[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 25. Construction or Definition of Terms of Bill or Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5665-5685]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 25. Construction or Definition of Terms of Bill or Law

Descriptive Term

Sec. 25.1 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,(19) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 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: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair 
    will permit.

[[Page 5666]]

        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 
    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.

[[Page 5667]]

Appropriation Carrying Waiver of Limitations Contained Elsewhere in 
    Same Bill

Sec. 25.2 Where specific appropriations in an appropriation bill were 
    expressly subjected to certain limitations, it was held that 
    subsequent language in the bill might appropriate for other objects 
    ``without regard to the amounts of the limitations'' so imposed.

    On May 17, 1937,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 4685, 4686, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. See 83 Cong. Rec. 
        2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 2, 1938, for a similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Boulder Canyon project: For the continuation of construction of 
    the Boulder Canyon Dam and incidental works in the main stream of 
    the Colorado River at Black Canyon, to create a storage reservoir, 
    and of a complete plant and incidental structures suitable for the 
    fullest economic development of electrical energy from the water 
    discharged from such reservoir $2,550,000, to be immediately 
    available and there shall also be available from power and other 
    revenues not to exceed $500,000 for operation and maintenance of 
    the Boulder Canyon Dam, power plant, and other facilities; which 
    amounts of $2,550,000 and $500,000 shall be available for personal 
    services in the District of Columbia . . . and for all other 
    objects of expenditure that are specified for projects hereinbefore 
    included in this act, under the caption ``Bureau of Reclamation, 
    Administrative provisions and limitations'', without regard to the 
    amounts of the limitations therein set forth.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I reserve a point of order for the purpose of asking the chairman 
    of the subcommittee the effect of the language in lines 19 and 20 
    of the paragraph under consideration, ``without regard to the 
    amounts of the limitations therein set forth.'' . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    paragraph applies to limitations on appropriations, and I hold it 
    to be clearly in order.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts makes the point of order 
    against the language appearing in lines 19 and 20.
        There is no point made here that the provisions referred to are 
    not covered by authorization of law. It is apparent from examining 
    this provision, and referring back to the provisions contained on 
    page 68, that the purpose here is to remove certain limitations 
    imposed by the language on page 68 under the heading 
    ``Administrative provisions and limitations.'' Therefore the Chair 
    is of the opinion that this language is not subject to a point of 
    order and overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5668]]

Army Publications; Exception From Valid Limitation

Sec. 25.3 A provision in a general appropriation bill providing that no 
    part of the appropriation for pay of the Army shall be available 
    for pay of any officer or enlisted man who is engaged with any 
    publication issued by or for any branch of the Army in which such 
    officers or enlisted men have membership and which carries paid 
    advertising of firms doing business with the War Department and 
    also providing that `nothing herein . . . shall be construed to 
    prohibit officers from writing . . . articles in accordance with 
    regulations issued by the Secretary of War'' was held in order as a 
    valid exception from a limitation (excepting certain activity 
    undertaken in accordance with regulations issued pursuant to 
    existing law).

    On Mar. 28, 1938,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9995, a military appropriation bill. During 
consideration of the bill, a point of order was overruled as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 4243, 4244, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No appropriation for the pay of the Army shall be available for 
    the pay of any officer or enlisted man on the active list of the 
    Army who is engaged in any manner with any publication which is or 
    may be issued by or for any branch or organization of the Army or 
    military association in which officers or enlisted men have 
    membership and which carries paid advertising of firms doing 
    business with the War Department: Provided, however, That nothing 
    herein contained shall be construed to prohibit officers from 
    writing or disseminating articles in accordance with regulations 
    issued by the Secretary of War.
        Mr. [Charles I.] Faddis [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language contained in lines 12 to 22, 
    inclusive, on page 13, that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Luther A. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Faddis: I do not believe that is necessary, Mr. Chairman. 
    This does not decrease any appropriation and does not provide for a 
    decrease in personnel or anything of that kind, and is purely 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Snyder) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John B.] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    this is just a straight-out limitation, and I do not believe it 
    comes within the provision referred to.
        The Chairman: What about the last proviso in the last three or 
    four lines of the paragraph:

[[Page 5669]]

            That nothing herein contained shall be construed to 
        prohibit officers from writing or disseminating articles in 
        accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of War?

