announcing a formal decision, which would 
    be in contravention of the practice of the House, which has been in 
    effect for a hundred years. From time immemorial the members of the 
    committee in control of the bill and charged with its passage have 
    been given precedence in recognition, other things being equal. . . 
    .
        . . . The members of a committee through months--sometimes 
    years--of work on a certain class of legislation or a recurring 
    bill are naturally more familiar with it, and under the rules of 
    the House are responsible for its disposition. And it naturally 
    follows that they must be in position to secure the floor and must 
    be accorded priority of recognition when that subject or that bill 
    is under consideration in order to expedite the business of the 
    House. There is no specific provision in the body of the rules, but 
    the practice has not only been established in the long history of 
    the American Congress but came down to us from the English 
    Parliament from which we received originally our parliamentary 
    code. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair may say to the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] that there is no written rule on this 
    subject, but within the last two or three decades appropriations 
    have been taken away from other committees and concentrated in the 
    hands of one committee. The Chair is not speaking any more with 
    reference to the Committee on Appropriations than any other 
    committee. It is perfectly fair for a committee to have charge of 
    gen

[[Page 5307]]

    eral debate and probably debate under the 5-minute rule to a large 
    extent, but the Chair does not think it is fair--especially under 
    conditions such as we have here, where a rule has been adopted 
    making legislation that ordinarily comes from the Committee on 
    Agriculture and from other committees of the House in order on the 
    bill--the Chair does not think it fair to the rest of the 
    membership of the House to recognize members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the exclusion of the 
    other Members of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Is this to be regarded 
    as a ruling today, or is it merely an observation of the Chair?
        The Chairman: It is a ruling as far as this bill is concerned.

On Rare Occasions the Committee on Appropriations Has Been Authorized 
    to Report Legislation

Sec. 3.37 The Committee on Appropriations has been authorized by House 
    resolution to examine allegations that certain persons in the 
    government were unfit for such service because of subversive 
    interests, and to incorporate in any appropriation measure any 
    legislation approved by such committee as a result of such 
    investigation.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(17) House Resolution 105, authorizing 
the Committee on Appropriations to investigate subversive activities, 
was reported from the Committee on Rules, considered, and adopted by 
the House. The resolution is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 734, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting 
        through a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the 
        chairman of such committee for the purposes of this resolution, 
        is authorized and directed to examine into any and all 
        allegations or charges that certain persons in the employ of 
        the several executive departments and other executive agencies 
        are unfit to continue in such employment by reason of their 
        present association or membership in or with organizations 
        whose aims or purposes are or have been subversive to the 
        Government of the United States. Such examination shall be 
        pursued with the view of obtaining all available evidence 
        bearing upon each particular case and reporting to the House 
        the conclusions of the committee with respect to each such case 
        in the light of the factual evidence obtained. . . . Any 
        legislation approved by the committee as a result of this 
        resolution may be incorporated in any general or special 
        appropriation measure emanating from such committee or may be 
        offered as a committee amendment to any such measure 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Changing Sum of Unauthorized Appropriation Permitted to Remain; Held in 
    Order

Sec. 3.38 Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in 
    a general appropriation bill by failure to raise, or by waiver of, 
    a point

[[Page 5308]]

    of order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding 
    legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another 
    unauthorized purpose is in order.

    On June 8, 1977, (18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a Department of Transportation appropriation bill (H.R. 
7557), when an amendment was offered and ruled in order as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 17941, 17942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  COAST GUARD

                               Operating Expenses

                         (including transfer of funds)

            For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
        the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not to 
        exceed twelve passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
        and recreation and welfare; $871,865,000 of which $205,977 
        shall be applied to Capehart Housing debt reduction: . . .

