[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5187-5223]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills


[[Page 5187]]




A. Introductory Matters

    Sec. 1. Generally; Scope
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and legal editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript 
editing by Joan Deschler Eddy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 2. Points of Order; Timeliness
    Sec. 3. Waiver of Points of Order; Perfecting Text Permitted to 
            Remain
    Sec. 4. The Holman Rule
    Sec. 5. Provisions Not Within the Holman Rule
    Sec. 6. Amendments Between the Houses

B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes

    Sec. 7. In General
    Sec. 8. Works in Progress
    Sec. 9. Burden of Proof of Authorization
   Sec. 10. Evidence of Authorization
   Sec. 11. Subject Matter: Agriculture
   Sec. 12. Commerce
   Sec. 13. Defense and Veterans
   Sec. 14. District of Columbia
   Sec. 15. Environment and Interior
   Sec. 16. Federal Employment
   Sec. 17. Foreign Relations
   Sec. 18. Justice
   Sec. 19. Public Works

[[Page 5188]]

   Sec. 20. Other Purposes
   Sec. 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization

C. Provisions as ``Changing Existing Law,'' Generally

   Sec. 22. In General; Burden of Proof
   Sec. 23. Incorporating or Restating Existing Law
   Sec. 24. Construing Existing Law; Repealing Existing Law
   Sec. 25. Construction or Definition of Terms of Bill or Law
   Sec. 26. Authorizing Statute as Permitting Certain Language in 
            Appropriation Bill
   Sec. 27. Provisions Affecting or Affected by Funds in Other Acts
   Sec. 28. Provisions Affecting Funds Held in Trust
   Sec. 29. Transfer of Funds Within Same Bill
   Sec. 30. Transfer of Funds Not Limited to Same Bill
   Sec. 31. Transfers or Disposition of Property
   Sec. 32. Appropriations Prior to or Beyond Fiscal Year
   Sec. 33. Increasing Limits of Authorization Set in Law
   Sec. 34. Exceptions From Existing Law
   Sec. 35. Change in Source of Appropriated Funds or in Methods of 
            Financing
   Sec. 36. Changing Prescribed Methods of Allocation or Distribution 
            of Funds; Mandating Expenditures
   Sec. 37. Grant or Restriction of Contract Authority
   Sec. 38. Reimbursements
   Sec. 39. Subject Matter: Agriculture
   Sec. 40. Commerce
   Sec. 41. Defense and Foreign Relations
   Sec. 42. District of Columbia
   Sec. 43. Federal Employment
   Sec. 44. Congressional Salaries and Allowances
   Sec. 45. Housing and Public Works
   Sec. 46. Other Subjects

[[Page 5189]]

D. Provisions as Changing Existing Law: Appropriations Subject to 
Conditions

   Sec. 47. Conditions Contrary to or Not Required by Law
   Sec. 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending
   Sec. 49. Spending Conditioned on Congressional Approval
   Sec. 50. Conditions Imposing Additional Duties

E. Provisions as Changing Existing Law; Provisions Affecting Executive 
Authority; Imposition of New Duties on Officials

   Sec. 51. Restrictions on or Enlargement of Discretion
   Sec. 52. Provisions as Imposing New Duties
   Sec. 53. --Duties Imposed on Nonfederal Officials or Parties
   Sec. 54. Judging Qualifications of Recipients
   Sec. 55. President's Authority
   Sec. 56. Determination of National Interest
   Sec. 57. Subject Matter: Agriculture
   Sec. 58. Commerce
   Sec. 59. Defense and Foreign Relations
   Sec. 60. District of Columbia
   Sec. 61. Education, Health, and Labor
   Sec. 62. Interior
   Sec. 63. Other Agencies and Departments

 F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds

   Sec. 64. Generally
   Sec. 65. Imposing ``Incidental'' Duties
   Sec. 66. Exceptions From Limitations
   Sec. 67. Subject Matter: Agriculture
   Sec. 68. Civil Liberties
   Sec. 69. Commerce and Public Works
   Sec. 70. Defense
   Sec. 71. --Military Contracts
   Sec. 72. District of Columbia

[[Page 5190]]

   Sec. 73. Education and Community Service; Health; Labor

   Sec. 74. Federal Employment
   Sec. 75. Foreign Relations
   Sec. 76. Interior
   Sec. 77. Treasury and Post Office
   Sec. 78. Veterans' Administration
   Sec. 79. Other Uses

G. Limitation on Total Amount Appropriated by Bill

   Sec. 80. Generally

  

INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS



Abortions, funds for (see also, for example, Duties not required under 
    existing law, provisions as imposing, on officials)
    definition of terms in limitation, Sec. 25.14
    determinations to be made by official as condition to availability, 
        Sec. Sec. 25.14, 53.4, 53.5
    duties not required under existing law, provisions imposing, on 
        officials, Sec. Sec. 25.14, 52.30, 52.33, 53.4, 53.5
    intent, findings of, provision requiring, Sec. 25.14
    limitation prohibiting funds for abortion services, Sec. 73.8
    limitation prohibiting funds for insurance coverage, Sec. 74.5
Aggregate expenditures, availability of particular funds made dependent 
    upon, Sec. Sec. 48.9, 48.11
Agriculture, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials 
    (see also, for example, Agriculture, provisions relating to, as 
    changing existing law)
    allocation of state agricultural funds, grant of authority 
        respecting, rather than negative restriction, Sec. 57.2
    cotton allotment acres, requiring new conditions for eligibility 
        for, Sec. 57.15
    discretion given to Secretary to transfer property, Sec. 57.13
    disease eradication, requiring Secretary to cooperate with state 
        authorities in, Sec. 57.14
    experiments, agricultural, conditions affecting funds for, 
        Sec. 57.9
    feed grain producers, payments to, limited to percentage of 
        diverted acreage, Sec. 57.5
    foreign countries, agricultural stations in, conditions affecting 
        funds for, Sec. 57.9
    grant of authority instead of negative restriction, Sec. 57.2

[[Page 5191]]

    import quotas related to price support programs, Sec. 57.4
    performance bonds by contractors, authority to require, Sec. 57.11
    poultry inspection, provisions authorizing and directing, Sec. 57.7
    price support loans, minimum interest rates for, Sec. 57.16
    price support program, Sec. Sec. 57.3, 57.4
    Secretary of Agriculture, directive to, respecting administration 
        of programs, Sec. Sec. 57.10, 57.12
    soil conservation payments, sharecroppers to participate in, 
        Sec. 57.8
     state agricultural funds, grant of authority instead of negative 
        restriction relating to, Sec. 57.2
    state authorities, Secretary required to cooperate with, Sec. 57.14
    state committee, approval of, allocation of funds for conservation 
        subject to, Sec. 57.2
    state laws, requiring Secretary to comply with, Sec. 57.12
    stations in foreign countries, agricultural, conditions attached to 
        funds for, Sec. 57.9
    storage charges to be determined by competitive bidding, Sec. 57.6
    surplus agricultural land, prohibiting disposal of, Sec. 57.17
    Vietnam, North, restrictions relating to countries trading 
        commodities with, Sec. 57.1
Agriculture, provisions relating to, as changing existing law (see also 
    Agriculture, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of 
    officials)
    bank audits, Sec. 39.9
    continuing authority relating to loans, grants, and rural 
        rehabilitation, Sec. 39.7
    continuing loan authority, Sec. 39.6
    definition of terms, Sec. 39.10
    income level as determining eligibility for payments, Sec. 39.3
    loan authority of Reconstruction Finance Corporation extended, 
        Sec. 39.6
    price, minimum, on agricultural purchases, Sec. 39.4
    Reconstruction Finance Corporation, loan authority of, provision 
        extending, Sec. 39.6
    Rural Electrification Administration, restriction on use of loans 
        under, Sec. 39.5
    sharecropper participation in conservation, Sec. 39.1
    soil conservation payments, Sec. 39.2
    soil conservation service, capping allotments for, Sec. 39.11
    timber sales, use of money from, Sec. 39.8
Agriculture, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific 
    topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations 
    for
Allocation or distribution of funds, changing prescribed methods of
    generally, Sec. Sec. 36.1, 36.2
    allotment in authorization, changing, by line-item appropriations, 
        Sec. 36.7
    apportionment of funds, requiring a certain, Sec. Sec. 36.3, 61.7
    Commodity Credit Corporation, directing minimum spending of, 
        Sec. 36.19
    education, provisions as changing prescribed formula for allotment 
        of funds for, Sec. Sec. 36.8-36.12, 36.14, 36.21, 36.22, 61.7

