[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 46. Other Subjects]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5960-5978]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 46. Other Subjects

Budget Adjustments by Corporations and Agencies

Sec. 46.1 A section of the government corporations appropriation bill 
    providing a procedure by which agencies, in order to meet 
    emergencies arising after approval of the budget, could adjust 
    their budgets to provide for programs ``authorized by law and not 
    specifically set forth in the Budget,'' was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On June 13, 1946,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5961]]

the Whole of the government corporations appropriation bill (H.R. 
6777), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6876, 6877, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to make a point of order against section 302 of the bill on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and violates 
    the Government Corporation Control Act.
        The language clearly is legislation. It proposes to make it 
    possible for the corporation or agency to change its budget program 
    on getting Presidential approval and initiate programs, authorized 
    by law to be sure but not programmed or set forth in the budget 
    submitted to and approved by the Congress. If it were not for this 
    language it clearly would be a violation of the Government 
    Corporation Control Act for them to do so. The presence of the 
    language in this bill is evidence of the fact that it seeks to make 
    possible doing something which otherwise would not be possible to 
    do under existing law. Therefore, it constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, under the present law, without the passage of 
    this act, the various governmentally owned corporations included in 
    this bill have the authority, with or without approval of the 
    President, to expend funds available to them either through 
    appropriations or through their borrowing authority, for purposes 
    authorized to them by law.
        This provision seeks to give the corporations an escape valve, 
    so to speak, to deal with new emergencies or situations not 
    anticipated in their budget, not from the law as it now is, but 
    from the previous sections of the pending bill. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, section 302 gives to the corporations no authority which 
    they do not now have. It does give to the corporations, Mr. 
    Chairman, some limited authority which they are denied in previous 
    sections of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Dakota makes the point of order 
    against section 302 of the pending bill that it is legislation 
    without authority of law on an appropriation bill. That section is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 302. In order to meet emergencies or contingencies 
        arising subsequent to approval of the Budget and not provided 
        for in the Budget program, a corporation or agency covered by 
        the provisions of this act may, with the approval of the 
        President, adjust its budget program to provide, within the 
        limits of available funds and borrowing authority, for the 
        immediate initiation of programs authorized by law and not 
        specifically set forth in the Budget: Provided, That the new 
        program shall be promptly transmitted to the Congress as an 
        amendment to the Budget: Provided further, That nothing in this 
        section shall be construed as authority for increasing the 
        amount available for administrative expenses under any 
        limitation on such expenses.

        The appropriation under consideration is being made under 
    Public, 248,

[[Page 5962]]

    Seventy-ninth Congress, the Government Corporation Control Act.
        Section 2 of the act declares it to be the policy of the 
    Congress of the United States to scrutinize the operations of the 
    Government corporations and to provide current financial control 
    thereof.

        Section 103 provides that the budget programs of the 
    corporations as authorized in section 102 shall be transmitted to 
    the Congress by the President as a part of the annual Budget for 
    the consideration of the Congress. Section 103 further provides 
    that amendments to the annual Budget programs may be submitted from 
    time to time.
        Section 104 provides in part, and I quote:

            The provisions of this section shall not be construed as 
        preventing wholly owned Government corporations from carrying 
        out and financing their activities as authorized by existing 
        law, nor shall any provisions of this section be construed as 
        affecting in any way the provisions of section 26 of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act, as amended.

        The Chair is of the opinion that when the Budget of the 
    President has been transmitted to the Congress and when that Budget 
    has been considered and finally approved by Congress the only way a 
    change can be made in the Budget is by an amendment to be 
    subsequently passed by the Congress. That procedure certainly 
    embraces the matter of administrative expenses. . . .
        Section 302 of the pending bill provides for adjustments or 
    approvals or amendments not by the Congress and, in fact, without 
    any action by Congress. The said section provides for a procedure 
    that is not contemplated under either the Budget and Accounting Act 
    of 1921 or the Government Corporation Control Act, and is, 
    therefore, legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House. The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain 
    the point of order. The point of order is sustained.

