[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 75. Foreign Relations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6454-6462]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 75. Foreign Relations

Nonmarket Economy Countries

Sec. 75.1 To a general appropriation bill containing funds for foreign 
    assistance, an amendment prohibiting the availability of funds 
    therein for nonmarket economy countries other than those eligible 
    for certain preferential tariff treatment under existing law was 
    held a proper limitation on the use of funds in the bill.

    On Dec. 11, 1973,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11771), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 40871, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 18, line 10, strike 
        out the period and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``; 
        except that no funds shall be obligated or expended under this 
        paragraph, directly or indirectly, for the use or benefit of 
        any nonmarket economy country (other than any such country 
        whose products are eligible for column 1 tariff treatment on 
        the date of the enactment of this Act).''

        Mr. [Garner E.] Shriver [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order on this amendment.
        This amendment, like the other one, places additional 
    responsibilities and additional duties. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; it requires considerable research and work in 
    order to determine the nonmarket economy country. And then that is 
    put just in parentheses in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language, as contained in this amendment, appears to the 
    Chair to be strictly a limitation on the manner in which the funds 
    are to be expended. Almost any limitation requires some 
    determination in order to establish the fact of whether or not the 
    limitation would apply.
        So the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.

Executive Agreements

Sec. 75.2 To a bill making appropriations for the mutual se

[[Page 6455]]

    curity program, an amendment providing that no funds in the bill 
    shall be used to implement certain executive agreements made under 
    authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was held to be a 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On July 28, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8385. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14524, 14525, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett of Florida: On 
    page 5, immediately below line 25, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 103. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
    shall be used to carry out any agreement for cooperation heretofore 
    or hereafter entered into which is required to be submitted to the 
    Joint Committee on Atomic Energy under section 123(d) of the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, as amended.''
        And renumber the following sections accordingly. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. It is 
    not a limitation because it provides that it shall affect any 
    agreement for cooperation heretofore or hereafter entered into 
    which is required to be submitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic 
    Energy under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as 
    amended, and it imposes additional duties upon the administrators 
    of that act.
        Mr. Bennett of Florida: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of 
    order come too late? The gentleman from New York did not reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) It did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the 
    amendment.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a simple 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and points out the specific 
    purposes for which funds in this bill cannot be used.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Foreign Economic Assistance; Automobile Industry Abroad

Sec. 75.3 Where an amendment to a mutual security appropriation 
    prohibited the use of funds to establish textile processing plants 
    in any foreign country, an amendment thereto extending the 
    prohibition to ``automobile manufacturing plants or any other 
    manufacturing industry now established in the United States'' was 
    held to be a limitation restricting the availability of funds.

    On July 2, 1958,(7) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 12967-73, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6456]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon] Canfield [of New Jersey]: On 
    page 7, after line 2, insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 106. None of the funds provided in this act shall be used 
    to establish textile processing plants in any foreign country.'' . 
    . .
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Griffin to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Canfield: After the words ``textile processing plants'' 
        insert the words ``automobile manufacturing plants or any other 
        manufacturing industry now established in the United States.''

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (8) This is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment was not germane to the 
amendment to which offered, but this point of order was not raised.

Payments on Contracts to Former Government Employees

Sec. 75.4 Language in a proposed new section of an appropriation bill 
    stating that none of the funds in title I of the bill, providing 
    for the International Cooperation Administration, shall be used to 
    enter into contracts with any concern which compensates employees 
    or former employees of such administration, was held to be a 
    limitation and in order.

    On June 17, 1960,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12619, a mutual security program appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 13143, 13144, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred E.] Santangelo [of New York]: 
    On page 9, after line 11, add new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 114. None of the funds contained in title I of this Act 
    may be used to enter into any contract with any person, 
    organization, company, or concern or any of its affiliates who has 
    offered or who offers to provide compensation to an employee of the 
    International Cooperation Administration or who provides 
    compensation to any former employee of the International 
    Cooperation Administration whose annual salary exceeds $5,000 and 
    who has left employment with the International Cooperation 
    Administration within two years of the date of employment with said 
    person, or organization, company, or concern, or any of its 
    affiliates.''

[[Page 6457]]

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. Santangelo: Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered to a 
    bill last year. Similar language was objected to in a different 
    type of bill, and the Chair, at the time the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Keogh], overruled the point of order. This is a 
    limitation upon expenditures. This in no wise is an authorization 
    to do anything except a limitation on funds. I say it does not 
    violate the parliamentary rules. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair has had an opportunity 
    to examine the language of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Santangelo] and has had an opportunity also to 
    review what transpired in connection with a similar matter when it 
    was offered as an amendment to an appropriation bill last year. 
    This amendment seems to be similar to the amendment offered last 
    year except for the $5,000 limitation in this amendment. Last year 
    the present occupant of the Chair, when such an amendment was 
    offered, pointed out that the amendment was in order at that time 
    and overruled the point of order made then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So, the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Virginia.

    The ruling here was based on a similar ruling on July 28, 1959. In 
the 1959 instance,(11) language in the bill (12) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 105 Cong. Rec. 14529, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 8385, appropriations for the mutual security program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 113. None of the funds in this title may be used to enter 
    into a contract with any person, organization, company, or concern 
    or any of its affiliates, who has offered or who offers to provide 
    compensation to an employee of the International Cooperation 
    Administration or who provides compensation to any former employee 
    of the International Cooperation Administration who has left 
    employment with International Cooperation Administration within two 
    years from the date of employment with said person, organization, 
    company, or concern or any of its affiliates.

    A point of order was made against the language:

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against section 113, on page 8, extending from 
    line 7 down to and including line 17.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that section 113 
    incorporates a legislative provision in an appropriation bill. It 
    does not retrench expenditure, but actually constitutes a new penal 
    provision which is so broad that it could penalize innocent persons 
    and even make it impossible for a concern to hire a janitor who had 
    been employed by the ICA.
        Mr. Chairman, I am fully in sympathy with the purpose of the 
    Appropriations Committee in writing this section, but section 512 
    of the existing Mutual Security Act already contains stringent 
    provisions against fraudulent or other improper practices by ICA 
    employees. The proper approach to this problem is further study by 
    the legislative committees concerned and any

[[Page 6458]]

    modification that may be found desirable in existing law.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that in spite of the beginning phrase 
    of this section it is clearly legislation in an appropriation bill 
    and properly subject to a point of order, because it actually 
    legislates penal provisions which may go far beyond the intent of 
    the Appropriations Committee itself. I recommend a study of the 
    existing penal provisions, section 512, and I wish to renew my 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Santangelo: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point 
    of order. The language in the bill which is the subject of the 
    point of order is an amendment which I offered in the full 
    committee and which the full committee accepted.
        Mr. Chairman, on June 3, I offered a similar amendment to the 
    defense appropriation bill. The language of that amendment, which 
    appears on page 9741 of the Congressional Record, is almost exactly 
    the same as the language of the amendment before you now.
        The amendment submitted on the defense bill attempted to 
    prevent organizations which do business with the Pentagon from 
    creating the possibility of undue influence and favoritism by 
    employing retired military officers. The amendment before you today 
    attempts to prevent organizations who get large contracts under the 
    foreign aid program from influencing the awarding of such contracts 
    by attempting to employ ICA employees or by putting them on their 
    payrolls within 2 years of their separation from that agency.
        A point of order was also made against the limitation offered 
    previously. At that time the Chair stated as follows, and I quote 
    from page 9742 of the Congressional Record:

            It is obvious that the intent of this amendment is to 
        impose a limitation on the expenditure of the funds here 
        appropriated, and while the point might be made that imposing 
        limitations will impose additional burdens, it is nevertheless 
        the opinion of the Chair clearly a limitation on expenditures, 
        and therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the ruling just quoted is equally 
    applicable here. It is the intent of this amendment to impose a 
    limitation on the expenditure of funds here appropriated. The 
    wording of the two amendments is almost identical, except for the 
    agencies and people involved. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point should be made on this particular amendment that it does not 
    refer to any time. So that the acts complained of, and which come 
    under the purview of this amendment, can already have happened. 
    That would be legislating on the effect of acts that have happened 
    prior to this date. This is legislation in an appropriation bill. 
    If the amendment had read, ``after the passage of this act,''--the 
    amendment would then apply to future acts only--this amendment is 
    too broad because it refers to previous acts which have occurred as 
    well as acts which can occur after the passage of this act.
        The Chairman [Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas]: The Chair is ready 
    to rule. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes a point 
    of order to the language in the bill on page 8, line 7 through line 
    17, on the ground that the

[[Page 6459]]

    language is legislation in an appropriation bill. The Chair has had 
    an opportunity to examine the language. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that the language does constitute a valid limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. The language does refer to the funds in this 
    particular appropriation. In addition, the Chair is appreciative of 
    the precedent called to the attention of the Chair by the gentleman 
    from New York.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Committee Requests for Information

Sec. 75.5 To a bill making appropriations for the mutual security 
    program, an amendment providing that no funds in the bill shall be 
    used for purposes of the International Cooperation Administration 
    program where more than 20 days have elapsed between the submission 
    of a request by the General Accounting Office or a committee of 
    Congress for certain information and the furnishing of such 
    information was held to be a limitation since the information was 
    required by existing law to be furnished.

    On July 28, 1959,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8385. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 14530, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: On 
    page 8, after line 17, insert the following:
        Sec. 114. None of the funds herein appropriated shall be used 
    to carry out any provision of chapter II, III, or IV of the Mutual 
    Security Act of 1954, as amended, during any period when more than 
    twenty days have elapsed between the request for, and the 
    furnishing of, any document, paper, communication, audit, review, 
    finding, recommendation, report, or other material relating to the 
    administration of such provision by the International Cooperation 
    Administration, to the General Accounting Office or any committee 
    of the Congress, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, 
    charged with considering legislation or appropriation for or 
    expenditures of the International Cooperation Administration and 
    the Department of State.'' . . .
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, on reading 
    the proposed amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, it 
    is my belief this amendment does impose on the executive branch of 
    the Government additional burdens that are not required by any 
    existing legislation. For that reason it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment made 
    in the act of 1959 to the Mutual Security Act amending section 534 
    of that act.

[[Page 6460]]

        The Chair is of the opinion that there is legislative 
    authorization for the furnishing of these documents and for that 
    which is required within this amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Parliamentarian's Note: The furnishing of such information was 
        required by Pub. L. No. 86-108, Sec. 534. Therefore, the 
        provision for withholding of funds was a limitation and not 
        legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 75.6 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for the 
    Mutual Security Act program, an amendment providing that no funds 
    in the bill shall be used for purposes of the International 
    Cooperation Administration program where more than 20 days have 
    elapsed between the submission of a request by the General 
    Accounting Office or a committee of Congress for information 
    required by existing law to be supplied relating to the 
    administration of ICA and the furnishing of such information, was 
    held to be a limitation and in order.

    On June 17, 1960,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
12619), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 13144, 13145, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John S.] Monagan [of Connecticut]: On 
    page 6, immediately below line 12, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 101. None of the funds herein appropriated shall be used 
    to carry out any provision of chapter II, III, or IV of the Mutual 
    Security Act of 1954, as amended, during any period when more than 
    twenty days have elapsed between the request for, and the 
    furnishing of, any document, paper, communication, audit, review, 
    finding, recommendation, report, or other material relating to the 
    administration of such provision by the International Cooperation 
    Administration, to the General Accounting Office or any committee 
    of the Congress, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, 
    charged with considering legislation or appropriation for or 
    expenditures of the International Cooperation Administration and 
    the Department of State.''
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford: It is obvious to me, listening to the amendment which 
    has been read, that it puts additional duties on individuals in the 
    executive branch and therefore is subject to a point of order.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Connecticut desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Monagan: Mr. Chairman, this same amendment was offered last

[[Page 6461]]

    year. A point of order was raised against it at that time and the 
    point of order was overruled. This is not legislation. It is merely 
    a limitation on the appropriation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair has had an 
    opportunity to examine the language of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut and finds that the language offered by 
    the gentleman is similar, if not identical, with the language which 
    was offered to the appropriation bill last year by the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Hardy) on July 28, 1959.
        Mr. Monagan: It is identical.
        The Chairman: The amendment is set forth in the Congressional 
    Record, volume 105, part 11, page 14530. The Chair on that occasion 
    held that the language was a limitation and in order on the 
    appropriation bill and overruled the point of order.
        The Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order now.

United Nations Dues or Assessments

Sec. 75.7 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    United States contribution to a United Nations assessment, an 
    amendment limiting expenditures under the appropriation to 32.02 
    percent of the aggregate payments to the United Nations by all 
    members was held to be a limitation and in order.

        On Apr. 4, 1962,(18) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, a point of 
    order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 5943, 5944, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Page 14 
        line 16, change the period to a comma and add the following: 
        ``but expenditures from this appropriation by the Department of 
        State shall be limited to a sum not in excess of 32.02 per 
        centum of the aggregate payments to the United Nations pursuant 
        to the resolution (agenda item 55) adopted by the General 
        Assembly thereof.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Iowa wish 
    to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, a point of order against this 
    amendment is not good, because this is strictly a limitation. It 
    does not go to the scope of this bill. It does not disturb any 
    agreement or any treaty. This is in conformance with the intent and 
    the purpose of this appropriation. I challenge the gentleman to 
    show wherein this amendment is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, does not the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] call

[[Page 6462]]

    upon the executive department for extra duties; and does it not 
    refer to outside matters? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] offers an amendment to this 
    paragraph, to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] has 
    made the point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The Chair has carefully read the bill and observes that the 
    very purpose of the amendment is a limitation. The Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

United Nations Dues in Arrears

Sec. 75.8 To a bill appropriating funds for foreign assistance 
    programs, an amendment providing in part that none of the funds 
    therein may be used to pay dues or assessments of members of the 
    United Nations was held to be a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

    On Sept. 20, 1962,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13172, a foreign assistance appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 20187, 20188, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [A. Paul] Kitchin [of North Carolina]: 
    Add a new section to the title on page 8, after line 4, to read:
        ``Sec. 113. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
    pursuant to this act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, as amended, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
    assessments, arrearages or dues of any member of the United 
    Nations.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair has had an opportunity 
    to read the language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Kitchin) to which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Hays) makes a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the gentleman's amendment is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds contained in the bill and is, therefore, in order 
    as a limitation. The Chair overrules the point of order.