[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 27. Provisions Affecting or Affected by Funds in Other Acts]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5692-5720]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 27. Provisions Affecting or Affected by Funds in Other Acts

In General; Language Not Limited to Funds in Bill

Sec. 27.1 It is not in order, in the guise of a limitation on a general 
    appropriation bill, to deny the use of funds not contained in the 
    bill to pay salaries of persons connected with agencies not covered 
    by the bill.

    On June 28, 1971,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9271), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 22442, 22443, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. William D. Ford: On page 36, 
        insert ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 508.'' in line 10; and 
        immediately below line 14 on page 36 insert the following:
            ``(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this or any 
        other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
        any officer or employee of the United States Postal Service, or 
        any officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
        outside the United States Postal Service, who--
            ``(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
        prohibit or prevent, any officer or employee of the United 
        States Postal Service from having any direct oral or written 
        communication or contact with any member or committee of 
        Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the 
        employment of such officer or employee or pertaining to the 
        United States Postal Service in any way, irrespective of 
        whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of 
        such officer or employee or in response to the request or 
        inquiry of such Member or committee; or
            ``(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
        reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or 
        efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
        transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
        employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
        condition of employment of, any officer or employee of the 
        United States Postal Service, or attempts or threatens to 
        commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such 
        officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact 
        of such officer or employee with any Member or committee of 
        Congress as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, and I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) At this point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 5693]]

        Mr. Chairman, this, it seems to me, is subject to a point of 
    order in several instances. First of all, there is paragraph (b) of 
    the amendment. There is a provision that no part of any 
    appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be available 
    for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the 
    U.S. Postal Service. It is not limited to this act but to any other 
    act, which I think makes it subject to a point of order.
        Furthermore, under the next provision, which prohibits or 
    prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, that 
    puts such additional duties on the director of the Postal Service 
    that it becomes almost impossible for him to administer this, 
    particularly as to further threats in the future.
        I believe it is very apparent from reading this that additional 
    duties are placed on the executive branch of the Government, on the 
    Postal Service, and in addition to any objections to part (b) or 
    the rest of the amendment, I believe it is sufficient to sustain 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. William D. Ford: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, it is not necessary to legislate with this 
    amendment, because the law that this amendment attempts to enforce 
    has been on the books and it has been the law of this country since 
    1912. We now have substantive law which now very substantially says 
    that you shall not do any of the things set forth in this act. What 
    this amendment proposes to do is withhold the expenditure of the 
    supplemental funds being appropriated by this bill to the operation 
    of the Postal Service from anyone who violates the law that has 
    been the law since 1912. The only determination that is necessary 
    to be made by anybody is not to violate the law. . . .
        The Chairman: The . . . Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that this amendment does not impose additional 
    duties to the extent that is objectionable under the precedents 
    relating to limitations on appropriation bills. However, the Chair 
    also finds that the amendment does seek to cover matters beyond 
    those which are in the purview of this bill since it provides that 
    no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act 
    shall be available for certain purposes with respect to officers or 
    employees of the Government whether inside or outside the U.S. 
    Postal Service or agencies covered by this bill.
        Therefore, this constitutes legislation on the pending 
    appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Restriction on Corporate Funds Other Than Those Appropriated

Sec. 27.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation which is applicable also to moneys appropriated in other 
    acts is legislation and not in order: an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill providing that no part of any appropriation 
    contained in this act, or of the funds available for ex

[[Page 5694]]

    penditure by any corporation included in this act, shall be used 
    for a stated purpose was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 10, 1950,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 6834, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 417, after line 
        14, insert a new section 1110, and appropriately renumber 
        succeeding sections. The new section to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 1110. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        act, or of the funds available for expenditure by any 
        corporation included in this act, shall be used to pay the 
        salary or wages of any person who advocates, or practices the 
        denial to any citizen of the United States of the right to 
        apply for, hold or be promoted in any Government position or 
        office on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national 
        origin.''

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it goes beyond the scope 
    of the bill.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, I point out that the provision which 
    I have suggested as an amendment will result in retrenchment 
    because it may result in withholding wages or salaries from 
    employees of the United States. That is all that this refers to. It 
    would affect the appropriations made under this act and therefore 
    comes within the rules of propriety as an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Javits] has offered an amendment which has been 
    reported. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] makes a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it goes beyond the 
    scope of the pending bill.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York, and is of the opinion that it does go beyond the 
    scope of the pending bill. The Chair invites attention to the fact 
    that it seeks to affect funds of corporations not necessarily 
    appropriated for in this bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 27.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a 
    limitation providing that no funds available for expenditure by any 
    corporation or agency included in this act shall be used for 
    publicity or propaganda purposes was held to go to funds not in the 
    bill and therefore was legislation not in order.

[[Page 5695]]

    On July 22, 1958,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13450, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 14664, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 29, 
    after line 17, add the following new chapter and paragraph:

                               ``chapter xiv

        ``No part of any appropriation contained in this act, or any 
    funds available for expenditure by any corporation or agency 
    included in this act, shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
    purposes designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
    the Congress.''
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The gentleman's amendment refers to expenditure of funds not in 
    this bill. Therefore, it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Gross: It is the same amendment I have offered to previous 
    appropriation bills. It is a limitation upon spending. It has been 
    accepted in other appropriation bills by the Chairman of the 
    Committee. It is simply a limitation, that they cannot spend money 
    for propaganda purposes for the promotion of legislation.
        The Chairman: (8) It is a limitation on the funds 
    available for expenditure by any corporation or agency included in 
    this act. For that reason the Chair sustains the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restriction on Future Funds