[[Page 5192]]

    employment in public service jobs, provision affecting formula for 
        allocating funds for, Sec. 36.16
    exemption from mandatory funding levels, Sec. 36.5
    formula for allotment of aid to education, provisions changing, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.8-36.12, 36.14, 36.21, 36.22, 61.7
    higher education, funds for program of, not authorized unless other 
        programs funded first, Sec. 36.14
    ``hold-harmless'' provision mandating expenditure level, Sec. 36.22
    line-item appropriations as changing allotment in authorization, 
        Sec. 36.7
    mandating expenditures for Indian education, Sec. 36.21
    mandating obligation of funds for unauthorized program of economic 
        development, Sec. 36.15
    mandating spending levels, Sec. 36.2
    mandating use of funds for new purpose, Sec. 36.23
    priorities in allocating funds, requiring, Sec. 36.6
    reapportionment of unused funds, permitting, Sec. 36.4
    rural electrification grants, amendment providing for, offered to 
        bill providing for loans, Sec. 36.13
    unused funds, permitting reapportionment of, Sec. 36.4
    veterans' preference in job training, Sec. 36.17
Atomic Energy Commission, bill appropriating funds for, multiple 
    grounds for objection to title of, Sec. 22.21
Authorization, evidence of
    annual authorization, requirement of, as superseding organic law, 
        Sec. 10.11
    appropriation act, prior, language of permanence in, Sec. 11.1
    appropriation bills, legislative language previously included in, 
        as not authorizing inclusion in present bill, Sec. 1.7
    appropriation bills, prior, item carried in, Sec. 10.6
    executive assurance that authorization formula was followed, 
        Sec. 10.7
    executive order, Sec. Sec. 7.6, 7.9, 10.10
    formula, assurance as to implementation of, Sec. 10.7
    generic law, citation of, Sec. 10.8
    letter from Army Chief of Staff, Sec. 10.3
    letter from executive officer, Sec. 10.2
    official information digest, Sec. 10.4
    organic law, authorization in, Sec. Sec. 11.10, 11.11
    press reports relating to project, Sec. 10.4
    prior appropriation act, language of permanence in, Sec. 11.1
    public knowledge, Sec. 10.5
    reorganization plan as authorization, Sec. Sec. 7.9, 10.9
    statute, citation of, Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.8
Authorization, increasing amount beyond
    generally, Sec. 21.1
    committee funds above authorized level, Sec. Sec. 21.4, 21.5
    lump sum increased beyond authorization, Sec. Sec. 21.2, 21.3
Authorizing statute as permitting certain language in appropriation 
    bill
    congressional approval, subsequent, appropriation made contingent 
        upon, Sec. 49.4
    consultant salaries, Sec. 26.4
    cultural relations program, Sec. 26.3
    discretion as to travel expenses of Bituminous Coal Commission, 
        Sec. 52.28

[[Page 5193]]

    discretion, conferral of, as contemplated by existing law, 
        Sec. 26.1
    executive authority, restrictions on, Sec. 26.5
    newspaper advertisements, restrictions on, Sec. 26.2
    per diem permitted by law, setting limit on, Sec. 26.4
    procurement law, waiver of provision of, Sec. 26.7
    restrictions on use of appropriation, Sec. 26.5
    testimony of Congressmen, Sec. 26.6
    waiver of law, Sec. Sec. 26.2, 26.3, 26.6, 26.7
    waiver of law explicit, Sec. 26.2
Bill considered as read, points of order when, Sec. 2.13
Bill opened for amendment at any point, points of order when, 
    Sec. 2.14-2.16
Budget adjustments by corporations and agencies, provision prescribing 
    procedure for, Sec. 46.1
Burden of proof of authorization
    citations of law presented in argument, Chair relies on, Sec. 9.6
    committee, burden on, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.5
    managers of bill, burden on, Sec. 9.4
    President's emergency fund, Sec. 9.3
    proponent of amendment, burden on, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
    reversal of ruling on showing authority cited in argument had been 
        superseded, Sec. 9.6
Burden of proof on issue whether language changes existing law
    apportionment of funds, restrictions attached to, rather than 
        amount, purpose, or object of funds, Sec. 22.26
    committee, burden on, to defend provisions of bill, 
        Sec. Sec. 22.27, 22.30
    duties imposed on executive to make new determinations, points of 
        order based on, Sec. Sec. 22.25, 23.19
    existing laws and regulations, executive determinations expressly 
        required to be made pursuant to, Sec. 23.19
    proponent of amendment, burden on, Sec. Sec. 22.25, 22.29, 23.19
    timing of expenditures, provision affecting discretion as to, 
        Sec. Sec. 51.23, 64.23
Busing, school (see also Limitations allowed: civil liberties, 
    provisions relating to)
    defining scope of prohibition on funds, provision as, Sec. 25.6
    duties of officials, provision denying funds for busing as 
        affecting, Sec. Sec. 51.10, 61.1-61.3
    exception from limitation, Sec. 61.3
    limitations, provisions relating to busing allowed as, 
        Sec. Sec. 64.26, 68.8, 68.9, 73.7
    prohibition on use of funds, amendments to, limiting application of 
        provision, Sec. 25.6
Ceiling on expenditures, raising, Sec. 3.27
Change in source of appropriated funds or in methods of financing
    borrowing authority in lieu of appropriation, Sec. 35.4
    Commodity Credit Corporation indebtedness, discharge of, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.7-35.9
    Commodity Credit Corporation indebtedness, interest on, forgiven, 
        Sec. 35.8
    direct authorization and appropriation in lieu of Treasury 
        financing, Sec. 35.5
    Housing and Home Finance Administrator, terminating authority of, 
        to issue notes and obligations, Sec. 35.6

[[Page 5194]]

    public debt transaction financing mechanism, provision 
        establishing, Sec. 35.11
    reclamation fund or general fund, Sec. Sec. 35.1, 35.2
    Secretary of Treasury authorized to adjust levels of 
        appropriations, Sec. 35.12
    securities sales, proceeds of, as public debt transaction, 
        Sec. 35.11
    Tennessee Valley Authority, repayment of interest to Treasury by, 
        Sec. 35.10
    Tennessee Valley Authority, resource development activities funded 
        partly by proceeds of operations of, Sec. 46.12
    timber sale receipts or general fund, Sec. 35.3
Changing existing law, provisions as, see specific topics; see also 
    Unauthorized purposes, application of rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Civil Aeronautics Authority required ``hereafter'' to solicit sealed 
    bids, Sec. 46.3
Civil liberties, see, for example, Limitations allowed: civil 
    liberties, provisions relating to; and Busing
Commerce, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials (see 
    also, for example, Commerce, provisions relating to, as changing 
    existing law)
    advertising of certain products, use of funds to limit, prohibited, 
        Sec. 58.7
    business data, restriction on discretion to collect, Sec. 58.6
    Coast Guard, report by, on closing of rescue units, Sec. 58.4
    employment, authority to terminate, Sec. 58.2
    export embargoes, requiring determinations respecting imposition 
        of, Sec. 58.5
    Federal Communications Commission required to make determinations 
        regarding products being advertised, Sec. 58.7
    Federal Trade Commission, restriction on discretion of, to collect 
        line-of-business data, Sec. 58.6
    line-of-business data, restriction on discretion to collect, 
        Sec. 58.6
    regulations to be prescribed by Secretary, Sec. 58.3
    scientific reports, sales of, Sec. 58.1
    Secretary, regulations to be prescribed by, Sec. 58.3
Commerce, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    authority of Secretary of Commerce, delegation of, Sec. Sec. 40.1, 
        40.2
    business, census relating to, Sec. 40.5
    Classification Act, waiver of, Sec. 40.5
    consumer income, compilation of statistics relating to, Sec. 40.7
    entertainment expenses, Sec. 40.3
    foreign trade statistics, compilation of, Sec. 40.4
    manufactures, census relating to, Sec. 40.6
Commerce, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific topics 
    under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations for
Condition, subsequent congressional approval as, see Congressional 
    approval, subsequent, as condition to availability of funds
Condition subsequent, amendment providing for, in that funds terminate 
    upon subsequent passage of specified legislation, Sec. Sec. 64.10, 
    67.2

[[Page 5195]]