        Mr. Snyder of Pennsylvania: I may say to the Chair that that 
    does not give any more authority than now exists. It just accepts 
    the authority now existing.
        The Chairman: Then, under existing law, why is it necessary to 
    have that provision?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to 
    me that that proviso is clearly a part of the limitation above, 
    because it simply excepts an officer publishing something already 
    permitted by regulations of the Secretary of War. The language is 
    clearly a limitation on an appropriation bill. There is no attempt 
    at legislation, no additional duties required of any officer, or 
    anything of that kind. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is of opinion that the explanation made 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) is correct; that the 
    last proviso is simply an exception from the limitation, and the 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds that the 
    paragraph is a proper limitation.

Defining Expenses as Non-administrative

Sec. 25.4 Where an appropriation bill placed a limit on administrative 
    expenses, a provision defining certain expenses as 
    ``nonadministrative,'' for purposes of making the computation under 
    the limitation was held to be legislative and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7922), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 439, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Electric Home and Farm Authority, salaries and 
        administrative expenses: Not to exceed $600,000 of the funds of 
        the Electric Home and Farm Authority, established as an agency 
        of the Government by Executive Order No. 7139 of August 12, 
        1935, and continued as such agency until June 30, 1941 by the 
        act of March 4, 1939 (Public Act No. 2, 76th Cong.), shall be 
        available during the fiscal year 1941 for administrative 
        expenses of the Authority, including personal services in the 
        District of Columbia and elsewhere; travel expenses, in 
        accordance with the Standardized Government Travel Regulations 
        and the act of June 3, 1926, as amended (5 U.S.C. 821-833); not 
        exceeding $3,000 for expenses incurred in packing, crating, and 
        transporting household effects (not exceeding 5,000 pounds in 
        any one case) of personnel when transferred in the interest of 
        the service from one official station to another for permanent 
        duty when specifically authorized in the order directing the 
        transfer; printing and binding; lawbooks and books of 
        reference; not to exceed $200 for periodicals, newspapers, and 
        maps; procurement of supplies, equipment, and services; 
        typewriters, adding machines, and other labor-saving devices, 
        including

[[Page 5670]]

        their repair and exchange; rent in the District of Columbia and 
        elsewhere; and all other administrative expenses: Provided, 
        That all necessary expenses (including legal and special 
        services performed on a contract or fee basis, but not 
        including other personal services) in connection with the 
        acquisition, care, repair, and disposition of any security or 
        collateral now or hereafter held or acquired by the Authority 
        shall be considered as non-administrative expenses for the 
        purposes hereof.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph that it contains legislation 
    in the proviso beginning on page 21, line 3, and reading as 
    follows:

            Provided, That all necessary expenses (including legal and 
        special services performed on a contract or fee basis, but not 
        including other personal services) in connection with the 
        acquisition, care, repair, and disposition of any security or 
        collateral now or hereafter held or acquired by the Authority 
        shall be considered as nonadministrative expenses for the 
        purposes hereof.

        I make the point of order merely against the proviso, Mr. 
    Chairman, not against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: As the language pointed out by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case] attempts to construe existing law, the 
    Chair believes the point of order is well taken. The point of order 
    is, therefore, sustained, and the proviso is stricken out.

Exceptions to Limitations

Sec. 25.5 In making an appropriation it is in order to except from the 
    operation of a limitation thereon propositions authorized by law by 
    language not changing the application of that law.

    On Apr. 17, 1943,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 89 Cong. Rec. 3526, 3527, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: On page 
    63, line 2, after the colon, insert as follows: ``Provided further, 
    That no payment or payments hereunder to any one person or 
    corporation shall be in excess of the total sum of $500: And 
    provided further, That this limitation shall not be construed to 
    deprive any share renter of payments not exceeding the amount to 
    which he would otherwise be entitled.''. . .
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hope to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Add the following:
            ``And provided further, That in applying this limitation 
        there shall be excluded amounts representing landlord's share 
        of a payment made with respect to land operated under a tenancy 
        or sharecropper relationship if the division of the payment 
        between

[[Page 5671]]

         the landlord and tenant or sharecropper is determined by the 
        local committee to be in accord with fair and customary 
        standards of rent and sharecropping prevailing in the locality. 
        In the case of payments to any person on account of performance 
        on farms in different States, Territories, or possessions, the 
        limitation shall be applied to the total of the payments for 
        each State, Territory, or possession for a year and not to the 
        total of all payments.''. . .