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: On page 3, line 7, strike 
        ``$871,865,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$878,865,000''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment under rule XXI, clause 2, the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New York is out of order because it has not been authorized. 
    The authorization for this is pending and the House has requested a 
    conference on this. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it the amendment which is offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi). That amendment simply changes 
    an unauthorized appropriations figure in the bill, striking that 
    figure and inserting in lieu thereof another. The gentleman does 
    not seek, in his amendment, to earmark these additional funds at 
    all.
        Under the precedents, then, where an amendment only seeks to 
    change an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in the bill by 
    failure to raise a point of order or by a waiver, and does not add 
    any legislative language or earmark for a specific unauthorized 
    project, that amendment is in order. (Deschler's ch. 25, sec. 
    23.11.)
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled and the gentleman is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 3.39 Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in 
    a general appropriation bill by a resolution waiving points of 
    order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding 
    legislative language is in order.

[[Page 5309]]

    On Oct. 1, 1975,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9861), a point of order against an amendment was overruled, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 31058, 31059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: 
        on page 31, line 10, strike out ``$3,146,050,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: ``$3,093,150,000'';
            And on page 31, line 14, strike out ``$801,419,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``$796,119,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [A]s I understood the gentleman's explanation, he says that 
    this continues research on the F-401 engine, but I would point out 
    to the Chair that on page 285 of the report, it is indicated that 
    this fiscal year 1976 budget requests $2 million for additional 
    termination charges for this engine, and any money that would 
    continue the research and development on this would not have a 
    proper authorization. Therefore, this would constitute legislation 
    in an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    Chappell amendment totally reduces the figure reported in the bill. 
    There is no other language in the amendment, so therefore it must 
    be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the point of order must be overruled 
    because there is no other legislative language included in this 
    amendment. It strictly goes to the dollar figure in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons so eloquently stated by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Addabbo), and where as here an appropriation for an 
    object not authorized by law is allowed to remain in an 
    appropriation bill under a resolution (H. Res. 752) waiving points 
    of order against unauthorized items in the bill, an amendment 
    merely changing the amount of such appropriation is in order 
    (Chairman Graham, July 27, 1954). Also it is obvious that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida reduces amounts 
    covered in the bill, and is in order under clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Changing Unauthorized Figure Not Yet Read For Amendment; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.40 Where by unanimous consent amendments were offered en bloc to 
    a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing an 
    unauthorized amount not yet read for amendment, one of the 
    amendments, which increased that unauthorized figure, was ruled out 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, since at that point it was not

[[Page 5310]]

    being offered to a paragraph which had been read and permitted to 
    remain by the Committee of the Whole.

    On June 21, 1984,(2) during consideration of the 
Treasury Department appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I have really 
    three amendments that I am offering today which are all related to 
    one issue, namely, the restoration of funds needed to effectively 
    operate the air support branches of the Customs Service, and since 
    the amendments do not change the overall totals contained with the 
    bill, but rather simply restore the funds to the accounts for which 
    the Office of Management and Budget approved them, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all three amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman:(3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . I reserve a point of 
    order on the English amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the remaining amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. English: Page 3, line 2, strike 
        out ``22,768,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$20,768,000''.
            Page 6, line 7, strike out ``$32,070,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$36,070,000''. . . .

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma contains appropriations of 
    funds not previously authorized, and, therefore, is in violation of 
    clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The amendment provides $4 million in additional funds for the 
    Customs Service on page 6. Funding for the Customs Service has not 
    been authorized by the Congress and, in addition, the amounts 
    contemplated by the English amendment are inconsistent with those 
    approved by the authorizing committee, the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the funding in the 
    English amendment has not been authorized and, therefore violates 
    clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. English waited until the Customs 
Service paragraph was read, and if no point of order were raised 
against the unauthorized amount in that paragraph, and had he then 
obtained unanimous consent to offer the same three amendments en bloc 
by returning to prior paragraphs to accomplish the reductions 
contemplated, his amendments en bloc would not have been subject to a 
point of order, since he would have been

[[Page 5311]]

merely perfecting an unauthorized amount permitted to remain by failure 
to raise a point of order against the paragraph. Mr. Frenzel, however, 
did make a point of order against the paragraph on the Customs Service 
interdiction program when that paragraph was read for amendment 
subsequently.