Condition subsequent, finding of unconstitutionality of authorizing 
    statute as, Sec. 76.6
Conditions contrary to or not required by law, appropriations made 
    subject to
    audit, funds made subject to, Sec. 47.8
    authorization, contingent upon enactment of, Sec. Sec. 47.3-47.5
    enactment of authorization, funds contingent upon, Sec. Sec. 47.3-
        47.5
    federal official, action by, Sec. 47.1
    Presidential appointment to be made, Sec. 47.7
    prior law, funds to be used only for enforcement of, 
        Sec. Sec. 47.9, 47.10
    recipient, condition on disbursement to, Sec. 47.2
    regulations or law previously in effect, funds to be used only for 
        enforcement of, Sec. Sec. 47.9, 47.10
    standards, imposition of, Sec. 47.6
    subsequent enactment of authorization, funds contingent upon, 
        Sec. Sec. 47.3-47.5
    ``unless'' or ``until'' occurrence of contingency, funds made 
        unavailable, Sec. 47.1
Conditions imposing additional duties on officials, appropriations made 
    subject to (see also Duties not required under existing law, 
    provisions imposing, on officials)
    attached to otherwise valid limitation, Sec. 50.1
    authorization, determination by Secretary as to, Sec. 50.3
    determination by Secretary as to authorization, Sec. 50.3
    determination of state compliance with conditions, Sec. 50.2
    directives to President, Sec. Sec. 50.4, 50.5
    directive to Administrator of Federal Aviation Agency, Sec. 50.6
    drug control, conditions attached to funds for, Sec. 59.21
    Federal Aviation Agency, directive to Administrator of, Sec. 50.6
    health and safety information, submission of, required as condition 
        of receiving funds, Sec. 50.8
    limitation, attached to purported, Sec. 50.1
    President, directives to, Sec. Sec. 50.4, 50.5
    recipients, nonfederal, actions to be performed by, Sec. 53.1
    recommendations by agencies, expenditures to be pursuant to, 
        Sec. 50.7
    state compliance with conditions, determination of, Sec. 50.2
Conditions precedent to spending
    generally, Sec. 48.1
    aggregate expenditures, funds dependent on, Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    approval, prior, by officials, Sec. Sec. 48.3, 48.4
    audit by Comptroller General, Sec. 48.2
    available, funds made, only to extent aggregate expenditures do not 
        exceed specified levels, Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    balanced budget, pending, Sec. 48.11
    budget, conditions related to status of, Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    Bureau of Budget, prior approval by, Sec. 48.3
    ceiling imposed on spending as dependent on status of budget, 
        Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    Congress, prior submission of proposal to, Sec. 48.3
    contractual arrangements, new, provisions requiring, Sec. 48.1

[[Page 5196]]

    cost sharing for cooperative range improvements, Sec. 48.6
    cost sharing for road construction, Sec. 48.7
    cost sharing, state and local, for investigations, Sec. 48.5
    delaying obligation until other funds have been spent, Sec. 48.8
    other acts, funds in, conditions as affecting, Sec. 48.9
    other expenditure, pending, Sec. 48.8
    President's budget, ceiling by reference to, Sec. 48.10
    Public Housing Commissioner, prior approval by, Sec. 48.4
Conference, Sec. Sec. 6.3, 6.4, 6.6
Congress, provisions imposing criminal penalties on Members of, for 
    improper expense vouchers, Sec. 46.18
Congressional approval, subsequent, as condition to availability of 
    funds
    airport development, approval of Congress for, Sec. Sec. 49.3, 49.4
    committees, congressional, approval by, Sec. Sec. 22.1, 49.5-49.9
    concurrent resolution, approval by, Sec. 49.2
    debt, subsequent congressional finding of impact on, Sec. 49.1
    findings, subsequent, by Congress, Sec. Sec. 49.1, 49.10
    joint resolution, adoption of, in prescribed form, Sec. 49.10
    schools for military dependents, subsequent congressional action 
        relating to, Sec. 49.11
Congressional salaries and allowances, provisions relating to, as 
    changing existing law
    generally, Sec. 44.1, 44.2
    allowances, requiring new committee regulations with respect to, 
        Sec. 44.10
    clerk hire, Sec. 44.3
    committee staff, procedure for employment of, Sec. 44.9
    increasing staff salaries, Sec. Sec. 44.4, 44.5
    office allowances, Sec. 44.7
    position titles changed, Sec. 44.6
    staff salaries, Sec. Sec. 44.4, 44.5
    travel expenses, tax treatment of, Sec. 44.8
Constitutionality of authorizing law, subsequent finding as to, 
    provision stating condition in terms of, Sec. 76.6
Construction or definition of terms of bill or law, see Definition or 
    construction of terms of bill or law
Construing existing law (see also Definition or construction of terms 
    of bill or law)
    generally, Sec. 24.1
    conformity with existing law, use of funds determined to be in, 
        Sec. 22.12
    housing units, limit on number of, Sec. 24.2
Continuing appropriations, generally, Sec. 1.2
Contract authority, grant or restriction of
    generally, Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2
    advertising, authority to contract without, Sec. 37.13
    claims, granting authority to, compromise on, Sec. 37.11
    construction, authority to incur obligations and complete, 
        Sec. 37.9
    Environmental Protection Agency, Sec. 37.14
    existing authority, provision as descriptive of, Sec. 37.10

[[Page 5197]]

    fiscal year, contract authority beyond, Sec. 37.6
    future appropriations, authority to obligate, Sec. 37.6
    health contracts for employees, authority to negotiate, Sec. 37.11
    Inter-American Affairs, Institute for, Sec. 37.12
    limitation on funds to pay contract approved pursuant to law, 
        Sec. 37.10
    obligational authority, grant of contract and, Sec. Sec. 37.3, 37.4
    preceding appropriation, contract authority as, Sec. 37.5
    restatement of existing authority, provision as, Sec. 37.10
    restriction on contract authority contained in bill, Sec. 37.7
    Secretary of the Interior, contracts entered into by, to acquire 
        land before appropriation therefor, Sec. 37.8
    Tennessee Valley Authority, provisions affecting, Sec. 37.3
Contract authorization, change in, Sec. 22.14
Dam, provision relating to name of, Sec. 46.2
Dates in authorization law, amending, Sec. 22.3
Defense, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials (see 
    also Defense, provisions relating to, as changing existing law)
    confidential military operations, reports on, Sec. 59.8
    contracts for ship construction or repair, conditions attached to 
        funds for, Sec. 59.6
    contracts, funds for, barred unless Secretary makes findings as to 
        pension programs, Sec. 59.5
    contracts, funds prohibited to pay amounts due on, where policy 
        prevents award to low bidder, Sec. 59.3
    contracts, renegotiation agreements required as condition to 
        payments on, Sec. 59.4
    contracts with companies having retired officers on payroll barred, 
        Sec. 59.2
    exception from limitation as requiring new duty, Sec. 59.11
    foreign goods, standard of quality required for purchase of, to be 
        same as that required by Defense Department for domestic goods, 
        Sec. 59.1
    medical reimbursements not to exceed percentage of customary 
        charges, Sec. 59.20
    naval vessel construction or repair to be done in private shipyards 
        except where otherwise directed, Sec. 59.6
    operations, confidential, reports on, Sec. 59.8
    production for military purposes, authority of Secretary to 
        expedite, Sec. 59.7
    retired officers, employment of, by contractors, Sec. 59.2
    small business, reports on, Sec. 59.10
    transfer funds, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs authorized to, 
        Sec. 59.12
Defense, provisions relating to, as changing existing law (see also 
    Defense, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials)
    army, strength of, established at ``not less than'' specified 
        number, Sec. 41.3
    Cambodia and Laos, military activities in, Sec. 41.1
    foreign aid funds, mandating domestic use of, Sec. 41.8
    general counsel in Defense Department, Sec. 41.2

[[Page 5198]]