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: As I understood the 
    reading of the amendment, the amendment clearly contains 
    legislation. It changes the terms of existing law with reference to 
    the method of computation of payments of the kind provided for in 
    the paragraph. It does not on its face indicate any saving of funds 
    carried in this paragraph of the bill so as to come within the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. It places upon administrative 
    authorities additional duties to perform to those duties which are 
    now required by law, and it seems to me that it is for these 
    reasons clearly legislative in character. . . .
        Mr. Hope: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is purely 
    a limitation. It is a modification of the limitations contained in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees]. It 
    provides simply that under certain circumstances the Rees amendment 
    shall not be operative. It is not legislation, it is simply a 
    modification of the Rees amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will ask the gentleman 
    from Kansas and also the gentleman from Georgia whether or not it 
    is true that under the Soil Conservation and Allotment Act or under 
    regulations provided by the law there is a method for ascertaining 
    the relationship between the shares accruing to landlords and 
    tenants and the amounts that are to be paid to landlords and 
    tenants? In other words, the question is whether or not any 
    additional provision or legislation to those now existing by law or 
    by rules and regulations are embraced in the gentleman's 
    limitation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hope: There is a provision in the Triple A Act--I cannot 
    quote it word for word--which does relate to the relationship 
    between landlord and tenant and provides that the relationship 
    shall not be changed where it once exists.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to make 
    any response to the inquiry?
        Mr. Tarver: I have no further statement to make, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        A point of order is made to the amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It is replied that under 
    the Soil Conservation Act and under the rules authorized by that 
    act, as stated by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Hope] and in 
    response to the Chair's inquiry, that the rules and regulations 
    provide now for determination by local committees substantially as 
    provided in this limitation. The Chair understands that in the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act there is a limitation with 
    respect to the total payments in the several States or territories. 
    In view of the statements made by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
    Hope]

[[Page 5672]]

    that are not controverted by any statute or regulation brought to 
    the attention of the Chair, and in view of the construction placed 
    upon the act and the rules and regulations under the act, the Chair 
    is constrained to hold that the pending amendment is a further 
    limitation upon the limitation pending as proposed by the gentleman 
    from Kansas [Mr. Rees].
        As the Chair interprets the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Hope] it does not change the terms of existing law with 
    respect to the method of ascertaining payments or the duties of 
    local committees. It does not place upon the administrative 
    authorities any additional duties to perform. No duties will be 
    performed except those now required by law. The local committees 
    under rules and regulations now pass upon the standards of rent and 
    sharecropping. Under the rules and regulations as authorized by the 
    Soil Conservation Allotment Act these committees would pass upon 
    the leasing and sharecropping under the Rees amendment. The said 
    committees would do no more and no less under the Hope amendment. 
    Under existing law and under the Rees amendment the landlord's 
    share would be determined and the tenant's share would be 
    determined by the local committees. Under existing law and under 
    the Hope amendment the local committees would perform the same 
    functions that they would perform under the Rees amendment. No 
    additional legislation is contained in the amendment. No additional 
    duties are prescribed. The Rees amendment and the Hope amendment 
    neither contemplate any additional duties nor any additional 
    obligations. They require the performance of no additional duties. 
    The Rees amendment is a limitation and the Hope amendment is a 
    further limitation, and as such is a limitation of the same kind as 
    the Rees amendment, with no additional functions to be performed by 
    the local committee.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Education; Language Defining the Scope of Busing Limitation

Sec. 25.6 To provisions prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for 
    purposes, in part, of promoting busing in school districts, 
    amendments limiting the application of such provisions to school 
    districts which are not formed on the basis of race or color were 
    held in order as not imposing additional duties on the federal 
    official administering the funds.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5673]]

ering H.R. 15931, a Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and 
Welfare appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. The provisions which the 
        proposed amendments sought to modify stated:
            ``Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force any school district to take any actions 
        involving the busing of students, the abolishment of any school 
        or the assignment of any student attending any elementary or 
        secondary school to a particular school against the choice of 
        his or her parents or parent.
            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act 
        shall be used to force any school district to take any actions 
        involving the busing of students, the abolishment of any school 
        or the assignment of students to a particular school as a 
        condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
        available to any State, school district or school.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 60, line 20 after the words ``school district'' insert ``in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of the race 
    or color of prospective students and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race or color'' and on line 23 after the 
    words ``particular school'' insert the words ``other than his 
    neighborhood school.''. . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendments as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        But to refer to the point of order, as I read the language 
    proposed in the amendment, it seems crystal clear to me that the 
    language imposes on the executive branch additional burdens and 
    consequently is contrary to the rules of the House as far as 
    legislation on an appropriation bill is concerned. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: . . . Mr. Chairman, the limitation is in sections 
    408 and 409. It is a bona fide limitation. All my amendment seeks 
    to do is to prescribe with particularity the school districts to 
    which the limitation in sections 408 and 409 will apply. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had occasion to study both of the amendments and 
    the language contained therein. It is clear to the Chair that the 
    language relates to the limitations which are already a part of 
    sections 408 and 409. It defines the limitations further by adding 
    an additional definition to the limitations and in the opinion of 
    the Chair is negative insofar as additional action is concerned on 
    the ground that it really is a description of the school district 
    as it exists at the present time. Therefore, the Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.

