[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 70. Defense]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6409-6416]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 70. Defense

Prohibiting Funds for Invasion of North Vietnam

Sec. 70.1 To a bill making supplemental defense appropriations, an 
    amendment providing that none of the funds so appropriated be 
    available for implementation of any plan to invade North Vietnam 
    was held in order as a valid limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds.

    On Mar. 16, 1967,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7123. During the proceedings, a point of order against 
an amendment was overruled as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 6886, 6887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George E.] Brown of California: On 
    page 7, after line 13, insert the following:
        ``General Provision.--None of the funds appropriated in this 
    Act shall be available for the implementation of any plan to invade 
    North Vietnam with ground forces of the United States, except in 
    time of war.''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It appears to be a limitation, but it is in 
    fact legislation, and I make a point of order on that ground. . . .
        Mr. Brown of California: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee [on Appropriations] has 
    seen fit to raise a point of order in connection with my amendment 
    in view of the language which is already contained in the bill with 
    regard to limitations on expenditures with regard to airlift and in 
    view of the precedents of the House with regard to limitations of 
    this sort. . . .
        I would like to cite for the benefit of the Chairman Cannon's 
    precedents, paragraph 1657:

            On March 22, 1922, the War Department appropriation bill 
        was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on 
        the state of the Union, when this paragraph was read:
            ``No part of the appropriations made herein for pay of the 
        Army shall be used, except in time of emergency, for the 
        payment of troops garrisoned in China or for payment of more 
        than 500 officers and enlisted men on the Continent of Eu

[[Page 6410]]

        rope; nor shall such appropriations be used, except in time of 
        energency''--

        And I call your attention specifically to the phrase ``except 
    in time of emergency''--
        ``for the payment of more than 5,000 enlisted men in the Panama 
        Canal Zone or more than 5,000 enlisted men in the Hawaiian 
        Islands.''

        A point of order was made against this amendment on the same 
    grounds that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon], has just made 
    his point of order--that it constituted legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the then chairman, Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, 
    ruled, in part, as follows:

            The Chair will be very frank in saying that he is so much 
        opposed to this proposition that he has tried to find some way 
        of holding it out of order. But the Chair does not see how that 
        is possible in any way in compliance with the rules of the 
        House. . . .

        The Chairman: (8) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is aware of the precedents cited by the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Brown].
        It appears clear to the Chair that the effect of the amendment 
    would be to impose a limitation upon the funds provided in this 
    appropriation bill. It is not within the province of the Chair to 
    pass judgment upon the broad philosophical intent or purpose or, 
    indeed, upon the broad philosophical effect of such an amendment.
        The amendment, under the rules, appears clearly to follow 
    precedents. Its effect would be to restrict the application for 
    funds otherwise provided in the bill, and it appears to the Chair 
    that the amendment is in order as a limitation upon an 
    appropriation bill--and the Chair so rules. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Age of Draftees

Sec. 70.2 A proposed amendment to an appropriation bill providing that 
    the appropriations in the Act not be available for the pay or 
    allowance of any person over a specified age who is inducted 
    without his consent into the armed forces, and that such 
    appropriations not be available, after a certain date, for any 
    other person inducted without his consent, was held to be a proper 
    limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 13, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4146, a national military establishment appropriation 
bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 4533, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: 
    On page 76, insert after line 12, the following new section:
        ``Sec. 601. The appropriations in this act shall not be 
    available for the pay,

[[Page 6411]]

    allowances, or travel of any person inducted without his consent 
    into the armed forces under the Selective Service Act of 1948, who 
    is, on July 1, 1949, over 22 years of age. The appropriations in 
    this act shall not be available, after September 24, 1949, for the 
    pay, allowances, or travel of any other person inducted without his 
    consent into the armed forces under the Selective Service Act of 
    1948. This section shall not apply with respect to any person who, 
    after June 24, 1948, or after the date of enactment of this act, 
    shall voluntarily have extended the term of his service.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An examination of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania indicates that it is in the nature of a limitation on 
    the appropriation.
        The point of order is overruled.