    Panama Canal, sense of Congress with respect to policy affecting, 
        Sec. 41.10
    sense of Congress on foreign policy issue, Sec. Sec. 41.4, 41.10
    subversives, employment of, Sec. 41.7
Defense, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific topics 
    under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations for
Definition or construction of terms of bill or law
    abortion limitation, definition of terms in, Sec. 25.14
    army publications, Sec. 25.3
    authority, grant of, based on determination of national defense 
        needs, Sec. 25.9
    bill, interpretation of, directions as to, Sec. 25.15
    budget, President's, definition of terms in limitation by reference 
        to, Sec. 25.11
    Bureau of Reclamation, Sec. 25.2
    busing limitation, language defining scope of, Sec. 25.6
    defense needs, determination of, Sec. 25.9
    descriptive term, Sec. 25.1
    education, Sec. 25.6
    exception from valid limitation, Sec. 25.3
    exception to limitation, construing language in, Sec. 25.10
    exceptions to limitations, Sec. Sec. 25.5, 25.10
    expense defined as nonadministrative, Sec. 25.4
    ``person,'' definition of, in agriculture appropriation bill, 
        Sec. 25.7
    ``person'' in agriculture appropriation bill, Sec. 25.7
    price support program, Sec. 25.12
    Public Buildings Administration, Sec. 25.8
    purpose, limitation containing statement of, Sec. 25.13
    waiving limitations contained elsewhere in same bill, provision as, 
        Sec. 25.2
Delay in expenditures, provisions imposing, Sec. Sec. 48.8-48.11, 63.10
Delegating authority to suspend existing law, Sec. 22.17
Delegation of statutory authority, Sec. 22.15
Department, different, funding through, Sec. 22.18
Discretion, executive, provisions restricting or enlarging
    generally, Sec. Sec. 51.1-51.4
    affirmative action, double negative curtailing discretion as 
        requiring, Sec. 51.19
    approve expenditure, conferring discretion to, Sec. 22.19
    civil service laws, conferral of discretion as changing, Sec. 22.17
    conditions imposed on exercise of discretion, Sec. 51.4
    conferring discretion, Sec. Sec. 22.4, 22.16, 22.17, 22.19, 26.1
    curtailed discretion, limitation of funds resulting in, 
        Sec. Sec. 51.13, 51.14
    double negative curtailing discretion as requiring affirmative 
        action, Sec. 51.19
    employment, conferral of discretion with respect to, as changing 
        civil service laws, Sec. 22.17
    employment, limitation on discretion with regard to, Sec. 51.6
    existing law, conferral of discretion as contemplated by, Sec. 26.1
    expenditure, discretion to approve, Sec. 22.19

[[Page 5199]]

    funds, restriction must be on, rather than on discretion, 
        Sec. Sec. 51.9, 51.10, 51.18
    health and safety information required to be submitted as condition 
        of receiving funds, Sec. 50.8
    hiring, limitation on discretion with regard to, Sec. 51.6
    incorporating existing law, provision restricting discretion by, 
        Sec. 23.8
    information, agency required to furnish, to subcommittees, 
        Sec. Sec. 51.20, 51.21
    interference with discretion, Sec. 51.12
    investigation, provision as mandating, Sec. 51.7
    mandating an investigation, Sec. 51.7
    mandating one of several choices, Sec. Sec. 51.2-51.4
    mortgage commitments, mandating uniformity in, Sec. 51.8
    policy, limitation on funds as changing, Sec. 51.15
    postal rates, Commission's authority to establish, Sec. 51.22
    program, limiting funds to administer, Sec. 51.17
    regulations, limiting funds to promulgate, Sec. 51.16
    requiring action that is currently discretionary, Sec. 51.11
    specific appropriation where general purpose authorized, Sec. 51.5
    statute, existing, conferral of discretion as contemplated by, 
        Sec. 26.1
    subcommittees, agency required to furnish information to, 
        Sec. Sec. 51.20, 51.21
    timing of expenditures, Sec. 51.23
    veterans' preference in employment, conferral of discretion as 
        changing laws governing, Sec. 22.17
    waive law, conferring discretion to, Sec. 22.16
District of Columbia, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of 
    officials
    Corporation Counsel, authorizing employment at rates to be set by, 
        Sec. 60.7
    emergency authority conferred on federal official, Sec. 60.3
    employment at rates to be set by Corporation Counsel, authorizing, 
        Sec. 60.7
    employment quotas, imposing, Sec. 60.6
    obligational authority, restriction on, Sec. 60.5
    teachers, limiting duties of, Sec. 60.1
    travel authorizing, Sec. 60.4
    water supply treatment in District of Columbia, Sec. 60.2
District of Columbia, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    Corporation Counsel, Office of, Sec. 42.1
    discretionary method of expenditure, Sec. 42.3
    hospital rates for treatment of indigent patients, Sec. 42.4
    mandating equal expenditure for all races, Sec. 42.2
    ``notwithstanding existing law,'' provision barring funds for 
        newspaper advertisements, Sec. 42.6
    Police Court Building, supervision of, Sec. 42.5
District of Columbia, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see 
    specific topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Duties not required under existing law, provisions as imposing, on 
    nonfederal officials or parties
    abortion, determinations required prior to, Sec. Sec. 53.4, 53.5

[[Page 5200]]

    farmers to use funds in prescribed way, Sec. 53.2
    Governor, approval by, for construction within state, Sec. 53.3
    recipient of funds, nonfederal, affirmative directive to, Sec. 53.1
    state official required to make determinations, Sec. 53.6
Duties not required under existing law, provisions as imposing, on 
    officials (see also Conditions imposing additional duties on 
    officials, appropriations made subject to; and see specific subject 
    areas)
    generally, Sec. 52.1
    abortions, provisions relating to, Sec. Sec. 25.14, 52.30, 52.33, 
        53.4, 53.5, 73.8, 74.5
    administration and disbursement in certain manner, requiring, 
        Sec. 52.11
    affirmative directive, limitation cannot be, Sec. 52.23
    affirmative directive to recipient of funds, Sec. 52.21
    agencies funded, other, relationship of limitation to, Sec. 52.40
    allocation of funds, new determinations in making, Sec. Sec. 52.18, 
        52.19
    annual appropriation acts, duties already being performed pursuant 
        to provisions in, Sec. 52.44
    annual report, requiring, Sec. Sec. 52.9, 52.10
    approval of expenditure rates, Sec. 52.27
    audit, expenditure of funds contingent on, Sec. 63.4
    benefit, full, determination of, Sec. 52.16
    Budget Director to approve use of funds, Sec. Sec. 63.1, 63.2
    ``buy American'' policy where there is domestic production of 
        goods, Sec. Sec. 52.42, 63.7
    ``buy American'' requirements as imposing duties on Administrator 
        of General Services Administration, Sec. 63.7
    certification of satisfaction, requiring, as condition precedent to 
        disbursement, Sec. 52.2
    change of official authorized to make expenditure, Sec. 52.26
    Comptroller General, funds to be audited by, Sec. 63.4
    condition precedent to availability of funds as imposing new 
        duties, see conditions imposing additional duties on officials, 
        appropriations made subject to
    contracting practices, mandating, Sec. 52.15
    delay imposed on expenditure, Sec. 63.10
    determination as to compliance with federal law, Sec. 52.34
    determination as to ``full benefit,'' Sec. 52.16
    determination as to motive or intent, Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.37, 61.13
    determination as to national security needs, Sec. 52.29
    determination as to reductions to be made ``without impairing 
        national defense,'' Sec. 52.6
    determination by Director of Budget that transfers of funds do not 
        result in deficiencies, Sec. 52.12
    determination of interest costs, requiring, Sec. 52.31

[[Page 5201]]

    determinations, new, in making allocation of funds, 
        Sec. Sec. 52.18, 52.19
    determination, substantive, not required by law, Sec. 52.38
    determination that life or health of mother endangered if fetus 
        carried to term, Sec. Sec. 52.30, 52.33
    determination that recipient ``participates,'' ``cooperates,'' or 
        ``supports,'' Sec. 52.17
    domestic production, ``buy American'' policy in aid of, Sec. 52.42
    ``effectiveness'' and ``propriety,'' evaluation of, Sec. 52.32
    evaluation and interpretation, Sec. Sec. 52.32, 52.39
    exception from limitation as requiring new duty, Sec. Sec. 59.11, 
        66.5
    existing law, funds conditioned upon duties already required by, 
        Sec. Sec. 52.35, 52.36
    existing law, requiring new determination ``in accordance with,'' 
        Sec. 23.19
    expenditure rates, approval of, Sec. 52.27
    Export-Import Bank, limitation on use of funds by, Sec. 63.6
    food stamps, eligibility for, where wage earner is on strike, 
        Sec. 52.45
    hearing, requiring, before making determination, Sec. 52.3
    highway programs, restrictions on funds for, imposing duties on 
        Director of Bureau of Public Roads, Sec. 63.3
    housing funds, availability of, contingent on new analysis of need, 
        Sec. 63.8
    indirectly, duties as resulting, from operation of other laws, 
        Sec. 52.7
    information, receiving, Sec. 52.5
    intent or motive, determination as to, Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.37
    investigation, requiring, Sec. 52.20
    laws, other, duties indirectly resulting from operation of, 
        Sec. 52.7
    limitation as negative, not affirmative direction, Sec. 52.23
    loan applications, requiring screening of, Sec. 52.24
    mail, seizure of, denial of funds for, Sec. 63.13
    motive, duty of determining, Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.37
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, funds for, not to be 
        used for U.S.-Soviet joint venture, Sec. 63.9
    necessary, action taken to the extent the Secretary finds to be, 
        Sec. 52.14
    Patent Office, materials to be sold by, at prices determined by 
        Commissioner, Sec. 63.12
    performance, satisfactory, requirement of, Sec. 52.25
    Post Office, funds for, not to be used for seizure of mail, 
        Sec. 63.13
    Post Office salaries, funds for, denied as to officers undertaking 
        certain actions, Sec. 63.16
    President, duties imposed on, see President, duties imposed on, 
        that are not required by existing law ``propriety'' and 
        ``effectiveness,'' evaluation of, Sec. 52.32
    rates of expenditure, approval of, Sec. 52.27