Elaborating on Name of Dam; Descriptive Language

Sec. 46.2 An amendment proposing to insert the words ``known as `Rankin 
    Dam' '' following an appropriation for Pickwick Landing Dam was 
    held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On May 8, 1936,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 12624), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 6965-67, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Aaron L.] Ford of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 19, line 2, after the words ``Pickwick Landing Dam'', 
        insert the following: ``(known as `Rankin Dam').''

        Mr. [John J.] McSwain [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order on the amendment that

[[Page 5963]]

    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It is evidently an 
    attempt to change the name and call it ``Rankin Dam.'' It is in the 
    teeth of legislation that has been attempted time and time again. 
    There are bills before the Committee on Military Affairs to change 
    the name of this dam to ``Rankin Dam.''
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: I should like to ask the 
    gentleman if it is not customary to wait until the man is dead 
    before they name a dam for him?
        Mr. McSwain: Yes; it is.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair 
    will permit.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    legislation. It is language merely descriptive, and such amendments 
    have been repeatedly held not to be legislation.
        I recall two decisions on this point. They were made by one of 
    the greatest parliamentarians who has served in the House, James R. 
    Mann, of Illinois.
        The first was made in 1905 when an amendment was offered, I 
    think, to the Naval bill.
        The language provided that ships or armament should be of 
    ``native manufacture.'' . . . Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, held 
    that those words were merely descriptive and that it was not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield:
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield with pleasure to the 
    distinguished leader on the other side of the House.
        Mr. Snell: If the words are merely descriptive, why will they 
    have the effect of changing the name of the dam?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: They do not change the name of the dam. 
    It is not proposed to change the name of the dam.
        Mr. Snell: But is not that the intention? I call it 
    legislation. Is not that the intention of the amendment?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman from New York, being one 
    of the ablest parliamentarians in the House, knows that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not speculate as to the 
    intention of an amendment. He must predicate his decision on the 
    amendment before him in the language in which it is written. He 
    cannot go back of what is on the face of it to surmise what is the 
    purpose of a Member in offering an amendment. This amendment merely 
    further describes the Pickwick Landing Dam; it does not propose a 
    change in the name; it merely adds the descriptive language ``known 
    as the Rankin Dam.''. . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair entirely 
    agrees with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], with 
    reference to the use of descriptive words. Therefore, the question 
    in the mind of the present occupant of the chair is whether the 
    amendment is descriptive or whether it constitutes legislation. 
    Without regard to whether or not it brings about a change in the 
    name of the dam from ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' to ``Rankin Dam'', it 
    is the opinion of the Chair, with profound respect for the opinion

[[Page 5964]]

    of the gentleman from Missouri, one of the outstanding 
    parliamentarians of all time, that the amendment does not 
    constitute descriptive language; that it constitutes legislation. 
    It is an addition to the language used in this bill. The Chair 
    would rule the same whether or not the legislation referred to by 
    the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. McSwain) contained the words 
    ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' or not, because that name is included in 
    the bill now before the House.
        Profoundly respecting the views of the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and with considerable hesitation in disagreeing with him, it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order is well taken, and the 
    Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Contract Policy; ``Hereafter''

Sec. 46.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment requiring the Civil 
    Aeronautics Authority to award contracts to the highest bidder 
    after previously advertising for sealed bids, was held to be 
    legislation and therefore not in order.

    On July 12, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12138), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 12538, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Page 
    2, after line 24 insert the following center head and new 
    paragraph:

                            ``Contracts for services

            ``Hereafter no contract for services at any airport under 
        the direct jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Administration 
        shall be entered into without previously advertising 
        invitations for sealed bids based on specifications sufficient 
        to permit full and free competition in the letting of such 
        contracts.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Andrews: Will the gentleman reserve his point of order?
        Mr. Bow: I will reserve the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is 
    simply to require the Civil Aeronautics Authority officials to 
    award contracts to the high bidders. I have in mind a recent 
    contract that was let for a concession at the National Airport. The 
    contract was let by sealed bids. The company that bid the highest 
    rate to the Government was not awarded the contract. The purpose of 
    this amendment is to require the Civil Aeronautics Authority in the 
    future to award contracts to the bidders who will return the 
    highest rate to the Government. . . .
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order that the 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Alabama offers an amendment which in 
    substance

[[Page 5965]]

    would require that in connection with contracts under the 
    jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Administration sealed bids be 
    required.
        The amendment provides for new law; it is not a limitation on 
    the purpose for which funds may be used, and consequently it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
    sustained.