Lesser Duty Than That Contemplated by Pending Legislation; Held in 
    Order

Sec. 3.41 A legislative provision permitted to remain in a general 
    appropriation bill may be perfected by germane amendment as long as 
    the amendment does not add further legislation.

    On June 27, 1984,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), an amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
        employees health benefit program which provides any benefits or 
        coverages for abortions, under such negotiated plans after the 
        last day of the contracts currently in order. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 619. The provisions of section 618 shall not apply 
        where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
        were carried to term.

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: On page 51, in line 6, 
        delete ``life'' and insert in lieu thereof ``health''. . . .

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    is legislating on an appropriations bill, in violation of rule XXI, 
    clause 2, and I ask that it be ruled in such a way by the Chair. . 
    . .
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states, 
    ``No provision changing existing law shall be reported in any 
    general appropriation bill. . . .'' Out of this language comes the 
    general restriction prohibiting the consideration of legislation as 
    part of an appropriation bill. One way the Chair decides whether a 
    limitation constitutes legislation is to determine whether the 
    provision adds new affirmative directions for administrative 
    officers.
        Clearly, section 619 of H.R. 5798 would have been subject to a 
    valid point of order, had any Member sought to raise one. The 
    ``life of the mother'' exception to a limitation on funding for 
    abortions on an appropriations measure has on numerous occasions 
    been ruled out of order. This happened last year on this very 
    legislation.

[[Page 5312]]

        But, no Member raised that point of order on section 619. My 
    amendment seeks to amend section 619 by enlarging the exception to 
    apply to the ``health of the mother,'' rather than to the ``life of 
    the mother.'' The appropriate test is not whether section 619, as 
    amended, would be subject to a point of order but, rather, the test 
    is whether my amendment adds new or different affirmative 
    directions to an administrative officer. The question is whether my 
    amendment would change the nature of the legislation already on 
    this bill.
        To answer that question, we must refer to section 618 of the 
    bill, which prohibits the use of funds appropriated by the bill to 
    pay for an abortion or for administrative expenses in connection 
    with any health plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
    Program [FEHBP] which provides benefits or coverages for abortions. 
    Clearly, the first part of this section is a nullity, because there 
    is no authorization to use one penny appropriated by the bill to 
    pay directly for an abortion. The operative language is the second 
    part.
        The administrative burden imposed by section 619 is that the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management is required to 
    review contracts with health care providers to ensure that they 
    provide no reimbursement for abortions, unless the life of the 
    mother is at stake. Examining those same contracts to ensure that 
    they provide no reimbursement for abortions unless the health of 
    the mother is at stake is precisely the same administrative burden. 
    Each involves reviewing 130 contracts to see whether certain 
    language appears in them. There is no different administrative 
    burden.
         Arguably, section 619 creates another administrative burden 
    which requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
    to monitor the implementation of health benefit plans to ensure 
    compliance with the restriction. In this role, section 619 asks the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management to second guess 
    doctors and insurance carriers to decide whether the life of the 
    mother would truly have been endangered if the fetus had been 
    carried to term. Undoubtedly, this is an affirmative obligation 
    which is nowhere authorized in law and which the Director of the 
    Office of Personnel Management is uniquely unqualified to perform.
        My amendment reduces this administrative obligation. If the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management were obliged to 
    ensure compliance with section 619, as amended, he would merely 
    have to determine whether the health of the mother would have been 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This is a much 
    smaller burden.
        The life of the mother is a narrow subset of the health of the 
    mother. Medical personnel can say with far greater assurance that 
    the health of a patient might be impaired than that the life of the 
    patient might be lost. To make a determination that the life of the 
    mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, one 
    must make a prior determination that the health of the mother was 
    also endangered. Hence, section 619, as amended by my amendment, 
    would impose a part of the administrative burden imposed by section 
    619, as reported, but a substantially reduced part. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5313]]