[[Page 5202]]

    recipient of funds, affirmative directive to, Sec. 52.21
    recipient of information, provision requiring official to be, 
        Sec. 52.5
    recipients, duty to monitor actions of, Sec. 52.21
    regulations, implicitly requiring agency to reevaluate, Sec. 52.43
    regulations, requirement for promulgation of, Sec. 52.13
    research and development, funds for, under certain types of 
        contracts denied, Sec. 63.11
    rulemaking authority, prohibiting funds to interfere with, 
        Sec. 52.43
    satisfactory performance, requirement of, as condition precedent, 
        Sec. 52.25
    small firms, limiting funds to administer or enforce law with 
        respect to, Sec. 52.41
    strike, eligibility for food stamps where wage earner is on, 
        Sec. 52.45
    substitution of different official to perform duty, Sec. 52.26
    Tennessee Valley Authority, use of funds by, to be approved by 
        Budget Director, Sec. 63.1
    transfer of funds, discretionary, Sec. 52.8
    travel expenses at discretion of commission, Sec. 52.28
    Treasury Department to determine rates of exchange, Sec. 63.14
    unemployment compensation, funds provided for, only to extent 
        Secretary finds necessary, Sec. 52.14
Education, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials 
    (see also, for example, Limitations allowed: education, provisions 
    relating to)
    apportionment of funds contrary to existing law, Sec. 61.7
    busing, denial of funds for, Sec. Sec. 51.10, 61.1-61.3
    busing limitation, exception from, Sec. 61.3
    colleges not in compliance with law, denial of funds to, Sec. 63.5
    exception from busing limitation, Sec. 61.3
    financial assistance denied to students engaging in disruptive 
        behavior, Sec. Sec. 61.4, 61.5
    funds, limitation to be applied to, rather than to discretion, 
        Sec. 61.2
    impact aid, provisions relating to, Sec. Sec. 52.18, 61.7
    military training courses, information concerning, required to be 
        given, Sec. 53.1
    recipient of funds, directive to, Sec. 53.1
    teachers not to perform clerical work, Sec. 60.1
Emergencies arising after approval of budget, provisons prescribing 
    procedures for adjustments to meet, Sec. 46.1
Enactment, legal effect of legislative language after, Sec. 3.17
Environment, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific 
    topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations 
    for
Exceeding limitation in permanent law, Sec. 22.9
Exceptions from existing law
    civil service laws, exception from, Sec. Sec. 34.2-34.8
    Classification Act, waiving, Sec. Sec. 34.4-34.8

[[Page 5203]]

    Commodity Credit Corporation, forgiving interest on indebtedness 
        of, Sec. 35.8
    contracts, certain laws regulating, waived, Sec. 34.15
    contracts, competitive bidding on, waived, Sec. 34.1
    Davis-Bacon Act, waiving, Sec. 34.14
    international conferences, incidental expenses relating to, 
        Sec. 34.12
    President, personal services to, Sec. 34.9
    reindeer, purchase of, Sec. 34.13
    travel expenses, Sec. Sec. 34.10, 34.11
Exceptions from limitations, see Limitations, exceptions from
Executive authority, see, for example, Discretion, executive, 
    provisions restricting or enlarging; Duties not required under 
    existing law, provisions as imposing, on officials
Extending availability of funds beyond time specified in existing law, 
    Sec. 22.2
FBI files and information, new authorization for use of, Sec. 46.4
Federal employment, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    aliens, denial of status to, not a Holman retrenchment, Sec. 43.22
    Attorney General, or assistant, pay of witnesses to be determined 
        by, Sec. 43.12
    civil service rating for officer, providing, Sec. 43.14
    Commissioner of Public Buildings, setting salary of, Sec. 43.18
    conditions of employment, Sec. Sec. 43.1-43.3
    Customs Division, employment in, of specialists at salaries as 
        authorized by department head, Sec. 43.10
    exempting certain persons from employment statutes, Sec. 43.15
    grade level, specifying, Sec. 43.13
    judiciary, employment by, Sec. 43.6
    lands division, employment in, of specialists at salaries as 
        authorized by department head, Sec. 43.11
    liability of federal employees, personal, defining, Sec. 43.23
    new position, providing, Sec. 43.9
    number of employees, limit on, Sec. 43.20
    reduction of personnel, Sec. 43.16
    ``right to work'' amendment, Sec. 43.5
    salaries and expenses, repealing limit on, Sec. 43.21
    salary, average, limitation on, Sec. 43.19
    salary levels, establishing, Sec. Sec. 43.7, 43.8, 43.17, 43.18
    salary, prohibition on, until security clearance certified, 
        Sec. 43.3
    security clearance, salary barred until certification of, Sec. 43.3
    specialists, employment of, at salary levels to be authorized by 
        department head, Sec. Sec. 43.10, 43.11
    strike, exclusion of persons advocating right to, Sec. 43.2
    supergrades, establishing, Sec. Sec. 43.13, 43.14
    terminate employment, granting authority to, Sec. 43.4
    witnesses, pay of, to be determined by Attorney General or 
        assistant, Sec. 43.12
Federal employment, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see 
    specific topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Financing, change in methods of, see Change in source of appropriated 
    funds or in methods of financing

[[Page 5204]]

Fiscal year, appropriations prior to or beyond
    generally, Sec. 32.1
    authorization for continued availability lacking, Sec. 32.2
    building construction funds, Sec. 32.1
    building fund, federal, obligational authority limited to current 
        fiscal year, Sec. 32.21
    Bureau of Reclamation construction funds, Sec. 32.15
    ``each fiscal year thereafter,'' available, Sec. 32.8
    expended, appropriation available until, Sec. Sec. 32.10-32.18
    fees and royalties hereafter received, Sec. 32.9
    ``final,'' characterization of appropriation as, Sec. 32.3
    immediately available, funds to be, Sec. 32.4
    Joint Economic Committee, lump-sum appropriation for, Sec. 32.20
    Mutual Security Act, Sec. 32.18
    National Academy of Sciences, Sec. 32.19
    next fiscal year, available for, Sec. 32.7
    next fiscal year, available to end of, Sec. 32.6
    permanent appropriations, Sec. Sec. 32.5, 32.8
    prior obligations, payment of, Sec. 32.16
    Telecommunciations Policy, Office of, Sec. 32.17
Foreign relations, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of 
    officials
    appointments in Foreign Service, authority given to Secretary to 
        extend, Sec. 59.13
    ``buy-America'' provisions, Sec. 59.1
    capital assistance project, funds for, prohibited until report is 
        considered, Sec. 59.9
    communist countries, restriction on aid to, Sec. 59.17
    drug control, conditions attached to funds for, Sec. 59.21
    emigration, aid to countries which restrict, curtailed, Sec. 59.18
    employment in Department of State or Foreign Service, authority to 
        Secretary to terminate, Sec. 59.14
    Foreign Service appointments, authority given to Secretary to 
        extend, Sec. 59.13
    Foreign Service employment, authority given to Secretary to 
        terminate, Sec. 59.14
    international organizations, funds for payment of interest costs 
        by, curtailed, Sec. 59.19
    international organizations, payment of assessments by, Sec. 59.16
    loyalty, certification of, as condition on payment of salaries to 
        State Department employees, Sec. 59.15
    narcotics control, conditions attached to funds for, Sec. 59.21
    products purchased from foreign countries, standards of quality 
        imposed on, Sec. 59.1
    reports on feasibility projects required, Sec. 59.9
    security clearance required for employees, Sec. 59.15
    standards of quality or performance, imposition of, Sec. 59.1
Foreign relations, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    Cuba, trade with, Sec. 41.6
    earmarking of ``reasonable amount,'' Sec. 41.9
    international organizations, contribution of, Sec. 41.5
    Panama Canal Treaty, sense of Congress concerning interpretation 
        of, Sec. 41.10

