[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 79. Other Uses]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6491-6499]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 79. Other Uses

Attorney General's Authority

Sec. 79.1 To a title in a general appropriation bill for the Department 
    of Justice, an amendment providing that ``none of the funds 
    appropriated by this title may be used in the preparation or 
    prosecution of any suit or proceeding in any court by or on behalf 
    of the United States (1) against a State of the Union; or (2) 
    against in excess of twenty-five hundred defendants'' was held to 
    be a proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 4, 1952,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7289. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 3555, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel W.] Yorty [of California]: On 
    page 29, after line 4, insert the following: ``Sec. 207. None of 
    the funds appropriated by this title may be used in the preparation 
    or prosecution of any suit or proceeding in any court by or on 
    behalf of the United States (1) against a State of the Union; or 
    (2) against in excess of twenty-five hundred defendants.''
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation grafted on an appropriation bill, and therefore utterly 
    inappropriate. . . . I maintain that that is a restriction on the 
    authority of the officials of the Attorney General and has no place 
    in an appropriation bill. It is [not] the usual limitation upon 
    monies to be expended. It is definitely legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) the Chair is ready to rule. The 
    point of order is made against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has had an 
    opportunity to read and analyze the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California at page 29, after line 4, inserting the 
    language which has been

[[Page 6492]]

    read. The Chair is of the opinion that the language of the 
    amendment merely places a negative limitation upon the 
    appropriation and is not a restriction upon discretion of 
    officials. Therefore, the amendment does not constitute legislation 
    and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Expenditures

Sec. 79.2 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment providing 
    that expenditures for committees of Congress or under the Architect 
    of the Capitol shall be limited to such as are of public record and 
    open for public inspection was held to be a proper limitation on 
    funds in the bill merely descriptive of access procedures pursuant 
    to existing law.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10723. A point of order against the following 
amendment was overruled, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 7642, 7643, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: On page 
    26, after line 22, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 105. The expenditure of any appropriation under this Act 
    by any committee of the Congress or by the Architect of the Capitol 
    shall be limited to those committees and to those funds and 
    contracts supervised by the Architect of the Capitol where such 
    expenditures are a matter of public record and available for public 
    inspection.''
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but will reserve the point of 
    order so the gentleman from Ohio may explain it. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the point of order. . . .
        The 1950 act relating to audits by the General Accounting 
    Office is quite specific as to what auditing shall be done in 
    regard to the legislative and judicial branches of the Government. 
    Where it is mandatory for the executive branch activities, it is 
    subject to agreement as to on-site audits in the legislative and 
    judicial branches.
        It seems to me any action we take here today on this 
    appropriation bill which affects that would be in effect 
    legislating--even though it may be called a limitation in an 
    appropriation bill. It would be a policy change--one which ought to 
    be considered by a committee in the regular way. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: It is my error, Mr. Chairman, I apologize 
    for not showing you the substitute. The substitute does not contain 
    any reference to the General Accounting Office. It is a pure 
    limitation upon the use of funds appropriated in this act to these 
    committees and to the Architect of the Capitol only where their 
    records are a matter of public record. . . .

[[Page 6493]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment reads very clearly that the expenditures are 
    under this act--and it is those expenditures that are limited.

        The Chair therefore believes it is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Persons Claiming Executive Privilege or Holding Two Offices

Sec. 79.3 An amendment prohibiting the compensation of certain persons 
    from funds in an appropriation bill and describing the persons to 
    whom the restriction applied was held in order as a limitation on 
    the use of the funds where it did not directly curtail the 
    discretionary authority of executive officials or impose 
    affirmative duties upon them.

    On June 22, 1972,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15585), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 22102, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead: Page 38 insert between 
        line 6 and line 7 new section:
            ``No part of the appropriations made by this Act shall be 
        expended for the Compensation of any person other than those 
        designated by the President, not to exceed ten persons employed 
        in the White House Office, who refuses to appear before any 
        committee of the Congress solely on the grounds of `executive 
        privilege'; nor shall any part of the appropriations made by 
        this Act be expended to compensate any employee of the 
        Executive Office of the President who is employed in or 
        designated as holding two positions in such Office.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to have a limitation. 
    We find the purpose is legislative, in that it is the intent to 
    restrict the executive direction, and can be fairly termed a change 
    in policy rather than a matter of administration detail. We believe 
    that the point of order should be sustained.
        This is an attempt to cut down the number of people who can 
    claim executive privilege. In addition to that, it refers to those 
    who fail to appear upon the request of a committee.
        I submit that such an amendment violates not only the spirit of 
    legislation passed but also the Constitution, and the limitation is 
    legislation and not a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Moorhead: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment 
    is in order. It is a limitation on an appro

[[Page 6494]]

    priation. It is not legislation. It does not require any action by 
    anyone. The President is not required to name 10 people. He is not 
    required to do anything under this amendment. Therefore, it is no 
    legislative action; it is merely a limitation.
        The Chairman: Does the chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. Steed] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        A further reason for the fact that this is subject to a point 
    of order is that the amendment says:

            Nor shall any part of the appropriations made by this Act 
        be expended to compensate any employee of the Executive Office 
        of the President who is employed in or designated as holding 
        two positions in such Office.

        Mr. Chairman, this has been going on. This part of the 
    amendment changes existing policy. It is clearly legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
        In addition to the points I made originally, this creates 
    additional duties. The President would have to designate the people 
    who are limited under this act.
        I submit both from the standpoint of legislation and additional 
    duties on the Executive it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        Reading the amendment, it provides that no part of the 
    appropriations made by this Act shall be expended for the 
    compensation of certain persons. In other words, the amendment 
    contains descriptions of the persons whose compensation shall be 
    limited: One who refuses to appear before any committee of the 
    Congress and also any employee who in fact is holding two 
    positions.
        The Chair does not feel it is incumbent on the Chair to 
    consider the desirability of the language offered. The amendment 
    does not require any additional duties, nor does it affirmatively 
    change policy, and therefore the Chair feels that these are solid 
    limitations on the use of funds in the bill. Such provisions are 
    not legislation on an appropriation bill, so the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Presidential Emergency Funds

Sec. 79.4 To a bill appropriating emergency funds for the President, an 
    amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated in the bill 
    shall be spent ``in violation of the provisions of section 209'' of 
    the bill was held to be a limitation restricting the availability 
    of funds and in order.

    On May 25, 1959,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7176, a general government matters appropriation bill. 
A point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 9012, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Page 5, 
    line 10,

[[Page 6495]]

    strike out the period, insert a colon, and add the following: 
    ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
    be spent in violation of the provisions of section 209.''
        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Ohio 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio specifically places a limitation upon the use of funds 
    appropriated in this act. It is, therefore, a limitation and is not 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: Section 209 of the bill provided that no 
        part of any appropriation contained in the Act, ``or of the 
        funds available for expenditure by any individual, corporation, 
        or agency included in [the] Act,'' be used for publicity or 
        propaganda purposes designed to support or defeat legislation 
        pending before Congress. While Sec. 209 might itself have been 
        legislation since not confined to funds in the bill, the 
        amendment offered in this instance was properly restricted to 
        funds in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printing Silver Certificates

Sec. 79.5 To a paragraph in an appropriation bill making money 
    available for the purchase of distinctive paper for U.S. 
    securities, an amendment providing that no funds appropriated shall 
    be used for the printing of silver certificates or the purchase of 
    paper therefor was held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 28, 1937,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6730, a deficiency appropriation bill. An amendment 
was offered and ruled on as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3919, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Distinctive paper for United States securities: For an 
    additional amount for distinctive paper for United States currency 
    and Federal Reserve bank currency, fiscal year 1937, including the 
    same objects specified under this head in the Treasury Department 
    Appropriation Act, 1937, $126,600.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 31, line 24, after 
        the figures ``$126,000'', strike out the period insert a comma 
        and the following: ``Provided, however, That no funds 
        appropriated in this act shall be used for the printing of 
        silver certificates or the purchase of paper therefor.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. I think the amendment is subject to a

[[Page 6496]]

    point of order. There is nothing provided here for the printing of 
    silver certificates. The basic law covers that. This is to provide 
    for the purchase of paper for currency. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is a clear limitation under the 
    Holman rule. It is a clear limitation that is entirely germane, 
    preventing the use of funds carried in this act for the purpose of 
    buying paper or printing silver certificates. Silver certificates 
    are printed and paper is bought for that purpose out of this 
    particular item. A limitation preventing the use of it for that 
    purpose is clearly in order.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair is constrained to 
    hold that the amendment is a limitation upon the money appropriated 
    in the bill, and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readmission of Aliens

Sec. 79.6 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that 
    ``No part of any appropriation [in the bill] 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'' was held to be a 
    proper limitation on an appropriation bill and in order.

    On Feb. 18, 1938,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9544, an appropriation bill for the Departments of 
State, Justice, Commerce, and Labor. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 2175, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: On 
    page 104, after line 25, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``No part of any appropriation contained in this act 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 
    same point of order. This comes right back to the point I made 
    originally, that this provision deals with the present immigration 
    laws and is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes our 
    present act, which contains the provi

[[Page 6497]]

    sion that it is mandatory upon the officials of the Department of 
    Labor to advise an alien of his status, whether he is legally or 
    illegally in this country. This provision seems to suggest that 
    even a suggestion or an inference, even a suggestion over the 
    phone, would be a violation of the law, and the men who are on the 
    pay roll of the Government would be penalized. I respectfully 
    submit that the language offered as the amendment to the new 
    section is absolutely in the same category, and that it is not 
    germane to the present bill or to the section now under 
    consideration.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The Chair feels he is bound by precedents which have 
    been established for a long time in this House and have been ruled 
    upon by many occupants of the chair more distinguished than he.
        The fact that the failure to appropriate money to carry out the 
    purposes of an act may work an actual hardship in the enforcement 
    of that act or may even effect the practical repeal of certain 
    provisions of the act is entirely within the discretion of Congress 
    itself. Congress does not have to appropriate any money for laws 
    which have been authorized by bills reported from legislative 
    committees. As long ago as 1896 Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House, ruled as follows, and I read from 
    page 47 of Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives:

            The House in Committee of the Whole House has the right to 
        refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in 
        part, even though that object may be authorized by law. That 
        principle of limitation has been sustained so repeatedly that 
        it may be regarded as a part of the parliamentary law of the 
        Committee of the Whole.

        Therefore, the Chair is unable to agree with the contention of 
    the gentleman from New York and overrules the point of order.

Certain Proposed Regulations Not To Be Enforced

Sec. 79.7 To a proposition in an appropriation bill appropriating a 
    lump sum for salaries and other expenses of the Securities and 
    Exchange Commission, an amendment providing that no part of it 
    shall be used to promulgate or enforce certain rules or regulations 
    precisely described in the amendment was held to be a proper 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1762, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
following amendment was held to be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 1070-72, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wesley E.] Disney [of Oklahoma]: Page 
    48, line 3, insert a colon, and add the following:

[[Page 6498]]

    ``No part of this appropriation shall be used to promulgate or 
    enforce any rule or regulation known as the proposed rule or 
    regulation F-9 and F-10, and providing in substance (1) the 
    engineers' reports shall be mandatory, (2) require the disclosure 
    of the cost of purchase price, and (3) an abridgment of the right 
    to appoint an agent, all with reference to the sale of oil and gas 
    royalties and lease under the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas 
    Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission.''. . .

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I insist on 
    the point of order. . . .
        I think the amendment is so indefinite it would be impossible 
    for the Chair or anyone else to know whether this is a limitation 
    on anything or what it limits. The gentleman says the funds herein 
    are not to be used for the purpose of enforcing certain orders 
    known as so-and-so and so-and-so. Even after listening to our 
    friend, to whom we always listen with pleasure and profit, those 
    wayfarers who, like myself, are not versed in the parlance of the 
    Securities and Exchange Commission are not able to determine what 
    the amendment means. . . .
        Mr. Disney: I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    this amendment puts a limitation on the use of the funds 
    appropriated.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The appropriation under consideration involves $4,000,000 for 
    salaries and other expenses of the Securities and Exchange 
    Commission. A lump sum is thus appropriated. The practice has grown 
    up of undertaking to limit these lump-sum appropriations by 
    preventing expenditures for particular purposes. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Disney] undertakes to 
    limit this appropriation by providing that no part of this 
    appropriation shall be used to promulgate or enforce the three 
    rules and regulations mentioned in his amendment. The Chair holds 
    that the amendment constitutes a limitation and overrules the point 
    of order.

Tennessee Valley Authority Services

Sec. 79.8 To an appropriation bill, an amendment placing a limitation 
    on the amounts in the bill to be used for personal services in the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority was held to be a proper limitation and 
    in order.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(5) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. An 
amendment was offered to which a point of order was made and overruled, 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 2674, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: 
    Page 35, line 24, strike out the period and insert a comma and add 
    the following: ``and not to exceed $99,131,125 of funds available 
    under this section shall be used for personal services.''

[[Page 6499]]

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: [The provision] is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. It says ``funds available.'' There are two types of funds 
    available to the TVA--appropriated funds and its own revenues. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment refers only to 
    funds contained within this section of this bill and is merely a 
    negative limitation, which is in order. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

State and Local Administration of Grants

Sec. 79.9 To a deficiency appropriation bill, an amendment placing a 
    limitation on the amount therein which ``may be used for State and 
    local administration'' of grants for public assistance was held to 
    be a proper limitation and in order.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(7) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4249, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk read 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 1549, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henderson L.] Lanham [of Georgia]: 
    Page 5, line 7, after ``$275,000,000,'' strike out the colon and 
    insert: ``Provided, That not more than $15,728,000 of this amount 
    may be used for State and local administration [of grants for 
    public assistance].''
        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment [on the ground that] it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Lanham: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will be glad to hear the 
    gentleman briefly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lanham: Mr. Chairman, of course, this is a limitation on an 
    appropriation and it is in no sense legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the 
    language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Lanham] and is of the opinion that the language constitutes a 
    proper limitation on the appropriation contained in the paragraph; 
    therefore, the language is in order and the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

[[Page 6500]]