New Authority for Use of FBI Files and Information

Sec. 46.4 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    certain FBI funds may be used to facilitate the exchange of 
    identification records with bank officials and with state and local 
    governments for employment and licensing purposes if approved by 
    the Attorney General was conceded and held to be legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

        On May 18, 1972,(19) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 
    14989), a point of order was raised against the following 
    provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 18030, 18031, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The funds provided for Salaries and expenses, Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation, may be used, in addition to those uses 
        authorized thereunder, for the exchange of identification 
        records with officials of federally chartered or insured 
        banking institutions to promote or maintain the security of 
        those institutions, and, if authorized by State Statute and 
        approved by the Attorney General, to officials of State and 
        local governments for purposes of employment and licensing, any 
        such exchange to be made only for the official use of any such 
        official and subject to the same restriction with respect to 
        dissemination as that provided for under the aforementioned 
        appropriation.

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph on page 17, lines 1 through 12, 
    since it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    violation of clause 2, of rule XXI.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas G. Abernethy (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from New York must state that this proviso allows the FBI to 
    furnish identification records to officials of federally chartered 
    or insured banking institutions to promote or maintain the security 
    of those institutions. And as it further states:

            If authorized by State Statute and approved by the Attorney 
        General, to officials of State and local governments.

        This has been done for years. Then one of the judges, and I use 
    the term in its broadest sense, ruled that the FBI could not 
    furnish this information. The other body inserted this proviso last 
    year. We brought the amendment back to the House for a separate 
    vote and it was approved.

[[Page 5966]]

        If the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) desires to 
    superimpose his views over the majority of the House, and wants to 
    prevent the banks from finding out if they are hiring criminals, he 
    can press his point of order and we shall have to concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York concedes the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
    for the concession.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Language of Limitation as Constituting New Authority

Sec. 46.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``not to 
    exceed $2,500 of the funds available . . . for salaries and 
    expenses . . . shall be available for . . . entertainment when 
    authorized by the Secretary,'' was held to be legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5040, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 208. Not to exceed $2,500 of the funds available to 
        the Department for salaries and expenses and not otherwise 
        available for entertainment of officials of other countries or 
        officials of international organizations shall be available for 
        such entertainment when authorized by the Secretary.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman makes his point of 
    order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Section 208, lines 5 to 9, inclusive.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to 
    comment on this point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I must 
    concede the point of order. The purpose of this paragraph is to 
    entertain some of these foreign doctors and scientists who come 
    over here, to reciprocate the entertainment that our people receive 
    when they go over there. If the gentleman wants to strike it out, 
    that is his privilege.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Item Veto Authority to President

Sec. 46.6 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment allowing the 
    President to dis

[[Page 5967]]

    approve separate and distinct items of appropriations, was held to 
    be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1950,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
7786), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5393, 5394, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 99 Cong. Rec. 4939, 4940, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        14, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keating: On page 29, after line 
        13, insert a new section reading as follows:
            ``The total sums appropriated under this chapter shall be 
        reduced to the extent of any separate and distinct item 
        appropriating money which is disapproved by the President.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Keating) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, the wording of this amendment is 
    designed to be, and I believe is, a limitation on the 
    appropriation. As I stated in general debate on the subject, I have 
    introduced a bill which would have the effect of giving the 
    President the power to veto any single item in an appropriation 
    bill which he does not now have. He is forced, therefore, to 
    approve or disapprove the whole bill.