[[Page 5205]]

    sense of Congress concerning Chinese representation in U.N., 
        Sec. 41.4
    sense of Congress concerning interpretation of Panama Canal Treaty, 
        Sec. 41.10
    subversives, employment of, Sec. 41.7
Foreign relations, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see 
    specific topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Funds in other acts, provisions affecting or affected by
    generally, Sec. Sec. 27.1-27.3
    agriculture, generally, Sec. Sec. 27.4-27.8
    ``any'' appropriation, limitation on, Sec. 27.18
    any other source, funds from, Sec. 27.15
    authorization, restriction on, rather than appropriation, 
        Sec. 27.13
    bill, limitation must be applicable solely to funds in, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.5-27.8
    budget, availability of funds made dependent on status of, 
        Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    Capitol, improvement of, Sec. 27.22
    compensation, limitation on total, rather than on funds, Sec. 27.10
    conditions relating to aggregate expenditures, availability of 
        funds made subject to, Sec. Sec. 48.9-48.11
    contribution to international organization, Sec. 27.14
    corporate funds other than those appropriated, restriction on, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.2, 27.3
    Cuba, trade with, Sec. 27.13
    deferral, disapproval of, Sec. 29.30
    education grants, restricting amounts for, Sec. 27.29
    enactment, no appropriation after date of, Sec. 27.17
    ``funds provided,'' limitation on, Sec. 27.22
    future funds, restriction on, Sec. 27.4
    head funds ``under this,'' restriction on, Sec. 27.9
    ``hereafter'' appropriated, funds, Sec. 27.25
    maintenance of property, acquisition contingent upon prior 
        appropriation for, Sec. 27.28
    military pay, Sec. 27.10
    no fund in this or any other act, Sec. Sec. 27.19, 27.20
    no part of any available funds, Sec. Sec. 27.16-27.18
    permanence, words of, Sec. 27.25
    President, affirmative direction to, Sec. 27.29
    previous appropriations, Sec. 27.21
    prior limitation, change of, Sec. 27.26
    property, acquisition of, contingent upon prior appropriation for 
        maintenance, Sec. 27.27
    ratio of U.S. contribution to international organizations to total, 
        Sec. 27.14
    social security, Sec. 27.9
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Sec. Sec. 27.11, 27.12
    termination of existing revolving fund, Sec. Sec. 27.23, 27.24
    trade with Cuba, Sec. 27.13
    U.N., restriction on ``contribution to,'' Sec. 27.28
``General'' appropriation bills, rule applicable to, Sec. 1.1
Grounds, various, points of order based on, Sec. 2.20
Health, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of officials
    abortion, determinations to be made prior to, Sec. Sec. 52.30, 
        52.33, 52.44, 53.4, 53.5, 61.13

[[Page 5206]]

    Indian health services, Sec. 61.10
    motive or intent, determination of, Sec. 61.13
    prior appropriation acts, duties already being performed pursuant 
        to provisions in, Sec. 61.14
``Hereafter,'' provision applicable, Sec. Sec. 22.24, 64.21
``Hereafter,'' provision requiring policy to be followed, Sec. 46.3
Holman rule, provisions not within
    aliens, denial of status to, Sec. 5.16
    certainty of reduction must appear, Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.5
    conjectural, reduction cannot be, Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.7, 5.8
    contingent on event, reduction cannot be, Sec. 5.3
    continuing construction project, Sec. 5.8
    contract authorization, change in, Sec. 5.13
    definite, reduction not, Sec. Sec. 5.4-5.8
    germane, language of retrenchment must be, Sec. Sec. 5.9, 5.15
    limitation, Holman exception distinguished from, Sec. 5.17
    ``net'' savings, hypothetical, Sec. 5.18
    private party, costs shifted from government to, Sec. 5.11
    reappropriations not necessarily a retrenchment, Sec. 5.9
    reduction based on budget estimates, Sec. 5.6
    reimbursement to Treasury from receipts, Sec. 5.10
    speculative, reduction cannot be, Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7
    supplemental funding, Sec. 5.14
    termination of employment, Sec. 5.12
Holman rule, provisions within
    generally, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    abolishing offices, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    ceiling on employment, Sec. 4.4
    exception from a limited use, Sec. 4.8
    exception from retrenchment, Sec. 4.7
    reducing funds and prohibiting use for particular purpose, Sec. 4.6
    reduction in number of naval officers, Sec. 4.3
    total appropriation, reduction of, Sec. 4.5
    use of funds for particular purpose, prohibiting, Sec. 4.6
Houses, amendments between, see, for example, Senate amendments
Housing, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    contract authority, restriction of, Sec. Sec. 45.1, 45.3
    mortgages, directing agency action with respect to sale of, 
        Sec. 45.4
    restrictions on use of appropriations, Sec. 45.1
    units, total number of housing, in current and future fiscal years, 
        Sec. 45.2
Incorporating legislative language by reference, Sec. Sec. 22.5, 22.6
Incorporating or restating existing law
    authorization bill, language of, limitation restating, Sec. 23.24
    authorization for project, granting, Sec. 23.5
    descriptive language not derived from existing law, use of, 
        Sec. 23.2
    determination already required by law, exception to limitation if 
        President makes, Sec. 23.23
    discretion bestowed by law, limiting, Sec. 23.14
    discretion, restriction of, Sec. 23.8
    duty of making new determination ``in accordance with existing 
        law,'' provision requiring, Sec. 23.19

[[Page 5207]]

    electrification, rural, modification of authority in law regarding, 
        Sec. 23.15
    exception from limitation applying standard of existing law, 
        Sec. 23.17
    exception to limitation if President makes a determination already 
        required by law, Sec. 23.23
    executive order, denial of funds to implement, Sec. 23.22
    funds, other, restatement of law as applying to, Sec. 23.11
    funds, restriction on, which requires finding of intent not 
        required by law, Sec. 23.18
    law, restriction of funds based on determinations already required 
        by, Sec. 23.21
    legal authority, language conforming to, Sec. 23.22
    mandating full funding levels, Sec. 23.4
    modification of law by eliminating exception, Sec. 23.14
    necessary, language as not, Sec. Sec. 23.6, 23.7
    presumption of new legislative effect (authority to enter into 
        contracts), Sec. 23.3
    reference as merely descriptive, Sec. Sec. 23.1, 23.2
    reference, incorporation by, Sec. 22.5
    Renegotiation Act incorporated by reference, Sec. Sec. 23.16, 46.11
    Renegotiation Act made applicable to contracts under the 
        appropriation, Sec. 23.16
    restatement of law as applying to other funds, Sec. 23.11
    restrictive modification (rural electrification), Sec. 23.15
    sense of Congress, provision stating, as reiteration of policy 
        stated in existing law, Sec. Sec. 23.12, 23.13
    unnecessary language, Sec. Sec. 23.6, 23.7
    use of funds, restriction on, Sec. 23.20
    ``where authorized by law,'' language implying cooperation with 
        other government agencies, Sec. 23.20
Increasing amount beyond authorization
    generally, Sec. 21.1
    committee funds above authorized level, Sec. Sec. 21.4, 1.5
    lump sum increased beyond authorization, Sec. 21.2
    lump sum, part of, unauthorized, Sec. 21.3
Increasing limits of authorization set in law census work, Sec. 33.5
    housing assistance, increase in contract authority affecting, 
        Sec. 33.6
    indefinite appropriation where authorization requires definite 
        amount, Sec. 33.1
    limitation in permanent law waiving, Sec. 33.2
    rural electrification, Sec. 33.4
    rural telephone borrowing authority, increasing limitation on, 
        Sec. 33.3
Increasing limits on expenditures, Sec. 3.27
Interior Department, provisions relating to, as affecting duties of 
    officials
    ``advantageous,'' funds available if determined to be, Sec. 62.2
    discretionary authority, grant of, Sec. Sec. 62.5, 62.8
    educational lectures in parks, discretion of Secretary as to, 
        Sec. 62.6
    electric power needs, determination of, Sec. 62.3
    historic preservation, limiting authority of Secretary with respect 
        to, Sec. 62.11