Definition of ``Person'' in Agriculture Appropriation Bill

Sec. 25.7 To an agricultural appropriation bill, an amendment 
    curtailing the use of funds therein for price support payments to 
    any person in excess of $30,000 per year and providing that ``for 
    the purpose of this [amendment] the term `person' shall mean an 
    individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company,'' or the like, 
    was ruled out as legislation.

[[Page 5674]]

    On May 26, 1965,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8370), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 11655, 11656, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 33, line 24, after 
        the word ``hereof'', strike the period, insert a colon and the 
        following: ``Provided further: (a) That none of the funds 
        herein appropriated may be used to formulate or carry out price 
        support programs during the period ending June 30, 1966, under 
        which a total amount of price support payments in excess of 
        $30,000 would be made to any person . . . (b) That for the 
        purposes of this proviso the term `person' shall mean an 
        individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company, 
        corporation, association, trust, estate or other legal entity, 
        or a State, political subdivision of a State, or any agency 
        thereof.''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to read, if I may, the first part of the amendment, as I make 
    the point of order against it:

            Provided, That none of the funds herein appropriated may be 
        used to formulate or carry out price support programs during 
        the period ending June 30, 1966, under which a total amount of 
        price support payments in excess of $30,000 would be made to 
        any person.

        I respectfully submit that this not only would require some new 
    duties but also would require the opening up of individual 
    accounts. This makes it quite clearly subject to a point of order.
        I might point out that subsection (b), where the definitions 
    are given, would require a determination and also would call for 
    special duties.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the Chair correctly 
    understand that the gentleman from Mississippi has stated his point 
    of order against the pending amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Yes.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order. I submit, Mr. Chairman, it falls strictly within 
    the Holman rule on retrenching, as a limitation. The Department of 
    Agriculture has all kinds of statisticians. We appropriate money 
    for them. They have the wherewithal to make any kind of 
    determination we see fit to legislate. In this sense, it is a 
    retrenchment, in my opinion.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has read the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois. The Chair is of the opinion that even 
    though any limitation imposed upon an executive agency may add to 
    the burdens of that executive agency, a limitation of an 
    appropriation is in good order. The Chair, therefore, would say to 
    the gentleman from Illinois that in the opinion of this occupant of 
    the chair, he has offered an amendment which is in form a 
    limitation. But in addition thereto, he has added language which 
    defines a person, and in the opinion of the Chair that language is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is therefore out of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5675]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: For a provision held in order as a 
limitation, see the ruling on Mar. 4, 1954, discussed in Sec. 74.3, 
infra. In that instance the Chair ruled that, where an amendment to an 
appropriation bill provided that no part of any appropriation in the 
bill be used for compensation of any officer or employee of a 
designated bureau who for the purposes of the Hatch Act, ``shall not be 
included within the construction of the term `officer' or `employee','' 
the language was in order as a limitation. The determinations of 
employment status were, it should be noted, already required by law.

Public Buildings Administration--Teletype Service

Sec. 25.8 Language broadening beyond existing law the definition of 
    services to be funded by an appropriation was held to be 
    legislation.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 8940, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Public Buildings Administration

            The words ``other services'' appearing in the proviso 
        clause under the head ``Salaries and expenses, public buildings 
        and grounds in the District of Columbia and adjacent area,'' 
        fiscal year 1945, shall be deemed to include teletype service 
        and telephone switchboards or equivalent telephone-switching 
        equipment serving one or more governmental activities in 
        buildings operated by the Public Buildings Administration where 
        it is found that such service is economical and in the interest 
        of the Government.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the words ``Teletype service and'' in the 
    paragraph just read, on the ground that they constitute legislation 
    and would make funds available for projects not authorized by law.
        I may say in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that I think there 
    is no objection to the installation of teletype services in certain 
    agencies of the Government, but as provided in this paragraph and 
    in the paragraph immediately following there would be established a 
    broad authorization to install teletype services wherever they 
    could be put in any building administered by the Public Buildings 
    Administration. It seems to me entirely too broad. This question 
    has been discussed before the Independent Offices Committee and the 
    belief there was that teletype installations should be permitted 
    only in specific instances where a definite need is shown.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, there is no 
    ground upon which the point of order

[[Page 5676]]

    against this provision can be sustained. This is a regularly 
    established and recognized means of communication which any 
    department is authorized to use in furtherance of the 
    administration of its duties. There is no law under which it is 
    denied, no provision of law under which it can be excluded. It is 
    merely one of the regularly included provisions for carrying out 
    the law and I see no grounds at all on which the point of order can 
    be sustained.