Sec. 27.4 An amendment to a general appropriation bill permanently 
    limiting amounts of farm program payments to producers, even though 
    the money for such payments was not carried in the pending bill, 
    and requiring certain determinations to be made by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, was held to be legislation and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    On May 26, 1969,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11612), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13759, 13760, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ancher] Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Conte]:
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Nelsen to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Conte: On page 22, line 17, strike the period 
        and add a colon and the following: Provided further, That 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of any 
        pro

[[Page 5696]]

        ducer entitled to payments for any calendar year after 1969, 
        under price support or commodity program, the Incentive 
        payments, Diversion payments, Price support payments, and Wheat 
        marketing certificate payments to any single recipient, 
        exceeding in the aggregate the amount of $10,000, the amount of 
        such payments with respect to that year to which the producer 
        would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in accordance with 
        this subsection. If the aggregate amount of the payment is--
            ``(1) over $10,000 but not over $15,000, the reduction is 
        10 percent of the excess over $10,000
            ``(2) over $15,000 but not over $25,000, the reduction is 
        $500 plus 15 percent of the excess over $15,000
            ``(3) over $25,000 but not over $50,000, the reduction is 
        $2,000, plus 20 percent of the excess over $25,000
            ``(4) over $50,000 but not over $100,000, the reduction is 
        $7,000 plus 25 percent of the excess over $50,000
            ``(5) over $100,000 but not over $500,000, the reduction is 
        $19,500, plus 35 percent of the excess over $100,000
            ``(6) over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000, the reduction 
        is $159,500, plus 45 percent of the excess over $500,000
            ``(7) over $1,000,000, the reduction is $384,500 plus 55 
        percent of the excess over $1,000,000.
            ``For the purposes of this section, payments include the 
        dollar value (as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) of 
        any payments-in-kind made to a producer, but do not include the 
        amount of any price support loan made to a producer.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, this amendment, on its face, will 
    usurp completely the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. 
    It is not only legislation, but is rather complete, complex, and 
    lengthy. It is certainly not only legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, but it is a substitute on an appropriation bill in the nature 
    of legislation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Nelsen: Mr. Chairman, I would submit to this body that if a 
    limitation as provided in the previous amendment is in order, 
    certainly this amendment would also be in order and I ask for a 
    ruling by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. This substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nelsen) is clearly 
    distinguishable from the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) offered an 
    amendment which provided that no part of the funds appropriated by 
    this act should be used for certain specific purposes.
        The substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Nelsen) goes much further than this. It does not constitute a 
    limitation upon this act but indeed applies to other acts and 
    amounts. Clearly in the opinion of the Chair it proposes 
    legislation such as is prohibited in an appropriation bill. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order against the 
    substitute.

[[Page 5697]]

Limitation Must Be Applicable Solely to Funds in Bill

Sec. 27.5 To a paragraph making appropriations for parity payments, an 
    amendment providing that total payments to any person under soil 
    conservation and parity payments shall not exceed $2,500 was held 
    to be not confined to funds in the bill and therefore legislation.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 3446, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: At the end 
    of Mr. Cannon's amendment add the following: ``Provided, That total 
    payments to any person, firm, or corporation under soil 
    conservation and parity payments shall not exceed $2,500.''
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    against the amendment that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: No, I do not believe I do, Mr. Chairman, 
    although I do not believe it is legislation.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this is a pure 
    limitation, as I understand it, limiting the amount that can be 
    paid out under the bill to any one person and therefore is clearly 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    entirely too broad in that it would not only include this 
    appropriation but other appropriations as well and the point of 
    order is therefore sustained.

Sec. 27.6 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that no 
    payments shall be made for soil conservation practices on land 
    respecting which such payments have been made within the past 10 
    years was held to restrict the use of funds not contained in the 
    pending bill and therefore to be legislation.

    On Apr. 14, 1954,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8779), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 5175, 5176, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl C.] King of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. King of Pennsylvania: On page 24, 
        in line 24, change the period to a colon and add the following: 
        ``Provided further, That no payments or grants shall be made 
        for approved practices on land

[[Page 5698]]

        which during any 1 of the previous 10 years has been the 
        location of a practice for which payments or grants were made 
        under this program.''

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Harris Ellsworth (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: In my opinion, this is clearly 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. King] has offered an 
    amendment to which a point of order has been made by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen].
        The Chair has examined the amendment. In view of the fact that 
    the language of the amendment would seem to impose further duties 
    and apparently provide a restriction on the use of funds not 
    contained in the pending bill, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 27.7 Limitations on appropriations must apply solely to the money 
    of the appropriation under consideration, and may not be made 
    applicable to money appropriated in other acts: to the Agriculture 
    Department appropriation bill for 1944 an amendment in the form of 
    a limitation limiting the payments for programs under the 
    Agriculture Act of 1938, but not limiting the money in the pending 
    bill was held as legislation on an appropriation bill and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 17, 1943,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised and sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 3525, 3526, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 65, line 2, after the word ``inclusive'', insert 
        ``Provided, That no total payments for programs under the 
        Agricultural Act of 1938, and for soil conservation and water 
        conservation practices, for any year to any person, firm, or 
        corporation under this section shall exceed $500: Provided 
        further, That this limitation shall not be construed to deprive 
        any share renter of payments not exceeding $500 to which he 
        would otherwise be entitled.'' . . .

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Very well. Mr. Chairman, 
    I make the point of order that the amendment is in the nature of 
    legislation insofar that it involves the question of payments of 
    $500 or less, as I understood it, when it was read--I have not had 
    time to examine it. It does not show retrenchment upon its face. 
    While portions of it might be construed as limitations under the 
    Holman rule, the amendment as a whole does include

[[Page 5699]]

    legislative provisions and for that reason is not in order. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment would apply to funds other than those covered by this 
    act. Consequently it would be legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard further on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: The language of this amendment follows the 
    language of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would 
    call attention to the fact that under the amendment cited by the 
    gentleman during the consideration of an appropriation bill in 
    1942, the language of that amendment was confined to the 
    appropriation then under consideration. The first two lines of that 
    amendment read as follows:

            Provided, That no total payments for any year to any 
        person, firm, or corporation under this section shall exceed 
        $500.