[[Page 5208]]

    Indians, advance of funds to, to be reimbursable under prescribed 
        regulations, Sec. 62.10
    Indian tribal councils, expenses of, approved by Commissioner, 
        Sec. 63.15
    Indian tribal organizations, expenses of, Sec. 62.7
    regulations by Secretary, appropriation available pursuant to, 
        Sec. 62.1
    report by Secretary required, Sec. 62.9
    state officials, requiring approval of project by, Sec. 62.4
Interior Department, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see 
    specific topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Interior, Secretary of, given authority to approve title to real 
    estate, Sec. 46.9
Interior, Secretary of, lien on real estate created when reimbursement 
    not collected by, Sec. 46.10
Item veto authority to President, Sec. 46.6
Justice, Department of, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see 
    specific topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Labor
    denying fund availability to beneficiary already receiving another 
        entitlement, Sec. 61.21
    food stamps, eligibility for, where principal wage earner is on 
        strike, Sec. 61.23
    limitations allowed, Sec. Sec. 73.9-73.12
    limiting funds for certain ascertainable class of employers, 
        Sec. 61.18
    Occupational Safety and Health Act, limitations relating to 
        enforcement of, allowed, Sec. Sec. 73.9-73.11
    ``propriety'' and ``effectiveness,'' evaluation of, Sec. 61.20
    small firms, limiting funds to administer or enforce law with 
        respect to, Sec. 61.22
    transfer of funds by Secretary of Labor with approval of Bureau of 
        the Budget, Sec. 61.17
    unemployment compensation, grants for, allowed to extent Secretary 
        finds necessary, Sec. 61.19
Language in appropriation bill as permitted by authorizing statute, see 
    Authorizing statute as permitting certain language in appropriation 
    bill
Legislation on appropriation bills, see specific topics; see also 
    Unauthorized purposes, application of rule prohibiting 
    appropriations for
Legislative language permitted to remain, amendment of, see Perfecting 
    text permitted to remain
Lien against real estate, provision creating, where reimbursement for 
    irrigation required, Sec. 46.10
Lien imposed on Indian lands until obligation paid, Sec. 46.13
Limitation contained in prior law, changing, Sec. Sec. 22.10, 22.23
Limitation, germaneness of, to text of bill, Sec. 27.21
Limitation, language of, as constituting new authority, Sec. 46.5
 Limitation on expenditures contained in prior appropriation bill, 
    amendment seeking to change, Sec. Sec. 22.10, 22.23
Limitation on total amount appropriated by bill
    aggregate expenditures, limitation on availability of funds subject 
        to, Sec. Sec. 48.9, 48.11, 80.1, 80.2

[[Page 5209]]

    ceiling notwithstanding appropriation, Sec. 80.4
    ceiling on total expenditure, Sec. 80.2
    ceiling, reference to President's budget for determination of, 
        Sec. 80.3
    effect on total expenditures, Sec. Sec. 80.1, 80.2
    fiscal year, funds obligated in last two months of, Sec. 80.5
    percentage reduction across board, Sec. 80.6
    President, authority given to, to make reductions, Sec. 80.6
    reductions, authority given to President to effect, Sec. 80.6
Limitation, procedure for offering, Sec. 1.5
Limitations allowed: generally
    introduction: rule stated, Sec. Sec. 64.1, 64.2
    aggregate expenditures, availability of particular funds made 
        dependent on, Sec. 48.9
    aliens, readmission of, Sec. 79.6
    Attorney General's authority, Sec. 79.1
    bill, limitation must apply only to funds in, Sec. Sec. 64.3, 64.5
    bill, restricting funds for purpose not funded in, Sec. Sec. 64.6-
        64.8
    budget, President's, ceiling on expenditure related to aggregate 
        level provided in, Sec. 48.10
    burden of proof as to whether language ``changes existing law,'' 
        Sec. 64.23
    commingled funds, limiting, Sec. 64.24
    committee report as containing limitations, Sec. 64.9
    communist countries, extension of credit to, by Export-Import Bank, 
        Sec. 63.6
    condition subsequent, provision stating, in that obligation is 
        terminated on occurrence of future events, Sec. 64.10
    condition subsequent, provision stating, in that obligation is 
        triggered by future event, Sec. 64.11
    congressional expenditures, Sec. 79.2
    contracts, unsatisfied, limitation resulting in, Sec. 64.25
    discretion, limitation interfering indirectly with, Sec. 64.26
    discretion, official, restriction on use of funds allowed even 
        though limiting, Sec. Sec. 51.9, 51.10, 51.13, 51.14
    duties, incidental, imposition of, Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.5, 65.1, 
        67.19-67.21, 71.2
    duty of construing statute, effect of imposing, Sec. 64.30
    exceptions from limitations, Sec. Sec. 64.12-64.15
    executive office, person holding two positions in, Sec. 79.3
    executive privilege, persons claiming, Sec. 79.3
    fiscal year, limiting funds in ``any,'' Sec. 64.17
    grants, state and local administration of, Sec. 79.9
    Internal Revenue Service ruling, use of funds prohibited to 
        enforce, Sec. 64.27
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, funds for, not to be 
        used for joint U.S.-Soviet mission, Sec. 63.9
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, notification of 
        expenditures given by, funds not to be used until 14 days 
        after, Sec. 63.10
    negative prohibition rather than affirmative direction, limitation 
        as, Sec. 52.23
    notification required by law, amendment prohibiting use of funds 
        for specified time period after, Sec. 64.11

[[Page 5210]]

    policy, change in, by negative restriction on use of funds, 
        Sec. Sec. 46.22, 51.15-51.17, 52.7
    Presidential emergency funds, Sec. 79.4
    regulation, changing, restricting use of funds for, Sec. 64.29
    regulation, restricting funds used for enforcing, Sec. 64.28
    regulations, proposed, not to be enforced, Sec. 79.7
    salaries, prohibiting funds for, for carrying out certain programs, 
        Sec. 64.16
    silver certificates, printing of, Sec. 79.5
    state and local administration of grants, Sec. 79.9
    supplies of goods or services, certain, funds prohibited for 
        purchases from, Sec. 54.2
    Tennessee Valley Authority services, Sec. 79.8
    time for offering amendment, Sec. 64.18
    timing of expenditures, Sec. 63.10
    total expenditures, availability of particular funds made dependent 
        upon, Sec. 48.9
    transfer of funds to activities funded in paragraph, restriction 
        on, Sec. 64.20
    when amendment may be offered, Sec. 64.18
Limitations allowed: agriculture, provisions relating to
    authorization ceiling, absence of, Sec. 67.24
    Commodity Credit Corporation employee salary, Sec. 67.22
    Commodity Credit loans, limits on, Sec. Sec. 67.26-67.33
    conservation, Sec. Sec. 67.12, 67.13
    contract authority, restriction on, Sec. 67.34
    crop insurance program expenses to be paid from premium income, 
        Sec. 67.11
    dissemination of market information, Sec. 67.9
    duties, incidental, imposition of, Sec. Sec. 67.19, 67.21
    electrification, rural, Sec. Sec. 67.4, 67.5
    foreign countries, technical assistance to, Sec. 67.10
    legislation, subsequent enactment of, restriction effective upon, 
        Sec. 67.2
    loans under farm programs, limits on payments on, Sec. Sec. 67.26-
        67.33
    motor vehicles, purchase of, Sec. 67.36
    parity payments, limits on, Sec. 67.25
    parity ratio, Sec. 67.15
    policy, administrative, change in, Sec. 67.1
    price support programs, Sec. Sec. 67.6, 67.16, 67.25-67.33
    programs, farm, limits on payments or loans under, Sec. Sec. 57.5, 
        67.6, 67.26-67.33
    recipients with income in excess of certain limit, Sec. 67.3
    reserve program, limits on payments under, Sec. Sec. 67.28, 67.35
    rural electrification, administrative services related to 
        construction of facilities for, Sec. 67.5
    rural electrification, limiting funds for, to areas of low 
        population, Sec. 67.4
    salaries of employees who undertake certain actions, prohibitions 
        on, Sec. Sec. 67.17, 67.18
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, payments under, 
        limited, Sec. 57.5
    state law, funds barred for uses prohibited by, Sec. 67.8
    stream channelization, Sec. 67.23
    subsequent enactment of legislation, restriction effective upon, 
        Sec. 67.2
    Vietnam, North, countries trading with, Sec. Sec. 57.1, 67.7