        Under the precedents, a legislative provision permitted to 
    remain in a general appropriations bill may be perfected by 
    amendment so long as the amendment does not add further 
    legislation. The Chair would refer to Mr. Deschler, chapter XXVI, 
    section 2.3.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the determinations required by 
    section 619 of this bill, the present bill, as to whether the life 
    of the mother is in danger necessarily subsume determinations as to 
    whether the health of the mother is in danger and, for that reason, 
    the amendment adds no different or more onerous requirements for 
    medical determination to those already required and contained in 
    section 619.
        The Chair, therefore, would overrule the gentleman's point of 
    order.

Perfecting Unauthorized Figure but Mandating Expenditures; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.42 While an unauthorized item permitted to remain in a general 
    appropriation bill by a waiver of points of order may be changed by 
    amendment, an increase in that figure may not be accompanied by 
    legislative language directing certain expenditures.

    On June 18, 1976,(6) H.R. 14239 (Departments of State, 
Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary appropriations for fiscal 1977), was 
under consideration, which provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 19297, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For economic development assistance as authorized by titles I, 
    II, III, IV, and IX of the Public Works and Economic Development 
    Act of 1965, as amended, and title II of the Trade Act of 1974, 
    $300,000,000.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: In Title III, page 27, line 
        2, strike out ``$300,000,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof: 
        ``$329,500,000, of which not less than $77,000,000 shall be 
        used for economic adjustment as authorized by title IX of the 
        Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
        amended.''. . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment would violate clause 2 of rule XXI which provides:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditure not previously authorized by law. . . .

        The rule adopted earlier, waiving all points of order against 
    certain provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXI, applies only to those provisions 
    in the bill. The waiver does not apply to amendments which would 
    add additional provisions.
        This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would add a provision to the bill 
    earmarking $77 million for economic adjustment under title IX of 
    the Public

[[Page 5314]]

    Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. Extension 
    of that legislation which is required for fiscal year 1977 has not 
    been enacted. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the 
    funding level of title IX of this section from $47.5 to $77 
    million. It is my understanding that that section does fund 
    economic development assistance for titles I, II, III, IV, and IX 
    of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the amendment of the gentleman merely changed the 
    unauthorized figure permitted to remain in the appropriation bill, 
    it would be in order; but the amendment does mandate the 
    expenditure of not less than a certain amount of money for a 
    purpose which has not been authorized and as such constitutes 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Expressing Different Congressional Policy to That in Bill; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.43 To a provision in a general appropriation bill (permitted to 
    remain by failure to raise a point of order) stating the sense of 
    Congress that any new Panama Canal treaty must protect the vital 
    interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
    operation, maintenance, and defense of the Canal, an amendment 
    striking that provision and inserting a statement that it was the 
    sense of Congress that any such treaty must not abrogate or vitiate 
    the ``traditional interpretation'' of past Panama Canal treaties, 
    with special reference to territorial sovereignty, was ruled out as 
    constituting a different statement of legislative policy, not 
    merely perfecting in nature, which was further legislation.

    On June 10, 1977,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and the Judiciary appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 18402, 18403, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eldon J.] Rudd [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        (The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:)

            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must protect the vital 
        interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
        operation, maintenance, property and defense of the Panama 
        Canal.