        That is under the act then pending. The Chair would remind the 
    gentleman that under the amendment he now proposes, and I read from 
    that amendment:

            Provided, That no total payments for programs under the 
        Agricultural Act of 1938, and for soil conservation and water 
        conservation practices, for any year to any person, firm or 
        corporation under this section shall exceed $500; and provided 
        that this limitation shall not be construed to deprive any 
        share renter of payments not exceeding $500 to which he would 
        otherwise be entitled.

        It is clearly in violation of the rule, because it is not 
    limited to the appropriation under consideration. The Chair is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Sec. 27.8 A limitation in an appropriation bill must apply solely to 
    the money of the appropriation under consideration and may not be 
    applicable to money appropriated in other acts: language in the 
    Agriculture Department appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation seeking to appropriate not to exceed $175,000 of the 
    permanent appropriation under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 
    1933 to enable the Secretary to protect the interests of consumers 
    and maintain a stable supply of agriculture commodities at fair 
    prices, was held to be a limitation on the Act of 1933 rather than 
    a limitation on money in the pending bill and therefore legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was sus

[[Page 5700]]

tained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3583, 3584, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                          Consumers' Counsel Division

                            administrative expenses

            Not to exceed $175,000 of the unobligated balance of the 
        appropriation made by section 12(a), title I, of the 
        Agricultural Adjustment Act, approved May 12, 1933, as amended 
        (7 U.S.C. 612), shall be available during the fiscal year 1944 
        to enable the Secretary to further perform the duty imposed 
        upon him under applicable laws to protect the interests of 
        consumers with due regard to the maintenance of a continuous 
        and stable supply of agricultural commodities adequate to meet 
        consumer demand at prices fair to both producers and consumers, 
        which sum shall be available for administrative expenses 
        (including not to exceed $37,200 for printing and binding) in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of the 
        aforesaid section 392.

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pace: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    section just read on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and seeks to appropriate funds not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Pace: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Taber: Is it not a fact that that money was not available 
    for a Consumers' Counsel Division and this language that is in here 
    is not a reappropriation which would have to be made in order to 
    make the money available?
        Mr. Pace: Not only that, but if this $100,000,000 appropriated 
    in 1933 is still available it does not have to be reappropriated. 
    It is just like the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] said, at 
    the time the matter was presented to the committee, and let me read 
    again his words:

            This language is legislative in character because if you 
        are already authorized to do that you do not need it

        That is, part of the $100,000,000 is still there.

            If you are not authorized to do it, we cannot give you such 
        authorization in an appropriation bill.

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is no more than an effort on the 
    part of the Department of Agriculture to secure an additional 
    $175,000 in excess of the 4 percent, which is a direct violation of 
    the law and is not authorized by law and is legislative in 
    character. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] makes a point of order 
    against the pending paragraph that it is legislation not authorized 
    by law. The paragraph undertakes to reappropriate $175,000 of the 
    permanent appropriation under an act of 1933 and to limit the 
    appropriation by the language of the pending paragraph to the 
    purpose set forth in the pending paragraph, and thus undertakes to 
    limit the reappropriation of $175,000 unallocated to the previous 
    appropriation by a limitation that would apply to that act rath

[[Page 5701]]

    er than a limitation that would apply to an amount appropriated 
    under the terms of this bill.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Social Security Supplemental; Restriction on ``Funds Under This Head''

Sec. 27.9 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing that 
    not to exceed a sum certain ``available under this head for the 
    fiscal year . . . shall be expended for State and local 
    administration,'' was held to apply to funds not carried in the 
    bill and therefore not in order.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R 4249), a 
point of order was raised and sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 1549, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Social Security Administration

                     Grants to States for public assistance

            For an additional amount for ``Grants to States for public 
        assistance,'' $275,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
        $99,000,000 of the funds available under this head for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, shall be expended for State 
        and local administration.

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against that part of the chapter following the colon in 
    line 7 and reading: ``Provided, That not to exceed $99,000,000 of 
    the funds available under this head for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1957, shall be expended for State and local administration,'' 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Henderson L.] Lanham [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has examined the 
    language and feels that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained

Military Pay; Limitation Not on Funds But Total Compensation

Sec. 27.10 Language in an appropriation bill limiting, not funds in the 
    bill, but the percentages of military and civilian employees in the 
    Department of Defense, and not limiting the appropriation to those 
    carried in the bill, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(1) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7391, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 3890, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 634. No pay, compensation, or allowances shall be paid for 
    commis

[[Page 5702]]

    sioned officer personnel in excess of the following percentages of 
    total personnel of the Department concerned: [A table showing the 
    percentages was included at this point.]
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that section 634 is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and, therefore, subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis of Wisconsin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order against the section as now written.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from Wisconsin 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee Valley Authority

Sec. 27.11 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that not to 
    exceed a specific amount of the funds available to the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority shall be used for personal services, but not 
    limiting it to funds in the bill, was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(3) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 2673, 2674, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: On 
    page 35, line 24, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add 
    the following: ``and not to exceed $99,131,125 of the funds 
    available to the Tennessee Valley Authority shall be used for 
    personal services.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment but will reserve it to permit the 
    gentleman from New York to make his statement. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before him the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York on page 35, line 24, to which the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Thomas] makes a point of order. The amendment says not 
    to exceed so many dollars of funds available to the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority shall be used for personal services. As the Chair 
    reads the amendment it is not limited to funds contained in the 
    bill now before the Committee. The fact that the amendment may be 
    patterned after language in the bill would still not make the 
    amendment in order if it goes to funds beyond those contained in 
    the bill before the Committee, thus adding legislation
        The Chair is not called upon to rule on the question of 
    legislative provisions allowed to remain in the bill, in view of 
    the rule adopted waiving points of order. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that this amendment applies a new restriction on funds not 
    contained in the bill thus adding legislation and therefore 
    sustains the point of order.]