[[Page 5211]]

    yearbook, agriculture, printing of, Sec. 67.14
Limitations allowed: civil liberties, provisions relating to
    busing, see Busing, school
    racial segregation or discrimination, Sec. Sec. 68.1-68.7
Limitations allowed: commerce, provisions relating to
    airports, development of, dependent on congressional approval, 
        Sec. 49.4
    airports, federal aid, Sec. 69.3
    foreign agricultural products, purchase of, limited where domestic 
        supplies adequate, Sec. 69.2
    highway funds, restricting, to limit vehicle weights, Sec. 69.8
    Maritime Commission, construction of ships by, reimbursement by 
        Navy for, Sec. 69.1
Limitations allowed: defense, provisions relating to (see also 
    Limitations allowed: military contracts, provisions relating to)
    aircraft, lighter-than-air, prohibited, Sec. 70.7
    Air Force Academy construction, Sec. 70.5
    alcoholic beverages, facilities selling, Sec. 70.4
    compulsory college military training, Sec. 70.3
    draftees, age of, Sec. 70.2
    Navy shipyards, funds available for work in, Sec. 70.8
    shipyards, Navy, funds available for work in, Sec. 70.8
    Vietnam, funds for invasion of North, prohibited, Sec. 70.1
    workers' efficiency, monitoring of, Sec. 70.6
Limitations allowed: District of Columbia, provisions relating to
    airport access road, Sec. 72.4
    personal services, Sec. 72.5
    public assistance, Sec. 72.1
    segregation, Sec. 72.2
    teachers doing clerical work, Sec. 72.3
Limitations allowed: education, provisions relating to
    basic opportunity grants, prohibition of, to students enrolled 
        prior to certain date, Sec. 73.6
    building construction for Health, Education and Welfare, Sec. 73.3
    busing, see Busing, school
    college housing construction, Sec. 73.4
    compliance with law, requirement that colleges recieving funds be 
        in, Sec. 63.5
    discrimination, grants denied to educational institutions on 
        account of, Sec. 73.5
    disruptive behavior on campus, withholding of funds to students 
        convicted of, Sec. 63.5
    impacted areas, assistance to, Sec. Sec. 73.1, 73.2
Limitations allowed: federal employment, provisions relating to
    abortions, health plans covering, Sec. 74.5
    age, maximum, Sec. 74.1
    employment, past, of heads of departments, Sec. 74.4
    executive office salaries, Sec. 74.2
    Hatch Act application, Sec. 74.3
    strikes, funds prohibited for rehiring of workers engaged in, 
        Sec. 74.6
Limitations allowed: foreign relations, provision relating to
    automobile industry abroad, Sec. 75.3
    communist countries, extension of credit to, by Export-Import Bank, 
        Sec. 63.6
    executive agreements, certain, funds prohibited for implementation 
        of, Sec. 75.2

[[Page 5212]]

    government employees, former, payments on contracts to, Sec. 75.4
    information, committee requests for, Sec. Sec. 75.5, 75.6
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, funds for, not to be 
        used for joint U.S.-Soviet mission, Sec. 63.9
    nonmarket economy countries, Sec. 75.1
    United Nations dues or assessments, Sec. Sec. 75.7, 75.8
Limitations allowed: health, provisions relating to
    abortion services, prohibition on funds for, Sec. 73.8
     abortions, insurance plans covering, Sec. 74.5
    public health work, grants to states for, not to be on per capita 
        income basis, Sec. 77.2
Limitations allowed: Interior Department, provisions relating to
    condition subsequent, finding of unconstitutionality of 
        authorization law as, Sec. 76.6
    draft deferments, limiting, Sec. 76.5
    national park roads, Sec. 76.4
    reclamation projects, funds for expenses of, limited to amount not 
        in excess of repayments, Sec. 76.1
    Reclamation, qualifications of employees in Bureau of, Sec. 76.2
    reindeer industry, Sec. Sec. 76.8, 76.9
    salaries for consultants, Sec. 76.7
    territories and former possessions, salaries and expenses in, 
        Sec. 76.3
Limitations allowed: labor, provisions relating to
    Occupational Safety and Health Act, enforcement of, Sec. Sec. 73.9-
        73.11
Limitations allowed: military contracts, provisions relating to (see 
    also Limitations allowed: defense, provisions relating to
    bids, low, funds prohibited for implementation of policy 
        interfering with acceptance of, Sec. 59.3
    dispute settlement, conditions for, Sec. 71.5
    duties, incidental, imposed on officials, Sec. 71.2
    research and development, inventions arising from, Sec. 71.4
    retired officers, funds prohibited for contracts with firms that 
        employ, Sec. 59.2
    ship, conventional powerplant for, Sec. 71.1
    subsidized commodities, resale of, Sec. 71.3
Limitations allowed: Post Office and Treasury appropriations, 
    provisions relating to
    bulk rates for political committees, Sec. Sec. 77.8, 77.13
    compensation of named persons, Sec. 77.7
    customs service locations, funds prohibited for reduction of, 
        Sec. 77.9
    exception from limitation, Sec. 77.13
    foreign mails, air carriage of, Sec. 77.5
    Internal Revenue Service policy, funds prohibited to enforce, 
        Sec. Sec. 64.27, 77.1, 77.10, 77.11
    investigations, congressional, services related to, Sec. 77.6
    mail seizure, Sec. 77.1
    political committees, special mail rates for, Sec. Sec. 77.8, 77.13
    regulations, agency, funds for proceedings related to, Sec. 77.12
    silver purchase, limitation on, Sec. 77.4
    states, distribution of funds to, not to be on per capita income 
        basis, Sec. 77.2

[[Page 5213]]

    subversive activities, salaries of persons accused of, Sec. 77.3
    sureties on customs bonds, Sec. 51.15
Limitations allowed: public works, provisions relating to
    acceleration, Sec. 69.5
    authorized projects, expenditures limited to, Sec. 69.4
    highway funds, prohibition of use of, by states not meeting 
        standards, Sec. 69.8
    highway funds restricted, Sec. 69.7
    locality, funds for specified, prohibited, Sec. 69.6
    matching funds required, Sec. 69.5
    Tennessee Valley Authority, personal services in, Sec. 69.7
Limitations allowed: Veterans' Administration, provisions relating to
    area and regional offices, Sec. 78.3
    dental assistance, service-connected, Sec. 78.1
    medical care for nonveterans, Sec. 78.2
Limitations, exceptions from
    authorization ceiling, absence of, Sec. 66.2
    busing, limitation on, exception from, Sec. 61.3
    ceiling on authorization, absence of, Sec. 66.2
    construing terms as ``exception,'' Sec. 66.1
    duties already required by law, exception as restating, 
        Sec. Sec. 66.2, 66.6, 66.9
    duties, new, exception as imposing, Sec. 66.5
    funds for agency eliminated from bill, effect of limitation where, 
        Sec. 66.10
    political committees, limitation on special mail rates for, 
        exception from, Sec. 77.13
    purpose, statement of, should not accompany, Sec. 66.4
    retrenchment, perfecting, Sec. Sec. 66.7, 66.8
Mandating expenditures (see also Allocation or distribution of funds 
    changing prescribed methods of; and see Discretion, executive, 
    provisions restricting or enlarging)
    generally, Sec. Sec. 36.15-36.23
    limitation distinguished, Sec. 36.19
Methods of financing, change in, see Change in source of appropriated 
    funds or in methods of financing
Mineral royalties, authority to pay, Sec. 46.7
Other acts, funds in, see Funds in other acts, provisions affecting or 
    affected by
Part of paragraph, point of order against, Sec. Sec. 2.4-2.7
Perfecting text permitted to remain
    additional determination required to be made by officials, by 
        provision amending legislative language, Sec. 52.12
    Budget Director, amendment imposing duties on, Sec. 52.12
    Committee on Appropriations authorized on occasion to report 
        legislation, Sec. 3.37
    contract authority, restriction on, Sec. 3.26
    debate on legislation permitted to remain, recognition for, 
        Sec. 3.36
    earmarking part of unauthorized lump sum, Sec. 3.45
    exception from legislative provision, