[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 41. Defense and Foreign Relations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5909-5917]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 41. Defense and Foreign Relations

Military Activities in Cambodia and Laos

Sec. 41.1 To an amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill as well as funds already appropriated by other 
    acts to support United States combat activities in Cambodia or 
    Laos, an amendment making it illegal to participate in or order any 
    such military activities was held to constitute additional 
    legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 29, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9055), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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

[[Page 5910]]

        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.'' . . .

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Defense Department General Counsel

Sec. 41.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing that no part 
    of the appropriation therein be paid to any commissioned officer or 
    any civilian employee in the office of the Judge Advocate, unless 
    such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a general 
    counsel appointed by the President, who shall be the chief legal 
    officer, was conceded and held to be legislation and therefore not 
    in order.

    On May 12, 1955,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6042), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 6245, 6246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: 
    Page 30, immediately after line 20, insert:
        ``Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used to pay the pay and allowances of any commissioned 
    officer, or the wages of any civilian employee, who is assigned to 
    or employed in--
        ``(1) the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 
    unless such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a 
    general counsel of the Navy. . . .''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious 
    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and subject to a 
    point of order and I make the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point 
    of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 5911]]

Size of Army; ``Not Less Than''

Sec. 41.3 An amendment to a general appropriation bill establishing a 
    minimum size for a branch of the armed services was ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On June 3, 1959, (3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7454), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 9715, 9716, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: 
        Page 4, line 9, after the figure, strike out the period, add a 
        semicolon, and the words ``Provided, That the average strength 
        of the Reserve personnel, Army, shall be maintained at not less 
        than 300,000 during the fiscal year 1960.''
            Page 5, line 16, strike out the period, add a semicolon and 
        the words, ``Provided further, That the Army National Guard 
        shall be maintained at not less than 400,000 during the fiscal 
        year 1960.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. I believe there are ample precedents to sustain such a point 
    of order.
        May I say, however, that I join the gentleman from Florida and 
    others on the subcommittee in increasing the appropriation for the 
    Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, to raise the number on 
    active duty in the guard from 360,000 to 400,000 and for the Army 
    Reserve from 270,000 to 300,000.
        I am in full accord with the desire for larger strength, but I 
    do feel that it is unwise to put this kind of language in an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sikes: No, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The Clerk will read.

Sense of Congress on Foreign Policy Issue

Sec. 41.4 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill expressing the 
    sense of the Congress concerning the representation of the Chinese 
    government in the United Nations was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 24, 1971,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 21892, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 105 Cong. Rec. 14529, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        28, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 105. It is the sense of the Congress that the 
        Communist Chi

[[Page 5912]]

        nese Government should not be admitted to membership in the 
        United Nations as the representative of China.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against section 105, lines 20 through 22, as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Rooney) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas G. Abernethy (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this provision has been in this bill for many 
    many years. It goes back to the time that the late Senator from 
    Nevada, Pat McCarran, was chairman of Senate appropriations for 
    this bill.
        However, I am constrained to have to concede that the point of 
    order has merit.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

International Organizations; Limiting U.S. Contribution to Percent of 
    Total Cost

Sec. 41.5 To a provision in a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing that in no case shall the United States contribution to 
    any international organization exceed one-third of the estimated 
    total annual cost was held to change existing law and, therefore, 
    to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On July 25, 1951,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 8881, 8885, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Bell] Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Page 6, 
        line 6, after the period add a new proviso to read: Provided 
        further, That in no case shall the United States contribution 
        to any international organization exceed one-third of the 
        estimated total annual cost.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to insist upon the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. We already have basic 
    legislation setting a ceiling on these contributions to 
    international organizations.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to 
    say except that I insist it is a limitation of appropriations. The 
    amendment speaks for itself.
        The Chairman: The amendment certainly goes far beyond being a 
    limitation.
        The gentleman from Mississippi has offered an amendment; the 
    gentleman

[[Page 5913]]

    from New York has made a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment provides for 
    changes in existing law with respect to international organizations 
    and, of course, is legislation and not in order on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The ruling would also be justified on grounds that the language at 
        issue was not limited to funds in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade With Cuba

Sec. 41.6 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting aid 
    under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any country which 
    furnishes or permits ships under its registry to carry certain 
    strategic materials to Cuba was ruled out as legislation, since the 
    provision was a permanent restriction on the authorization rather 
    than upon the funds carried in the pending bill.