        I appreciate that to endeavor to provide for that in this 
    measure would be legislation on an appropriation bill. This, 
    however, is not worded in that way. It provides that the sums 
    appropriated here shall be reduced by the amount of any distinct 
    item which the President feels should be disapproved; in other 
    words, he will have the power under this amendment to join with us, 
    if he is so disposed, in the battle for economy. I believe the 
    amendment as worded, being a limitation, is in order.
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, may I call the Chair's attention to 
    the fact that this is a delegation of power from the legislative 
    branch to the executive branch of the Government and is clearly 
    legislative in character.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Keating) has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. McGrath) has made a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has analyzed the amendment and it appears clearly 
    that the purpose of it is to confer item veto power on the 
    President, which would be legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    that it confers authority and power

[[Page 5968]]

    on the President which he does not have. Under the rules of the 
    House, being legislation on an appropriation bill, it is subject to 
    the point of order, and, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Authority to Pay Mineral Royalties

Sec. 46.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``the 
    Director of the Bureau of Mines is hereby authorized . . . to make 
    suitable arrangements with owners of private property . . . for 
    payment by such owners of a reasonable percentage . . . of the 
    total value of the minerals thereafter produced from such 
    property,'' was conceded and held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On May 16, 1946,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6335), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 5120, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Investigation and development of domestic mineral deposits, 
        except fuels: For all expenses necessary to enable the Bureau 
        of Mines to investigate, develop, and experimentally mine, on 
        public lands and with the consent of the owner on private 
        lands, deposits of minerals in the United States . . . 
        $1,000,000: Provided, That the Director of the Bureau of Mines 
        is hereby authorized and directed to make suitable arrangements 
        with owners of private property upon which exploration or 
        development work is performed for payment by such owners of a 
        reasonable percentage, as determined by the Secretary of the 
        Interior, of the total value of the minerals thereafter 
        produced from such property. . . .

        Mr. [Albert S. J.] Carnahan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against certain language in the bill, namely, page 
    59, starting with line 18 through the word ``property'' in line 24, 
    on the ground this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to save 
    time the committee concedes the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Missouri makes 
    a point of order which is conceded by the gentleman from Oklahoma. 
    The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postal Rates Computation

Sec. 46.8 Language in an appropriation bill changing the formula for 
    computation of postal rates was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Feb. 20, 1957,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation

[[Page 5969]]

bill (H.R. 4897), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 2334, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 204. Amounts contributed by the Post Office Department 
        to the civil service retirement and disability fund, in 
        compliance with section 4(a) of the Civil Service Retirement 
        Act (70 Stat. 747), from appropriations made by this title, or 
        from appropriations hereafter made to the Post Office 
        Department, shall be considered as costs of providing postal 
        service for the purpose of establishing postal rates.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language contained in section 204, just read, is legislation upon 
    an appropriation bill, that it deals with appropriations not 
    contained in this bill, is not a limitation and therefore in 
    violation of the rules of the House. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the provision against 
    which the point of order is raised. It appears that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
    sustained.

Authority to Clear Title to Real Estate

Sec. 46.9 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    roads and trails of the National Park Service, requiring ``title 
    and evidence of title to the lands . . . acquired to be 
    satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior'' instead of the 
    Attorney General, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Roads and trails, National Park Service: For the construction, 
    reconstruction, and improvement of roads and trails, inclusive of 
    necessary bridges, in the national parks, monuments, and other 
    areas administered by the National Park Service . . . and pursuant 
    to the authorization of the act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1490), 
    the title and evidence of title to the lands or interests acquired 
    to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, $3,500,000, to 
    be immediately available and to remain available until expended. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language in lines 10, 11, and 12, page 118, as 
    follows:

            The title and evidence of title to the lands or interests 
        acquired to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior.

        It is legislation on an appropriation bill and an attempt to 
    take the duty of passing on the title out of the hands of the 
    Attorney General. . . .

[[Page 5970]]

        The Chairman: (10) Will the gentleman from New York 
    advise the Chair whether the point of order goes only to the 
    language he quoted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank F. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: That is all.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Making Unpaid Fees a Lien Against Real Estate