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5315]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rudd: Page 14, delete lines 1 
        through 5 and insert in lieu thereof:
            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must not abrogate or vitiate 
        the traditional interpretation of the treaties of 1903, 1936, 
        and 1955, with special reference to matters concerning 
        territorial sovereignty. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order reluctantly, because the amendment deals with 
    matters not addressed in the bill and is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Rudd: . . . This is simply a clarification to section 104. 
    We have heard many statements here this afternoon and this morning 
    regarding the desire by many of our distinguished colleagues here, 
    and I think that they are in favor of retaining the Panama Canal. 
    All this does is to clarify this language, put it in proper 
    perspective, so that there will be no question about the retention 
    of the Panama Canal.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) offered an amendment to 
    section 104, which is a sense of the Congress section.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) 
    would change the sense of the Congress legislation permitted to 
    remain in the bill and would clearly alter it. The gentleman's 
    amendment would be further legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    subject to a point of order. The Chair must sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack).

Repeating Existing Legislation Verbatim; Held in Order

Sec. 3.44 An amendment to a general appropriation bill may not add 
    further legislation to that permitted to remain in the bill; and 
    the amendment is not subject to a point of order if containing, 
    verbatim, a legislative provision already contained in the bill.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(10) where an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibited the use of funds therein for the 
Occupational Health and Safety Administration for certain purposes, but 
exempted from such prohibitions persons ``engaged in a farming 
operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 
or fewer employees,'' the Chair, in overruling a point of order against 
the amendment, stated,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 23519-21, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No new duties or determination are required [by the amendment] 
    and the final proviso, while requiring findings as to the temporary 
    status of a farm labor camp, is already in the bill and the 
    amendment does not add legislation to that permitted to remain in 
    the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The proceedings are discussed in more detail in Sec. 73.11, infra.

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

[[Page 5316]]

Earmarking Part of Unauthorized Lump Sum; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.45 An unauthorized item in a general appropriation bill being 
    permitted to remain by a special rule waiving points of order, 
    figures in such item may be perfected but the provision may not be 
    changed by an amendment substituting funds for a different and 
    specified unauthorized purpose.

    For an item in a general appropriation bill containing funds for a 
nuclear aircraft carrier program, against which points of order had 
been waived for failure of the authorization bill to be enacted into 
law, a substitute amendment striking out those funds and inserting 
unauthorized funds for a conventional-powered aircraft carrier program 
was ruled out under Rule XXI clause 2, as unprotected by the waiver 
against the bill. The proceedings of Aug. 7, 1978,(12) were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 24710, 24712, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
        or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including armor 
        and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and machine 
        tools and installation thereof in public and private plants; . 
        . . as follows: . . . for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier 
        program, $2,129,600,000. . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 20, line 2, after 
        ``$128,000,000''; strike the words and amount on lines 2 and 3: 
        ``for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier program, 
        $2,129,600,000;''
            On page 20, line 8, after ``in all:'' strike 
        ``$5,688,000,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$3,558,400,000,''. . . .

        Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burlison of Missouri as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 20, 
        line 2, strike out ``for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier 
        program, $2,129,600,000;'' and insert in lieu thereof ``for the 
        conventional-powered aircraft carrier program, 
        $1,535,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, it would 
    seem to me that this amendment would be subject to a point of 
    order. I have not deeply researched the matter, but we do have a 
    bill before us which passed both the House and the Senate, and that 
    language provided for a nuclear carrier. This bill that is before 
    us specifically provides for a nuclear carrier, and it does not 
    provide for any other type of carrier. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will observe that the 
    Committee on Rules did waive points of order to the pend

[[Page 5317]]

    ing paragraph, but it did not waive points of order against 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will point out that unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill being considered under a special rule waiving 
    all points of order may be perfected by germane amendments merely 
    changing a figure, but such procedure does not permit the offering 
    of amendments adding further unauthorized items on appropriation. 
    As far as the Chair is aware, the conventional powered aircraft 
    carrier is not authorized, and the Chair would have to sustain the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chairman 
    has not addressed the point that I raised about the authorization 
    bill itself failing to designate what ships are to be built. In 
    other words, there is a single figure in the authorization bill for 
    shipbuilding, and that is what my amendment is to.
        The Chairman: The Chair would also have to observe that the 
    authorization bill is not signed and, therefore, it is not yet law.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.