        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, I call the Chair's attention to the 
    following colloquy in the hearings on this item, page 125:

            The Chairman: Why should it be necessary to make this 
        modification?
            Mr. Cameron: That is a change in language for the P.B.A. in 
        order to facilitate the handling of the reimbursable services 
        transferred from O.E.M. Their communication and leasing 
        services were transferred to the Public Buildings 
        Administration as of October 1, 1944.
            The Chairman: You could not handle it under the present 
        limitations?
            Mr. Cameron: That is right

        On the record of the hearings, then, this bill at the point 
    cited is a change of law. It changes existing legislation by 
    providing that the words `` `Other services' shall be deemed to 
    include teletype services.'' On the record of the hearings 
    themselves, as brought out by the chairman, an existing limitation 
    is proposed to be changed. Consequently, it does change existing 
    law.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: That, of course, is true. Of course, 
    you have to put it in the bill; but there is no law against 
    including it in the bill, the committee having reported it. It does 
    not change existing law.
        The Chairman: On the basis of the statement made by the 
    gentleman from Missouri, the Chair must sustain the point of order.

Grant of Authority Based on Determination of National Defense Needs

Sec. 25.9 To an appropriation bill, an amendment construing language 
    therein to grant authority to withdraw or withhold funds for 
    specific military construction projects upon a determination that 
    elimination of such projects would not adversely affect national 
    defense, was held to be legislation and therefore not in order.

    On July 12, 1956,(15) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 12551, 12552, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John) Taber (of New York): On page 
    10, line 7, strike out the period, insert a semicolon ``Provided 
    further, That nothing herein shall be so construed as to prohibit 
    withholding or withdrawing funds for specific projects or 
    installations when such projects or installations can be eliminated 
    or deferred without adverse effect on the national interest.''

[[Page 5677]]

        Mr. (Harry R.) Sheppard (of California): Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment to 
    follow the language and the word ``installation'' on line 7. I have 
    offered it because, although it is not as good as what I had in 
    mind myself, it would permit the armed services to stop the use of 
    funds upon projects that had gone sour or had been dropped because 
    they were not needed any longer.
        The way the language in section 309 reads they would not have 
    the power to do that. No one else would have the power to do it, 
    and it would be a menace to our whole military situation.
        I am in hopes that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle 
    will agree to accept this amendment. It is in the nature of a 
    compromise. Frankly, it can be drawn so that it will not in the 
    slightest degree be subject to a point of order, but I thought 
    perhaps those who misconstrue the language that they have brought 
    in here might be willing to accept this. I do not think it would be 
    safe for us to pass this kind of a provision. For that reason. I 
    have offered this amendment and I hope it will be adopted.
        Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that as far as I 
    know the only complaint comes from Assistant Secretary McNeil and 
    not from either of the three services, I insist upon my point of 
    order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is subject to a 
    point of order. It does not call for additional duties. It is 
    simply a limitation upon a restriction that is set up in the 
    language. It is clearly germane to the language.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from 
    California desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sheppard: I merely wish to call the Chair's attention to 
    the fact that it imposes additional duties and that it also is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has offered an 
    amendment to which the gentleman from California has interposed the 
    point of order that the amendment imposes additional duties and is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is prepared to rule
        In the opinion of the Chair the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York does impose an additional burden upon the 
    person administering the funds, and, therefore, constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Construing Language in Exception to Limitation

Sec. 25.10 Where a limitation in an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    prohibited certain payments to persons in ``excess of . . . $500,'' 
    a further provision stating that such limitation would not be 
    ``construed to deprive any share renter of payments'' to which he 
    might be otherwise entitled was held to be in order as an exception 
    to a limitation.

[[Page 5678]]

    On Mar. 24, 1944,(17) during consideration of the 
Agriculture Department appropriation bill for 1945 (H.R. 4443), the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 90 Cong. Rec. 3095, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of 
        exceptions from limitations generally, see Sec. 66, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 
        5, after the colon following the word ``inclusive'', insert the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no payment or payments 
        hereunder to any one person or corporation shall be in excess 
        of the total sum of $500: And provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not be construed to deprive any share renter 
        of payments not exceeding the amounts to which he would 
        otherwise be entitled.''