Sec. 46.10 A provision in an Interior Department appropriation bill 
    directing that unpaid charges outstanding against certain lands 
    shall constitute a first lien thereon was held to be legislation 
    and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 4603, 4604, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            In all, $2,088,000 to be immediately available, which 
        amount, together with the unexpended balances of funds made 
        available under this head in the Interior Department 
        Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937, shall remain available 
        until June 30, 1938: Provided, That the foregoing amounts may 
        be used interchangeably in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, but not more than 10 percent of any specific 
        amount shall be transferred to any other amount, and no 
        appropriation shall be increased by more than 15 percent: 
        Provided further, That the cost of the foregoing irrigation 
        projects and of operating and maintaining such projects where 
        reimbursement thereof is required by law, shall be apportioned 
        on a per-acre basis against the lands under the respective 
        projects and shall be collected by the Secretary of the 
        Interior as required by such law, and any unpaid charges 
        outstanding against such lands shall constitute a first lien 
        thereon which shall be recited in any patent or instrument 
        issued for such lands.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph. . . .
        The last part, beginning in line 20 and running through line 
    23, provides that unpaid charges shall be a first lien against all 
    of those lands.
        I therefore make a point of order against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I do not desire to be heard.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a 
    point of order against the paragraph appearing on page 40, 
    beginning in line 6 and extending down to and including line 23.
        The Chair invites attention especially to the language 
    appearing in lines 20, 21, 22 and 23, which reads as follows:

            Any unpaid charges outstanding against such land shall 
        constitute a first lien thereon which shall be recited in any 
        patent or instrument issued for such lands.

[[Page 5971]]

        The Chair is of opinion this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill not authorized under the rules of the House, and therefore 
    sustains the point of order as to the paragraph as a whole.

Renegotiation Act Incorporated by Reference

Sec. 46.11 To the appropriation for the Tennessee Valley Authority, an 
    amendment proposing to make contracts entered into by the Authority 
    and by the Atomic Energy Commission subject to the Renegotiation 
    Act was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    held not in order.

    On Dec. 15, 1950,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9920), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 16672-74, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: Page 11 
        after line 12, insert a new section, as follows:

                          ``Renegotiation of Contracts

            ``Sec. 602. (a) All negotiated contracts for procurement in 
        excess of $1,000 entered into during the current fiscal year by 
        or on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority, and all subcontracts thereunder in excess of 
        $1,000, are hereby made subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948 in the same manner and to the same extent as if such 
        contracts and subcontracts were required by such act to contain 
        the renegotiation article prescribed in subsection (a) of such 
        act. Each contract and subcontract made subject to the 
        Renegotiation Act of 1948 by this section shall contain an 
        article stating that it is subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948. . . .''

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the distinguished and able gentleman from 
    South Dakota, is a lengthy, complicated, and far-reaching one . . . 
    It operates as an amendment of the renegotiation law. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from South Dakota 
    [Mr. Case] has offered an amendment which has been reported. The 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gore] has made a point of order 
    against the amendment, on the ground that it contains legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order, and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Tennessee Valley Authority Proceeds Applied to Appropriation

Sec. 46.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds

[[Page 5972]]

    for resource development activities of the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority, stating that part of the funds therefor should be 
    derived from the appropriated funds and part from proceeds of 
    operation, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 28, 1956,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11319), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        . . . On page 3, lines 1 to 3 ``, of which $400,000 shall be 
    derived from this appropriation and $750,000 shall be derived from 
    proceeds of operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that all of the 
    language to which I have referred is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) . . . It is clearly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for Secretary to Impose Liens

Sec. 46.13 Language in an appropriation bill imposing a charge and lien 
    against Indian lands until certain obligations are paid was held 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000 . . . Provided further, That the Secretary of 
    the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion and under such 
    rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to make advances from 
    this appropriation to old, disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, 
    for their support, to remain a charge and lien against their lands 
    until paid: Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 may be 
    advanced to worthy Indian youths to enable them to take educational 
    courses, including courses in nursing . . . forestry, and other 
    industrial subjects in colleges, universities, or other 
    institutions, and advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to 
    exceed 8 years, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary 
    of the Interior may prescribe.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is

[[Page 5973]]

    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and it imposes 
    discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. The 
    language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules 
    and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision 
    in existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has 
    been in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of

[[Page 5974]]

    order made by the gentleman from New York.

Mandating Testimony of Congressmen

Sec. 46.14 To an amendment to a general appropriation bill, an 
    amendment providing that notwithstanding the provisions of any 
    other law, the Constitution or court decisions, no Member of 
    Congress shall refuse to respond to demands for information by 
    executive agencies or private persons or groups was held to be 
    legislation.

    On June 22, 1972,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15585), a 
point of order was raised against an amendment to an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 22102, 22107, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William S.] Moorhead [of 
    Pennsylvania]: Page 38 insert between line 6 and line 7 new 
    section:

            No part of the appropriations made by this Act shall be 
        expended for the Compensation of any person other than those 
        designated by the President, not to exceed ten persons employed 
        in the White House Office, who refused to appear before any 
        committee of the Congress solely on the grounds of ``executive 
        privilege''; nor shall any part of the appropriations made by 
        this Act be expended to compensate any employee of the 
        Executive Office of the President who is employed in or 
        designated as holding two positions in such Office. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead: At end of that 
        amendment, insert: ``Provided further, Notwithstanding the 
        provisions of any other law, the Constitution, or any precedent 
        of the courts, no Member of the Congress shall refuse to answer 
        and appropriately respond to any demand for his presence, his 
        papers, or his records, made by any agency, commission, 
        Department or person of the executive branch, or any proper 
        citizen oriented organization or interested person, making such 
        demand.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment to the amendment, and I do not think I 
    need to argue it.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I defer to my very 
    eloquent and intelligent colleague, and I think he makes a good 
    point.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Veterans Insurance Fund

Sec. 46.15 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill (1) changing 
    existing law regarding certain veterans' insurance funds, (2) 
    specifying

[[Page 5975]]

    accounting procedures to be followed in determining assets, (3) 
    authorizing a future transfer of funds after a determination by the 
    administrator, and (4) providing for the repayment to the Treasury 
    of funds so transferred, was conceded to be legislation and ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 6, 1965,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7091), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7131, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Veterans Reopened Insurance Fund

        All premiums and collections on insurance issued pursuant to 
    section 725 of title 38, United States Code, shall be credited to 
    the ``Veterans reopened insurance fund'', established pursuant to 
    that section, and all payments on such insurance and on any total 
    disability provision attached thereto shall be made from that fund, 
    notwithstanding any provisions of that section: Provided, That for 
    actuarial and accounting purposes, the assets and liabilities 
    (including liability for repayment of advances hereinafter 
    authorized, and adjustment of premiums) attributable to each 
    insured group established under said section 725, shall be 
    separately determined: Provided further, That such amounts of the 
    ``Veterans special term insurance fund'' as may hereafter be 
    determined by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to be in 
    excess of the actuarial liabilities of that fund, including 
    contingency reserves, shall be available for transfer to the 
    ``Veterans reopened insurance fund'' as needed to provide initial 
    capital: Provided further, That any amounts so transferred shall be 
    repaid to the Treasury, and shall bear interest payable to the 
    Treasury at rates established in accordance with section 725(d)(1) 
    of title 38, United States Code.
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, line 7 to line 22 
    inclusive and on page 9, line 1 to line 6 inclusive as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not within the scope of 
    the original language authorizing the reopening of veterans' 
    insurance. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I hope my distinguished friend will 
    not insist upon the point of order. . . . His point of order is 
    good if he insists on it. This is a transfer of funds. This is not 
    an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Saylor] 
    makes a point of order against the language on page 8, beginning at 
    line 7 down through and including the language on page 9, line 6.
        The Chair understands the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] 
    concedes the point of order.

[[Page 5976]]

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Veterans' Medical Benefits

Sec. 46.16 In an appropriation bill, a provision prohibiting an 
    appropriation for the Veterans' Administration to be used for 
    dental treatment, except where certain conditions are determined to 
    have been met, was held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 4258, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be available 
    for out-patient dental services and treatment, or related dental 
    appliances with respect to a service-connected dental disability 
    which is not compensable in degree unless such condition or 
    disability is shown to have been in existence at time of discharge 
    and application for treatment is made within one year after 
    discharge or by July 27, 1954, whichever is later: Provided, That 
    this limitation shall not apply to adjunct out-patient dental 
    services or appliances for any dental condition associated with and 
    held to be aggravating disability from some other service-incurred 
    or service-aggravated injury or disease. . . .
        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: The point of order is 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes 
    existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, this is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.