    On June 4, 1970,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. (a) No assistance shall be furnished under the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country 
        which sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry 
        to carry to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the Castro 
        regime, in addition to those items contained on the list 
        maintained by the Administrator pursuant to title I of the 
        Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, as amended, any 
        arms, ammunition, implements of war, atomic energy materials, 
        or any other articles, materials or supplies of primary 
        strategic significance used in the production of arms, 
        ammunition, and implements of war or of strategic significance 
        to the conduct of war, including petroleum products.

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against section 107(a) on the ground that 
    it is legislation in an appropriations bill. . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act contains similar 
    restrictions, but they are much more detailed, specific, and 
    restricted than those contained in the provision which I am seeking 
    to strike from the appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    care to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, your 
    committee felt that the language contained a very definite 
    limitation. The language itself states--

            No assistance shall be furnished under the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country which sells, 
        furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry to carry to 
        Cuba--

[[Page 5914]]

        That provision has stood up over the years as being a 
    limitation. We feel that it is, and we ask the Chair for a ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. As the gentleman from 
    New Jersey has pointed out, the language is similar but it is not 
    identical with the provisions of section 620 of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act as amended. In addition, it relates to provisions 
    other than those contained in this bill, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Penalty on Subversives' Accepting Employment

Sec. 41.7 To a bill making supplemental appropriations for national 
    defense, an amendment in the form of a limitation prohibiting 
    payment of salary and wages of any person who advocates overthrow 
    of the government, and fixing a penalty for accepting such work or 
    wages, was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Oct. 10, 1941,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5788), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 7833, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Title III--General Provisions

            Sec. 301. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        act shall be used to pay the salary or wages of any person who 
        advocates or who is a member of an organization that advocates, 
        the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force 
        or violence . . . Provided further, That any person who 
        advocates, or who is a member of an organization that 
        advocates, the overthrow of the Government of the United States 
        by force or violence and accepts employment the salary or wages 
        for which are paid from any appropriation in this act shall be 
        guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be fined not more 
        than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year. . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation which 
    would interfere with our relations with our friend and ally, Joseph 
    Stalin, and the Soviet Government.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Missouri 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Mandating Domestic Use of Foreign Aid Funds

Sec. 41.8 To an amendment proposing to increase the amount appropriated 
    for economic assistance (defense

[[Page 5915]]

    support) under the Mutual Security Act program, an amendment 
    imposing a minimum availability of that amount for aid to 
    distressed areas in the United States was conceded to be 
    legislation as well as nongermane and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On June 17, 1960,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
12619), a point of order was raised, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 13117-19, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Economic Assistance

        Defense support: For assistance authorized by section 131(b), 
    $600,000,000.
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford: On page 2, line 18, strike 
        out ``$600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$650,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ford: On page 2, line 18, after the figure 
        ``$600,000,000'', strike out the period and insert a colon and 
        add the following: Provided, That no less than $200,000,000 of 
        the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be made 
        available to the distressed areas of the less developed States 
        of the United States including but not limited to the States of 
        West Virginia and Pennsylvania.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.

        Such action as proposed is not authorized, and I do not think 
    the language of the bill would permit this type of amendment. I was 
    not really expecting an amendment of such type, and it caught me 
    just a little bit off guard. However, I do not think the gentleman 
    from Iowa really wants to press the point.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Michigan on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman of the 
    subcommittee. I want to indicate that, in my opinion, this 
    amendment is subject to a point of order. It is not germane to the 
    bill and it is not authorized. In my opinion, therefore, it is 
    subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Foreign Aid; Earmarking of ``Reasonable Amount'' for Domestic Use

Sec. 41.9 To an appropriation bill providing funds for technical

[[Page 5916]]

    cooperation programs of the Organization of American States, an 
    amendment to provide that ``a reasonable amount of the funds 
    provided herein may be'' available for distribution in 
    underdeveloped areas in the United States was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On Aug. 15, 1957,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
9302), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 14952, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: Page 3, line 15, after the 
        word ``program'' strike out the semicolon, insert a colon, and 
        add the following:
            ``Provided further, That a reasonable amount of the funds 
        provided herein may be used for the underdeveloped areas of the 
        United States of America where women's wearing apparel is made 
        from feedbags, such funds to be made available to and 
        distributed by the University of Pennsylvania.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Gross: . . . I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sense of Congress Regarding Panama Canal

Sec. 41.10 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,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5917]]

the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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:

            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: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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).