Compulsory College Military Training

Sec. 70.3 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that 
    none of the funds therein appropriated shall be used toward the 
    support of any compulsory military course or training in any civil 
    school or college was held to be a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds and in order.

    On Apr. 30, 1937,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6692, a War Department appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 4070, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Citizens' Military Training

                      reserve officers' training corps

        For the procurement, maintenance, and issue, under such 
    regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of War, to 
    institutions at which one or more units of the Reserve Officers' 
    Training Corps are maintained, of such public animals, means of 
    transportation, supplies, tentage, equipment, and uniforms as he 
    may deem necessary, including cleaning and laundering of uniforms 
    and clothing at camps; and to forage, at the expense of the United 
    States, public animals so issued, and to pay commutation in lieu of 
    uniforms at a rate to be fixed annually by the Secretary. . . .
        Mr. [Fred] Biermann [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biermann: On page 62, line 7, 
        before the period, insert ``Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated in this act shall be used for or toward the 
        support of any compulsory military course or military training 
        in any civil school or college, or for

[[Page 6412]]

        the pay of any officer, enlisted man, or employee at any civil 
        school or college where a military course or military training 
        is compulsory, but nothing herein shall be construed as 
        applying to essentially military schools or colleges.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make the point of order that 
    it is legislation. . . .
        Mr. Biermann: May I call the attention of the Chairman to the 
    fact this identical amendment was ruled on a year ago?
        The Chairman: (12) If the Chair were in doubt; the 
    Chair would welcome the gentleman's contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This matter has been passed upon before.(13) the 
    amendment is clearly a limitation, and the Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Social Centers--Intoxicants

Sec. 70.4 To a paragraph making appropriations for the welfare of 
    enlisted men of the Army, an amendment providing that ``no part of 
    the funds appropriated under this head shall be available for 
    expenditure for the operation and maintenance of facilities where 
    intoxicating beverages are sold or dispensed'' was held to be a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and in 
    order.

    On Sept. 26, 1940,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10572, a supplemental national defense appropriation. 
A point of order against an amendment was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 12697, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For welfare of enlisted men, $2,572,594.
        Mr. [Ulysses S.] Guyer of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Guyer of Kansas: Page 2, line 25, 
        after the heading of ``Welfare, enlisted men'', strike out the 
        period, insert a colon and the proviso, ``Provided, That no 
        part of the funds appropriated under this head shall be 
        available for expenditure for the operation and maintenance of 
        facilities where intoxicating beverages are sold or 
        dispensed.''

        Mr. [Thomas C.] Hennings [Jr., of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order that the amendment is not in order.
        Mr. Guyer of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, it is a limitation upon an 
    appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The Chair feels that as the bill under consideration is a general 
    appropriation bill, appropriating among other things funds for the 
    personnel of the Army, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Kansas (Mr. Guyer) is a proper limitation upon the use of the money 
    and therefore in

[[Page 6413]]

    order. The Chair overrules the gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph A. Gavagan (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Force Academy Construction

Sec. 70.5 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no part 
    of the funds therein shall be used for construction of the Air 
    Force Academy chapel was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Aug. 6, 1957,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9131, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 13788, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: On 
    page 6, line 14, strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the 
    following: ``Provided, That no part hereof shall be applied to the 
    construction of the Air Force Academy chapel.''
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (17) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
    Scrivner] is not in order since it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Scrivner: Mr. Chairman, this is a limitation on the 
    expenditure of funds, therefore the amendment I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Thompson] makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. The proviso 
    offered by the gentleman from Kansas is a limitation upon the 
    purpose for which the funds appropriated may be used therefore is 
    not legislation. The point of order is overruled.

Monitoring Workers' Efficiency

Sec. 70.6 Language in the military establishment appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of the appropriation made in the act would 
    be available for the salary of any officer having charge of any 
    employee while making (with a stop watch or other measuring device) 
    a time study of any job or the movements of any employee was held 
    to be a proper limitation on an appropriation bill and in order.

    On June 21, 1946,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the military establishment appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6837), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 7354, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ellsworth B.] Buck [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point

[[Page 6414]]

    of order against section 2 on page 5, which is plainly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Section 2 provided: ``No part of the appropriations made in this 
        Act shall be available for the salary or pay of any officer, 
        manager, superintendent, foreman, or other person having charge 
        of the work of any employee of the United States Government 
        while making or causing to be made with a stop watch, or other 
        time-measuring device, a time study of any job of any such 
        employee between the starting and completion thereof, or of the 
        movements of any such employee while engaged upon such work; 
        nor shall any part of the appropriations made in this Act be 
        available to pay any premiums or bonus or cash reward to any 
        employee in addition to his regular wages, except as may be 
        otherwise authorized in this Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Buck: Mr. Chairman, the whole point of the section is to 
    discourage a supervisory employee from putting into effect 
    efficient operation. Further, it is entirely contradictory to the 
    provision in section 16, on pages 64 and 65, whereby efficiency is 
    to be increased. The two just do not go together.
        The Chairman: On March 28, 1924, the Army appropriation bill 
    was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union when the Clerk read a paragraph similar to this, 
    which was held to be a limitation rather than legislation. 
    Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Lighter-than-air Craft Prohibited

Sec. 70.7 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that ``no 
    appropriation contained in this act shall be expended upon lighter-
    than-air craft'' was held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 30, 1937,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6692, a War Department appropriation bill. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 4060-68, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Air Corps

                              air corps, army

        For creating, maintaining, and operating at established flying 
    schools and balloon schools courses of instruction for officers, 
    students, and enlisted men, including cost of equipment and 
    supplies . . . Provided further, That no available appropriation 
    shall be used upon lighter-than-air craft, other than balloons, not 
    in condition for safe operation on June 30, 1937, or that may 
    become in such condition prior to July 1, 1938. . . .
        Mr. [Dow W.] Harter [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language on page 37, beginning in line 22, all 
    of lines 23 and 24, and that part of line 1 on page 38 ending with 
    the semicolon after the figures ``1938.''
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the

[[Page 6415]]

    point of order. We will offer an amendment later on.
        The Chairman: (2) The point of order is sustained. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer a committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment offered by Mr. Snyder of Pennsylvania: 
        On page 37, after line 21, insert the following: ``Provided 
        further, That no appropriation contained in this act shall be 
        expended upon lighter-than-air craft, other than balloons, not 
        in condition for safe operation on July 1, 1937, or that may 
        become in such condition prior to July 1, 1938.''

        Mr. Harter: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. That is purely 
    legislation and not proper on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment as drawn is different from the proviso that was 
    contained in the bill as reported by the committee. The proviso 
    contained in the bill as reported by the committee related to all 
    existing appropriations. It was not confined to the present bill. 
    The amendment offered by the committee confines itself to the 
    present bill, and, in the opinion of the Chair, is clearly a 
    limitation. For this reason the point of order is overruled.

Work in Navy Shipyards

Sec. 70.8 An amendment to a Defense Department appropriation bill 
    providing that not more than a certain amount of funds therein for 
    alteration, overhaul, and repair of naval vessels shall be 
    available for such work in Navy shipyards was held in order as a 
    limitation on the use of funds in the bill.

    On Sept. 14, 1972,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16593), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 30749, 30750, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis of Wisconsin: Page 
    51, line 21, insert a new section 743 as follows:
        ``Of the funds made available by this Act for the alteration, 
    overhaul, and repair of naval vessels, not more than $646,704,000 
    shall be available for the performance of such works in Navy 
    shipyards.''. . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: I make the point of 
    order that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    in the form in which it is presently worded does not constitute a 
    limitation, but is rather legislation upon an appropriations bill 
    contrary to the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Davis of Wisconsin: I do, Mr. Chairman. I submit to the 
    Chair that this is definitely a limitation on the amount of money 
    which may be spent for a specific purpose. I would suggest

[[Page 6416]]

    to the Chair that it is clearly within the rules of the House as a 
    limitation on an appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendment and feels 
    that it is a valid limitation on the funds made available in the 
    bill and overrules the point of order.