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver (of Georgia): Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because of the inclusion of 
    the second proviso therein, which, in my judgment, constitutes 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill. It is in effect a 
    construction of the preceding proviso, and which legislatively 
    provides that the preceding proviso in the case of tenants shall 
    not be taken at its face value but that a different rule shall be 
    applicable to them. Because that provision is included, I think the 
    entire amendment is subject to a point of order because of its 
    being legislative in character. . . .
        [I]t is my opinion, having heard the amendment read, although I 
    have not had the opportunity to examine it carefully, that the 
    second proviso does not constitute merely an exception to the 
    limitation made in the first proviso, but it is legislative in 
    character and constitutes a legislative construction of the 
    language contained in the first proviso and is, therefore, clearly 
    in itself legislation. I know no reason why the gentleman from 
    Kansas should not offer or be permitted to offer the first proviso. 
    But I think the second proviso which reads, ``And provided further, 
    That this limitation shall not be construed to deprive any share 
    renter of payments not exceeding the amount to which he would 
    otherwise be entitled,'' is clearly a legislative construction of 
    the preceding proviso and, therefore, in itself constitutes 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Just one point. Let me observe that the so-
    called limitation is a limitation only on the first proviso of the 
    amendment and does not constitute legislation on the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the second proviso constitutes an exception to the 
    provisions of the amendment as contained in the first proviso. The 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

    Mr. Rees subsequently made the following remarks concerning the 
amendment:

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical 
    with one I submitted and was adopted by the House last year. It 
    went to another

[[Page 5679]]

    body and was eliminated by the members of the conference committee. 
    The amendment simply limits the payment under this program to any 
    one person, firm, or corporation to a maximum of $500. Share 
    renters also participate up to $500.
        Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable misunderstanding with 
    regard to what is known as the soil-conservation program in the 
    Department of Agriculture. The Soil Conservation Service has its 
    own organization and has been in effect for many years. We 
    appropriate approximately $30,000,000 per year for it. That agency 
    employs hundreds of soil experts, and other trained men to render 
    assistance with respect to soil conditions, crops, conservation, 
    crop rotation, and any and all kinds of advice and information is 
    furnished free to the farmers. This agency, although not so much 
    publicized, has done a great amount of real constructive work.
        This section of the legislation deals with payments that are 
    allowed by the Government for following certain land programs and 
    practices laid out by the Agricultural Adjustment Agency. These 
    payments are, as the legislation suggests, in compliance with the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1936 as amended in 1938. Now, Mr. 
    Chairman, all I am asking is that since this money is paid by 
    taxpayers, from the Federal Treasury, that payments be limited to 
    $500.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the above ruling indicates that it 
is in order to except from the operation of a specific limitation on 
expenditures, certain of those expenditures which are authorized by 
law, by prohibiting a construction of the limitation in a way which 
would prevent compliance with that law, this principle should be 
applied in the light of a further ruling, on Aug. 27, 
1980.(19) In the 1980 ruling, it was held that an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill which does not limit or restrict the 
use or expenditure of funds carried in the bill, but which provides 
directions on the way in which the bill must be interpreted or 
construed, is legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 23535, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining Terms in Limitation; Reference to President's Budget

Sec. 25.11 An amendment in the form of a limitation on funds in the 
    bill but measured against a provision in the President's budget 
    request, and also containing definitions of the terms of the 
    limitation, was held to be legislative in effect

    On July 26, 1951,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order

[[Page 5680]]

was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 8981, 8982, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lawrence H.] Smith of Wisconsin: Page 
    58, line 14, insert a colon at the end of the sentence and add the 
    following: ``Provided further, That any funds provided by this act 
    shall not be available for the compensation of persons performing 
    information functions or related supporting functions in excess of 
    75 percent (on an annual basis) of the amount budgeted therefor in 
    the President's budget for 1952. For the purposes of this section 
    the term `information function' means functions usually performed 
    by a person designated as an information specialist, information 
    and editorial specialist, publications and information coordinator, 
    press relations officer or counsel, or publicity expert, or 
    designated by any similar title; and the term `related supporting 
    functions' means functions performed by persons who assist persons 
    performing information functions in the drafting, preparing, 
    editing, typing, duplicating, or disseminating of public 
    information, publications or releases, radio or television scripts, 
    magazine articles, and similar materials.''
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Smith) on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, legislation defining terms and functions; 
    therefore, contrary to the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Smith of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, it is my view that this 
    amendment is in order and that it is germane to the bill now under 
    consideration. It provides merely for a limitation on this 
    appropriation bill of 25 percent in the amount that can be used. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (1) the Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the gentleman may intend the amendment as a limitation, 
    it certainly contains language that goes further than a mere 
    limitation on an appropriation bill. The provision in the amendment 
    seeking to provide a definition, and other language contained in 
    the amendment, is beyond the scope of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Defining Terms in Price Support Program Limitation

Sec. 25.12 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment limiting the 
    use of funds for payments to farmers, but at the same time 
    providing definitions, new authorizations, and imposing additional 
    duties on the Secretary of Agriculture, was ruled out as 
    legislation

        On June 6, 1961,(2) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
    bill (H.R. 7444), a point of order was raised against the following 
    amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 9626, 9627, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment

[[Page 5681]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: On page 33, line 22, strike 
        out the period, and add ``: Provided further, (1) That no part 
        of this authorization shall be used to formulate or carry out a 
        price support program for 1962 under which a total amount of 
        price support in excess of $50,000 would be extended through 
        loans, purchases, or purchase agreements made or made available 
        by Commodity Credit Corporation to any person on the 1962 
        production of all agricultural commodities, (2) That the term 
        ``person'' shall mean an individual, partnership, firm, joint-
        stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, or 
        other legal entity, or a State, political subdivision of a 
        State, or any agency thereof, (3) That in the case of any loan 
        to, or purchase from, a cooperative marketing organization, 
        such limitation shall not apply to the amount of price support 
        received by the cooperative marketing organization, but the 
        amount of price support made available to any person through 
        such cooperative marketing organization shall be included in 
        determining the amount of price support received by such person 
        for purposes of such limitation, and (4) That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture shall issue regulations prescribing such rules as 
        he determines necessary to prevent the evasion of such 
        limitation''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It provides for new duties on the part of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, in addition to other legislative 
    provisions.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Avery: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        As I recall it, about 2 years ago right now, in 1959, I think 
    the distinguished gentleman from Texas was in the chair that day; 
    if not the gentleman from Texas presently in the chair, it was one 
    of his Texas colleagues. When I submitted the original amendment to 
    this same section of the appropriation bill, the gentleman from 
    Mississippi raised a point of order against the amendment. After a 
    considerable amount of deliberation, shall I say, the Chairman 
    upheld the amendment as being a further limitation on the 
    administrative costs of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
    Therefore, the point of order was not sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule
        The gentleman from Kansas offers an amendment which has been 
    reported. The Chair would observe it was probably this Chairman who 
    occupied the chair on the occasion the gentleman from Kansas 
    referred to. It was apparently on the 18th of May 1959.
        The Chair did not understand the gentleman from Kansas to state 
    that the amendment now pending is in identical language as that 
    which was offered in 1959. . . .
        The Chair has the language which was before the Chair in 1959, 
    and will read it:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: Page 27, line 19, strike 
        out the period, add a colon and insert: ``Further, no funds 
        appropriated in this section shall be used to process Commodity 
        Credit loans which are in excess of $50,000.''

        The Chair points out that that language was directly, solely 
    and exclusively directed at the purpose for

[[Page 5682]]

    which funds being appropriated at that time could be used.
        The Chair has examined the pending amendment, and while the 
    first sentence of the pending amendment would indicate that it is 
    in the nature of a limitation, it does refer to authorizations. 
    This is the crux of the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chair points out that the language of the amendment 
    contains definitions, authorizations, and imposes duties upon an 
    officer of the executive department. It is therefore clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It is not identical or, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, similar to the amendment offered in 1959.
        The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Limitation Containing Statement of Purpose

Sec. 25.13 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill limiting the use 
    of funds therein to pay certain employees above a certain rate of 
    pay, but also containing a proviso ``to assure'' that the 
    limitation did not reduce compensation in certain circumstances, 
    was ruled out as legislation since containing a legislative 
    statement of purpose.

    On Aug. 8, 1978,(4) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Defense Department appropriation bill (H.R. 13635), 
when a point of order was sustained against a provision in the bill as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 24969, 24970, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 860. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
        be available for the pay of a prevailing rate employee, as 
        defined in paragraph (A) of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, 
        United States Code, at a rate that is greater than 104 percent 
        of the rate of pay payable to an employee in the second step of 
        the grade of the regular, supervisory, or special wage 
        schedule, in which the prevailing rate employee is serving: 
        Provided, That to assure that this limitation does not (1) 
        reduce the rate of pay of a prevailing rate employee, 
        continuously employed after September 30, 1978, as set forth 
        hereafter, below the rate of pay for that employee in effect on 
        September 30, 1978, or (2) prevent such employee from receiving 
        the first 5.5 percent increase in rate of pay as the result of 
        any adjustments in pay pursuant to section 5343 of title 5, 
        United States Code, that become effective on or after October 
        1, 1978, the pay of a prevailing rate employee who was employed 
        before October 1, 1978, shall not be reduced by this limitation 
        (1) below that to which the employee was entitled based on his 
        or her rate of pay on September 30, 1978. . . .