Veterans' Burial Expenses

Sec. 46.17 To an army civil functions appropriation bill, an amendment 
    authorizing payments to next of kin, in lieu of headstones 
    authorized to be placed on veterans' graves, provided proof is 
    furnished that suitable headstones are subsequently placed upon 
    such graves, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 26, 1953,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the army civil functions appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5376), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 99 Cong. Rec. 5617, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry Frazier] Reams [of Ohio]: 
        On page 2, line 12, after the figures ``$4,870,000'', strike 
        the colon, add

[[Page 5977]]

        comma, and insert the following: ``$850,000 of which may be 
        used to pay to next of kin not exceeding $25 in lieu of 
        headstone or marker for the grave of any deceased person for 
        which the Secretary of Defense is authorized to furnish a 
        marker or headstone: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense 
        receive from the administrator or executor of the estate, or 
        next of kin, proper proof that there has been purchased and 
        placed upon the grave of the veteran a suitable marker or 
        headstone of a value not less than $25.''. . .

        Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the 
    point of order on the ground this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Wisconsin makes 
    a point of order that this amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be 
    heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Clifford R. Hope (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Reams: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair thinks 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, sustains the 
    point of order.

Imposing Penalty for Improper Accounting of Members' Expenses

Sec. 46.18 A motion to recommit the legislative branch appropriation 
    bill with instructions to report it back forthwith with an 
    amendment providing, inter alia, a criminal penalty for perjury for 
    improper vouchering of expenditures of funds contained in the bill, 
    was conceded to contain legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    2 and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 1, 1976,(7) during consideration in the House 
of the legislative branch appropriation bill (H.R. 14238), a point of 
order was raised and sustained against a motion to recommit as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 28883, 28884, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania] moves to 
        recommit the bill, H.R. 14238, to the Committee on 
        Appropriations, with instructions to that Committee to report 
        the bill back to the House forthwith, with the following 
        amendments: On page 7, after line 24, insert the following new 
        section: . . .
            ``Expenditure of any appropriation contained in this Act, 
        disbursed on behalf of any Member or Committee of the House of 
        Representatives, shall be limited to those funds paid against a 
        voucher, signed and approved by a Member of the House of 
        Representatives, stating under penalty of perjury, that the 
        voucher is for official expenses as authorized by law: Provided 
        further, That any Member of the House of Representatives who 
        willfully makes and subscribes to any such voucher which 
        contains a written declaration that it is made under the 
        penalties of perjury and which he does not believe

[[Page 5978]]

        at the time to be true and correct in every material matter, 
        shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall 
        be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than 
        five years, or both.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit falls in violation of the 
    rules against legislation in an appropriation bill. Under the rules 
    of the House, Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit is subject to the 
    same germaneness tests as any other amendment to a piece of 
    legislation.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore make a point of order against the 
    motion on the grounds that it constitutes an attempt to legislate 
    in an appropriation bill. . . .
        On page 3, there is a requirement that any Member who makes a 
    willful statement subscribing any voucher shall be guilty of the 
    penalties of perjury.
        This adds essentially a new amendment to the Criminal Code, 
    which most properly can be found in title 18 of the United States 
    Code, and it imposes further, Mr. Speaker, a requirement that such 
    act shall constitute a felony which will be punishable by not more 
    than $2,000 or subject to imprisonment of not more than 5 years. . 
    . .
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order that has been raised. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order addressed to 
    the execution of vouchers under penalties of perjury, that does not 
    impose a significant additional duty in compliance with the facts 
    that those vouchers must already be executed by the Members 
    certifying that they are for official expenses. This motion says 
    they would be executed under penalty of perjury.
        The additional amendment would concede the point of order as it 
    applies to the second paragraph on page 3 of the motion; but I 
    think it would be beneficial to the Members to have that 
    explanation there; and I would hope that the point of order would 
    be withdrawn as to that point. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is going to sustain the point of order. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has conceded one portion of the point of order, and 
    with that the entire motion to recommit is subject to a point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 5979]]