Sec. 27.12 A limitation to be in order on an appropriation

[[Page 5703]]

    bill must apply solely to the funds made available by the pending 
    bill; thus, an amendment providing that ``none of the funds herein 
    or elsewhere made available'' shall be used for a certain purpose 
    was held to be legislation and not a limitation.

    On June 21, 1935,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 9854, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: On page 
    48, line 16, strike out ``$34,675,192'' and insert in lieu thereof 
    ``$23,675,192''; page 48, line 16, strike out the period, insert a 
    colon and the following: ``Provided, That none of the funds herein 
    or elsewhere made available to the Tennessee Valley Authority or 
    the Tennessee Valley fund shall be used for the construction of any 
    new dam or power lines until further action by Congress.''
        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is additional 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and changes existing law, for 
    it broadens the language of the pending bill by use of the words 
    ``or elsewhere.''
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I desire to be heard briefly, if the Chair please. 
    The first portion of the amendment to the effect that none of the 
    funds shall be available for the construction of any new dam or 
    power lines until further action by Congress, is purely a 
    limitation and strictly within the Holman rule.
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, the word ``elsewhere'' used in the 
    amendment constitutes additional legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, while the amendment is in the form 
    of a limitation, yet the words ``or elsewhere'' contained in the 
    amendment apply to other appropriations, and is therefore 
    legislation; and for this reason the point of order is sustained.

Trade With Cuba; Restriction on Authorization, Not Appropriation

Sec. 27.13 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting aid 
    under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any country which 
    furnishes or permits ships under its registry to carry certain 
    strategic materials to Cuba was ruled out as legislation, since the 
    provision was a permanent restriction on the authorization rather 
    than upon the funds carried in the pending bill.

    On June 4, 1970,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5704]]

Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill (H.R. 17867), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against section 107(a) on the ground that 
    it is legislation in an appropriations bill. . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act contains similar 
    restrictions, but they are much more detailed, specific, and 
    restricted than those contained in the provision which I am seeking 
    to strike from the appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    care to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Ratios of U.S. Contribution to International Organizations to Total

Sec. 27.14 To a provision in a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing that in no case shall the United States contribution to 
    any international organization exceed one-third of the estimated 
    total annual cost was held to change existing law and, therefore, 
    to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On July 25, 1951,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order

[[Page 5705]]

was raised and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 8881, 8885, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to insist upon the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. We already have basic 
    legislation setting a ceiling on these contributions to 
    international organizations.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to 
    say except that I insist it is a limitation of appropriations. The 
    amendment speaks for itself.
        The Chairman: The amendment certainly goes far beyond being a 
    limitation.
        The gentleman from Mississippi has offered an amendment; the 
    gentleman from New York has made a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    provides for changes in existing law with respect to international 
    organizations and, of course, is legislation and not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The ruling would also be justified on grounds that the language at 
        issue was not limited to funds in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds From Any Other Source

Sec. 27.15 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing that no additional funds from ``any other source'' shall 
    be expended for these purposes was held to go beyond the scope of 
    the bill, not germane to it, and legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.

    On Apr. 24, 1951,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill (H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 4300, 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Boyd] Tackett [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: Page 4, line 3, after the 
        word ``granted'', strike out the period, insert a semicolon and 
        the following: ``And no additional funds from any other source 
        shall be expended for these purposes.''

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas

[[Page 5706]]

    (Mr. Tackett) on the ground the amendment is not germane and that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I make the further 
    point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it goes beyond the scope of the 
    bill as presented at this time. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] offers an amendment 
    to line 3, page 4, of the bill. The provision of the bill sought to 
    be amended has to do with construction by the Southwestern Power 
    Administration. The bill before the House provides an appropriation 
    of a specific amount of money for this purpose. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has reference 
    to funds from sources other than those contained in the bill before 
    the committee; therefore it goes beyond the scope and the purposes 
    of the bill presently before the committee.
        The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Jackson] makes a point of 
    order against the amendment. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Limitation on Any Appropriation for Department

Sec. 27.16 To be in order, a limitation must relate to the particular 
    appropriation to which the words of limitation apply, and may not 
    be applicable to funds not covered by the pending bill; thus, a 
    provision in a general appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation providing that no part of ``any appropriation'' for a 
    department shall be expended for a specific purpose was held to be 
    legislation since not confined solely to funds in the bill.

    On Feb. 18, 1938,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9544, a State, Justice, Commerce, and Labor 
Departments appropriation. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 2172-74, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No part of any appropriation for the Immigration and 
    Naturalization Service shall be expended for any expense incident 
    to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for the admission to 
    any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the United States 
    for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for readmission to 
    the United States, or for the salary of any employee charged with 
    any duty in connection with the readmission to the United States of 
    any such alien without visa. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the language appearing on page 105 in lines 1 
    to 9 is legislation on an appropriation bill, which changes 
    statutory law and creates new regulations without properly being 
    before any committee or properly being passed upon by the Congress. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is 
    precedent to

[[Page 5707]]

    the effect that a limitation must not give affirmative direction, 
    and must not affect the discretion of an official of the executive 
    branch of the Government; that the limitation must relate to the 
    particular appropriation with reference to which the words of 
    limitation apply.
        The burden of proof is on the Committee on Appropriations to 
    show that this is a limitation upon existing law. If any part of 
    the limitation does not apply to existing law, although the greater 
    part of the limitation might apply, then the point of order should 
    be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair sustains the point of order on the ground the 
    Chair has just suggested, that the use of the words ``any 
    appropriation'' in the bill makes this legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order against the entire paragraph.

No Appropriation After Date of Enactment

Sec. 27.17 A limitation stating that no part of any appropriation shall 
    be obligated for printing the Yearbook of Agriculture for 1942 was 
    held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 18, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6802, a legislative branch appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2676, 2677, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions of 
    section 73 of the act of January 12, 1895 (44 U.S.C. 241), no part 
    of the foregoing sum of $3,985,000 shall be used for printing and 
    binding part 2 of the annual report of the Secretary of Agriculture 
    (known as the Yearbook of Agriculture) and no part of any 
    appropriation shall be obligated after the date of the enactment of 
    this act for printing the Yearbook of Agriculture for 1942. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language contained in the proviso 
    beginning on line 21, page 44, and ending with line 3 on page 45, 
    and particularly to that portion of the proviso which reads as 
    follows:

            And no part of any appropriation shall be obligated after 
        the date of the enactment of this act for printing the Yearbook 
        of Agriculture for 1942. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William R. Thom (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, we are 
    perfectly willing to concede the point of order to the second part 
    of the proviso. If the Chair holds that the entire proviso must be 
    stricken, then I will offer an amendment to take care of the 
    situation.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order on the 
    ground that if part of a proviso is faulty the entire proviso 
    falls.

[[Page 5708]]

        The point of order is sustained.

Limitation on ``Any'' Appropriation

Sec. 27.18 Language in an appropriation bill placing a limitation on 
    funds not carried in the bill was held to be legislation: language 
    in an appropriation bill providing that no part of ``any 
    appropriation'' shall be used for a specified purpose was held to 
    apply to funds not carried in the bill and therefore not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1955,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5240), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 4077, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill against 
    the following language appearing on page 28, lines 15 through 19:

            Provided further, That no part of any appropriation shall 
        be used to pay educational institutions for reports and 
        certifications of attendance at such institutions an allowance 
        at a rate in excess of $1 per month for each eligible veteran 
        enrolled in and attending such institution.

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I do not 
    believe that language is subject to a point of order. It is a 
    limitation. It permits the spending of $1 instead of the previous 
    amount of $1.50. This has been contemplated by the Veterans' 
    Administration in setting up its budget. This has been in for 2 
    years.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to the fact that 
    in line 15 the words ``no part of any appropriation'' are used. 
    That goes beyond this appropriation bill. This is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

No Fund in This or Any Other Act

Sec. 27.19 In an appropriation bill a provision in the form of a 
    limitation that no funds in this or any other act shall be 
    available for payment of grants for development of a project for 
    predominantly residential uses unless incidental uses are 
    restricted to those normally essential for residential uses was 
    conceded to be legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 4108, 4109, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: For 
    an addi

[[Page 5709]]

    tional amount for payment of capital grants as authorized by title 
    I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C 1453, 1456), 
    $39,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That no 
    funds in this or any other act shall be available for payment of 
    capital grants under any contract involving the development or 
    redevelopment of a project for predominantly residential uses 
    unless incidental uses are restricted to those normally essential 
    for residential uses. . . .
        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso appearing on page 28, lines 13 
    to 18, on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman. I think 
    we are compelled to concede the point of order and I submit an 
    amendment to replace it.

Sec. 27.20 Language in an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation providing no part of the appropriation contained in this 
    or any other act shall be used for a certain purpose is legislation 
    and not in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1939,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3743, an independent offices appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 1263, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 6. No part of any appropriation contained in this or any 
    other act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, shall be 
    available for the payment of enlistment allowance to enlisted men 
    for reenlistment within a period of 3 months from date of discharge 
    as to reenlistments made during the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1940, notwithstanding the applicable provisions of sections 9 and 
    10 of the act entitled ``An act to readjust the pay and allowances 
    of the commissioned and enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy, 
    Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public 
    Health Service,'' approved June 10, 1922 (37 U.S.C. 13, 16).
         Mr. [Edouard V.M.] Izac [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the inclusion of this section in the bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (3) The point of order is well taken. 
    . . . The Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Appropriations

Sec. 27.21 A limitation, to be in order, may not apply to money already 
    appropriated: an amendment in the guise of a limitation providing 
    that ``No appropriation heretofore made'' shall be used for a 
    certain purpose was held to

[[Page 5710]]

    embody legislation and therefore not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
10464), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 989, 74th Cong. 2d Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the following substitute, which I send to the desk and ask to have 
    read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen: Page 16, 
        line 6, strike out all of lines 6 to 12, inclusive, and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: ``No appropriation heretofore 
        made or contained in this bill shall be used for the 
        enforcement of the provisions of the Potato Act of 1935, 
        approved August 24, 1935.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that that is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and is not germane to the amendment to which it is offered. It 
    undertakes to put a limitation on money heretofore appropriated and 
    not covered in this bill.
        Mr. Ellenbogen: The appropriation contained on page 16 of the 
    deficiency appropriation bill is for the purpose of enforcing the 
    provisions of the Potato Act. Therefore, any amendment that seeks 
    to limit or prevent the Department from enforcing that act is a 
    proper amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, goes further than indicated by the 
    gentleman's statement in support of his amendment. The amendment, 
    in the opinion of the Chair, very clearly embraces legislation 
    which is not in order on an appropriation bill. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improvement of Capitol Limitation on ``Funds Provided''

Sec. 27.22 To an appropriation bill providing for necessary 
    expenditures for the Capitol Building, including minor 
    improvements, an amendment to prohibit use of funds appropriated in 
    a previous appropriation act for extension of the East Front of the 
    Capitol, and an amendment providing that none of the funds provided 
    shall be used for prosecuting the project of lifting out the front 
    of the Capitol, were held to be legislation since not explicitly 
    confined to funds provided in the bill.

     On May 21, 1957,(6) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7599, a legislative branch appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 7326, 7327, 85th Cong. 1st Sess

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

[[Page 5711]]

                       Capitol Buildings and Grounds

         Capitol Buildings: For necessary expenditures for the Capitol 
    Building and electrical substations of the Senate and House Office 
    Buildings, under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, 
    including minor improvements, maintenance, repair, equipment, 
    supplies, material, fuel, oil, waste, and appurtenances; 
    furnishings and office equipment; special and protective clothing 
    for workmen; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by the 
    act of September 1, 1954, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2131); personal and 
    other services; cleaning and repairing works of art, without regard 
    to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended; purchase or 
    exchange, maintenance and operation of passenger motor vehicle; not 
    to exceed $300 for the purchase of necessary reference books and 
    periodicals; not to exceed $500 for expenses of attendance, when 
    specifically authorized by the Architect of the Capitol, at 
    meetings or conventions in connection with subjects related to work 
    under the Architect of the Capitol; $897,100. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: 
    On page 14, immediately after line 2, insert the following: 
    ``Provided, That no funds provided in this section and no funds 
    heretofore appropriated shall be expended to carry out the 
    extension, reconstruction and replacement of the central portion of 
    the United States Capitol authorized by the paragraph of the 
    legislative appropriation act, 1956, which is under the heading 
    `Capitol Buildings and Grounds' and which begins with the words 
    `Extension of the Capitol'.''
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to this bill. It refers to funds which are not included in 
    this bill, and further it is legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Rooney] makes the point of order that the amendment is not in 
    order. The amendment very definitely relates to an appropriation 
    heretofore made. Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is legislation and therefore subject to the point of 
    order. The Chair sustains the point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at 
    the Clerk's desk
        The Clerk read as follows:

             Amendment offered by Mr. Hiestand: On page 14, line 2, 
        after the period, insert ``None of the funds provided shall be 
        used for prosecuting the project of lifting out the front of 
        the Capitol.'' (8) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The Chair apparently construed this language to apply arguably to 
        funds previously appropriated, as well as funds in the present 
        bill. If the language had referred more explicitly only to 
        funds in the bill it might have been allowed as a limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order against 
    the amendment, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the same 
    objection applies to this amendment as applied to the last 
    amendment, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5712]]

        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that point?

        May I suggest that the amendment just submitted deals with 
    $897,100, which has just been read this morning? I submit it is in 
    order because it could not have been applied to any other fund. The 
    first amendment did apply to previous appropriations.
        The Chairman: But the Chair would call attention to the fact 
    that there is nothing in this paragraph, as the Chair understands 
    it, that relates to that particular project or work.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will 
    hear me just a moment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Taber: Beginning on line 8, page 13, it reads:

            For necessary expenditures for the Capitol Building and 
        electrical substations of the Senate and House Office 
        Buildings, under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the 
        Capitol.

        That means that money is available for all sorts of activities 
    of the Architect of the Capitol, relating to the entire group of 
    buildings.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman conveniently stops at 
    the comma on line 11 and did not read up to the next comma, 
    ``including minor improvements.''
        By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered a 
    minor improvement.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Termination of Existing Revolving Fund

Sec. 27.23 Language in an appropriation bill amounting to a limitation 
    and providing that after June 30, 1959, unobligated funds in the 
    revolving fund, Defense Production Act, be covered into the 
    Treasury was held to be legislation and not in order

    On Mar. 31, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10589, a bill making appropriations for the Executive 
Office of the President, among other things. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  104 Cong. Rec. 5817, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Reduction in Balances

        Revolving fund, Defense Production Act: The unobligated 
    balances available in the fund as of June 30, 1959, shall be 
    withdrawn and covered into the Treasury as of the close of business 
    June 30, 1959.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the section beginning on line 9, page 5, and ending 
    in line 13, page 5, as legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5713]]

Rescission; Disaster Relief

Sec. 27.24 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing a 
    rescission of funds for ``Disaster Relief'' appropriated in other 
    acts was held to be not germane and to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 19, 1952,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7072), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 Cong. Rec. 2543, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett: On page 3, after line 14, 
        insert a new heading and the following language:

                                Disaster Relief

            ``The unobligated balances at the end of June 30, 1952, of 
        appropriations heretofore made for Disaster Relief under the 
        act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 875); the Independent 
        Offices Appropriation Act of 1952; act of July 18, 1951 (Public 
        Law 80); and the act of October 24, 1951 (Public Law 202), 
        shall to the extent that they exceed in the aggregate 
        $5,000,000, not be available for obligation after June 30, 
        1952, and shall be recovered to the Treasury as miscellaneous 
        receipts.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order, first, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill. It has no relation to any item in the bill.
        Second, it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        On both counts, or on either count, it is subject to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Pickett] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that this is a 
    limitation of an appropriation. Its effect certainly is to recover 
    into the Treasury moneys which are just floating around, and 
    apparently serving no purpose at this time. It never occurred to 
    me, of course, notwithstanding whatever the rule might be, that we 
    would avoid trying to save money here just by raising points of 
    order. It seems to me that we might save a little money by even 
    legislating some time. I hope the point of order will be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Pickett] has offered an amendment. The gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] makes a point of order against the amendment 
    on the ground it is not germane to the bill before the Committee 
    and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has 
    had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The amendment does not, as the Chair understands, apply 
    to funds contained in the pending bill H.R. 7072, but has reference 
    to funds which have been made available by the Congress in other 
    legislation. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation

[[Page 5714]]

    bill. The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Words of Permanency; Funds ``Hereafter'' Appropriated

Sec. 27.25 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation but containing the word ``hereafter'' was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1936,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10630, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 1300, 1305, 1306, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For reimbursable loans to Indians for the payment of tuition 
    and other expenses in recognized vocational and trade schools, 
    including colleges and universities offering recognized vocational, 
    trade, and professional courses, in accordance with the provision 
    of the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 986), the unexpended 
    balance of the appropriation for the fiscal year 1936 is continued 
    available until June 30, 1937: Provided, That no more than $50,000 
    of such unexpended balance shall be available for loans to Indian 
    students pursuing liberal-arts courses in high schools and 
    colleges. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Byron N.] Scott [of California]: On 
    page 48, line 13, after the word ``Interior'', add: ``Provided, 
    That hereafter no part of any appropriation for these Indian 
    schools shall be available for the salary of any person teaching or 
    advocating the legislative program of the American Liberty 
    League.''
        Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    word ``hereafter'' in the amendment makes the provision permanent 
    legislation. Permanent legislation on an appropriation bill would 
    not be in order. The language of the amendment here offered not 
    only applies to the appropriations of this bill but it would apply 
    to subsequent appropriations. Therefore, the amendment contains 
    legislation; and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of Prior Limitation

Sec. 27.26 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to change a 
    limitation on a previous appropriation bill was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(15) 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 amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 8940, 8941, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: On 
    page 19, line 3, insert a new paragraph, as follows:

[[Page 5715]]

           ``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources

        ``The limitation on expenditures under the 1944 program of 
    soil-building practices and soil- and water-conservation practices 
    established in the fourth proviso clause of appropriation 
    `Conservation and use of agricultural land resources,' in the 
    Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1944, is hereby 
    increased from $300,000,000 to $313,000,000 (exclusive of the 
    $12,500,000 provided in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation 
    Act, 1945, for additional seed payments).''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    change of a limitation is a change of existing law, and it has been 
    so held repeatedly.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act authorizes the promulgation of programs to cost not 
    in excess of $500,000,000 annually. In the Agricultural 
    Appropriation Act of 1944 the Congress undertook to impose a 
    limitation of $300,000,000 upon the administrative authorities in 
    the promulgation of the over-all program for the calendar year 
    1944, which program included not only payments and grants for soil-
    conservation and water-conservation practices, but the furnishing 
    in advance of seeds, limes, fertilizers, trees and other 
    agricultural materials to be used in soil-conservation work and to 
    be charged against the benefits accruing to the farmers in 
    subsequent crop years.
        I think that a correct understanding of the amendment which I 
    have proposed involves reference to the Budget document in which it 
    was submitted to the Congress, House Document 793, Seventy-eighth 
    Congress, second session, in which this identical language was 
    recommended by the Budget, and in the explanation of the language 
    it is clearly pointed out that it does not involve the expenditure 
    of any additional moneys. In other words, this amendment, if 
    adopted, does not appropriate or make available to the 
    administrative authorities one single dollar of moneys which are 
    not already available to them but it simply authorizes the use by 
    them of moneys which have been allocated to the seed, fertilizer, 
    lime, and tree program for the discharge of liabilities incurred 
    under the program for the payments and grants for soil and water-
    conservation practices. It is, therefore, in effect a reallocation 
    of the funds which have already been appropriated by Congress.
        I may say that that original allocation of funds was not made 
    by the Congress in the enactment of the Agricultural Appropriation 
    Act of 1944, but was made by departmental authorities without 
    mandatory instructions from the Congress to make such allocations, 
    although it probably was a matter within their administrative 
    discretion. So I insist that the Congress by the imposition of the 
    limitation in the Agricultural Appropriation Act of 1944 did not so 
    tie its hands as to make it impossible for the same Congress or for 
    a subsequent Congress to appropriate funds or to review and revise 
    the allocation of funds already appropriated for the purposes 
    outlined in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, so 
    long as it does not exceed the limitation for maximum appropriation 
    provided in that act, which, as I have pointed out, is 
    $500,000,000.

[[Page 5716]]

        I respectfully insist, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in 
    order and the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from New York 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    New York is correct, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Acquisition of Property by Gift ``Hereafter'' Contingent Upon Prior 
    Appropriation for Maintenance.

Sec. 27.27 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``hereafter 
    the authority of the Secretary of the Interior . . . to acquire by 
    gift on behalf of the United States any historic site, building, 
    object, and antiquity of national significance, shall not be 
    effective until an appropriation has been made for the operation 
    and maintenance thereof subsequently to such proposed 
    acquisition,'' was held to be a change in law and legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 20, 1939,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3000, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Historic sites and buildings: For carrying out the 
        provisions of the act entitled ``An act to provide for the 
        preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, 
        and antiquities of national significance, and for other 
        purposes,'' approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666), including 
        personal services in the District of Columbia, $24,000: 
        Provided, That hereafter the authority of the Secretary of the 
        Interior contained in such act, to acquire by gift on behalf of 
        the United States any historic site, building, object, and 
        antiquity of national significance, shall not be effective 
        until an appropriation has been made for the operation and 
        maintenance thereof subsequently to such proposed acquisition.

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to make a point of order against the proviso, commencing with the 
    word ``Provided,'' line 17, page 119, down to the end of the 
    paragraph, in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    According to the report, it expressly changes the language of the 
    act.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Johnson] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 5717]]

Restriction on ``Contribution to U.N.''

Sec. 27.28 A provision in a general appropriation bill directing the 
    President to ``assure that no contribution to the United Nations 
    Development Program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961 . . . shall be used for projects for economic or technical 
    assistance to the Government of Cuba, so long as Cuba is governed 
    by the Castro regime,'' was ruled out as legislation [constituting 
    a directive to the President and not confined to the funds carried 
    in the bill].

    On June 4, 1970,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 18395, 18396, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Technical assistance: For necessary expenses as authorized by 
    law $310,000,000, distributed as follows:
        (1) World-wide, $151,000,000 (section 212);
        (2) Alliance for Progress, $75,000,000 (section 252(a)); and
        (3) Multilateral organizations, $85,000,000 (section 302(a)), 
    of which not less than $13,000,000 shall be available only for the 
    United Nations Children's Fund: Provided, That no part of this 
    appropriation shall be used to initiate any project or activity 
    which has not been justified to the Congress, except projects or 
    activities relating to the reduction of population growth; Provided 
    further, That the President shall seek to assure that no 
    contribution to the United Nations Development Program authorized 
    by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used 
    for projects for economic or technical assistance to the Government 
    of Cuba, so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    entire proviso beginning on line 20 and ending on line 25 of page 2 
    is legislation in an appropriation. I am for its objectives, but in 
    effect it simply says that the President should try to enforce 
    existing law. The provisions in existing law, section 620 of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act are stronger and there is no sense in this 
    useless repetition in an appropriation
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman 
    The

[[Page 5718]]

    proviso was added by the Committee on Appropriations in the foreign 
    assistance appropriation bill for fiscal year 1965 in order to 
    insure that no U.S. contribution to the UNDP would be used to give 
    any type of economical or technical assistance to Cuba as long as 
    Cuba is governed by the Castro regime.
        I would like to interpret this as a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: The language in question is as follows: Line 20, 
    page 2:

            Provided further, That the President shall seek to assure. 
        . . .

        And so forth.
        That is obviously a directive to the President of the United 
    States, it is not limited in application to the funds appropriated 
    in this bill or any section thereof, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Restricting ``Amounts for Education Grants''

Sec. 27.29 In a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for higher education assistance, language restricting the 
    availability of ``amounts for basic opportunity grants'' to full-
    time students in the first three years of college was held not to 
    be confined to funds in the bill and was ruled out as legislation 
    affecting amounts appropriated under other acts.

    On June 27, 1974,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, the proceedings as indicated 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21670, 21671, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, titles 
    I, III, IV, section 745 of title VII, and parts A, B, C, and D of 
    title IX, and section 1203 of the Higher Education Act . . . 
    Provided, That amounts for basic opportunity grants shall be 
    available only for full-time students at institutions of higher 
    education who are not enrolled as regular students (as defined by 
    the Commissioner of Education) at such institutions prior to April 
    1, 1973. . . .
        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language which occurs on page 18, beginning on 
    line 7 and continuing through line 11 as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The law at the present time, the general law 
    says that the basic opportunity grants should be available to all 
    students in freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior years and 
    students in the 5th year, part-time students, and last year we had 
    restricted it to apply to freshmen and sophomores. This language 
    further changes the law by saying basic opportunity grants shall be 
    available only to freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, and therefore 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill changing the intent of 
    the original law.
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I believe this 
    language in

[[Page 5719]]

    question is clearly conditioned on the use of funds in the bill and 
    therefore not subject to a point of order.
        It is a well-established principle and I quote:

            The House in the Committee of the Whole has the right to 
        refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part 
        even though the object is authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, in this case we are very simply eliminating the 
    payments for these basic opportunity grants to students who are 
    enrolled at institutions of higher learning after April 1, 1973, 
    and excluding, expressly excluding students who were enrolled prior 
    to April 1, 1973. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania makes some interesting and indeed some valid points 
    with respect to what has been in the past and is uniformly accepted 
    as a limitation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair must observe, however, that there is one 
    distinguishing characteristic with regard to this proviso as it is 
    presently written which differentiates it from valid limitations. 
    The proviso as presently written does not specify that it is a 
    limitation upon amounts appropriated in this bill. This, indeed, 
    may have been the intention of those who drafted the bill, but the 
    proviso is not drafted negatively and the Chair observes that the 
    proviso as presently drafted would stipulate that amounts for basic 
    opportunity grants shall be made available only to certain 
    students.
        If the Chair is correctly advised, the Chair believes that the 
    language, literally read, could subject this proviso to the 
    interpretation of being a limitation upon amounts previously 
    appropriated under other acts in that it does not stipulate that 
    its application would be intended specifically to funds provided in 
    this bill or in this paragraph.

        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon.

Disapproval of Deferral

Sec. 27.30 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing 
    congressional disapproval of a deferral of budget authority 
    proposed by the President pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act 
    is legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On July 29, 1982,(3) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6863 (supplemental appropriation bill), 
a point of order was sustained against the following provision in the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 18625, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Congress disapproves $100,000 of the proposed deferral 
        D82-225 relating to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 
        Census, ``Periodic censuses and programs'' as set forth in the 
        message of February 5, 1982, which was transmitted to the 
        Congress by the President. This disapproval shall be effective 
        upon enactment into law of this bill and the amount of the 
        proposed deferral

[[Page 5720]]

        disapproved herein shall be made available for obligation.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against this section of the bill. . . .
        [I]n clause 2 of rule XXI, it states that legislation in an 
    appropriation bill is not appropriate. This is a disapproval of a 
    deferral, which is legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore, 
    I think, Mr. Chairman, it is subject to a point of order against it 
    under clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I will point out that 
    there are three or four deferrals in here, and obviously, that is 
    true. We could report separate bills and take up the time of the 
    House, but all we are doing here is avoiding that. The committee is 
    in full agreement on both sides of the aisle. This is just avoiding 
    taking up the time of the House with a number of separate bills. So 
    there is no need for it. We just put that in here to do it in an 
    easier way.
        Mr. Walker: . . . The point that this gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is making is that they are inappropriate in a bill 
    which makes appropriations under the rules of the House, and I am 
    simply trying to sustain the rules.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the Impoundment Control Act (Public 
Law No. 93-344, title X) provided a procedure for privileged 
consideration of resolutions of disapproval of Presidential deferrals 
of budget authority, and while the Committee on Appropriations is an 
appropriate committee for referral of such resolutions, such provisions 
when included in general appropriation bills are nevertheless 
legislation changing the procedure for congressional disapproval.