        Mr. [Richard C.] White [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order to section 860, that the provisions of this section 
    constitute legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of 
    rule XXI, clause 2 of the rules and regulations of the House of 
    Representatives.
        In support, I cite Deschler's Procedures, page 367, section 
    1.2, in which it states:

[[Page 5683]]

            Language in an appropriation bill changing existing law is 
        legislation and not in order.

        And Cannon's Precedents, section 704, which states that the 
    language controlling executive discretion is legislation and is not 
    in order on an appropriation bill.
        I believe that section 860 enacted into law can be construed as 
    requiring lower payment of salaries than may be required by law, 
    specifically Public Law 93-952, and thus it changes existing law. . 
    . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the object of 
    the provision is to limit expenditures and retrench programs and 
    expenditures, it is a limitation on an appropriation bill, which is 
    designed to save tremendous sums of money over the long run.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first part of the section seems to be a proper limitation, 
    however the proviso placed on line 3, page 57, certainly is a 
    legislative statement of purpose and not merely an exception from 
    the limitation.
        The Chair sustains the point of order against the entire 
    section.

Definition of Term in Abortion Limitation; Requiring Finding of Intent

Sec. 25.14 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for abortions or abortion-related material and 
    services, and defining ``abortion'' as the intentional destruction 
    of unborn human life, which life begins at the moment of 
    fertilization was conceded to impose affirmative duties on 
    officials administering the funds (requiring determinations of 
    intent of recipients during abortion process) and was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 27, 1974,(6) during consideration of the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation 
bill (H.R. 15580), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Angelo D.] Roncallo of New York: 
        Amend H.R. 15580 by adding a new section 412 on page 39 of the 
        bill as follows:
            Sec. 412. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used in any manner directly or indirectly to pay for 
        abortions or abortion referral services, abortifacient drugs or 
        devices, the promotion or encouragement of abortion, or the 
        support of research designed to develop methods of abortion, or 
        to force any State, school or school district or any other 
        recipient of Federal funds to provide abortions or health or 
        disability insurance abortion benefits. As used in this 
        section, abortion

[[Page 5684]]

        means the intentional destruction of unborn human life, which 
        life begins at the moment of fertilization. . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that this is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill and it requires the imposition 
    of new duties upon members of the executive branch, upon other 
    officers of the Federal Government in order to determine when life 
    begins. When does fertilization occur?

        As part of this amendment, the Chair will note that abortion 
    means the intentional destruction of unborn human life, which life 
    begins at the moment of fertilization. That imposes duties upon 
    somebody to determine as of what point, as of what moment in time 
    that occurs.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, and also it restricts the 
    definition of the term and it imposes new duties on outside 
    officials in determining whether the definition has been complied 
    with. . . .
        Mr. Roncallo of New York: Mr. Chairman, I am conceding the 
    point of order and offering another amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman concedes the point 
    of order and the Chair sustains the point of order. The amendment 
    is ruled out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Directions on Interpretation of Bill

Sec. 25.15 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which does not 
    limit or restrict the use or expenditure of funds carried in the 
    bill, but which provides directions on the way in which the bill 
    must be interpreted or construed, is legislation.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(8) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill, providing that nothing in the act shall restrict 
the authority of the Secretary of Education to carry out the provisions 
of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was ruled out as 
legislation. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 23535, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        On page 51, after section 308, insert the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 309. Nothing in this Act shall restrict the 
        authority of the Secretary of Education to carry out the 
        provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that [the amendment] is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Panetta: . . . I believe this is in line. As a proviso it 
    does not in effect constitute legislation. It really would be a 
    proviso with regard to the other amendments that were in fact 
    adopted. I believe that it is parliamentarily acceptable.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) makes a point of order on the amendment of

[[Page 5685]]

    fered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In reviewing the amendment, it appears that it is not in the 
    form as submitted a restriction or a limitation on the expenditure 
    of funds, or an exception therefrom, but rather does provide 
    certain directions as the way in which the bill must be interpreted 
    and, therefore, is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.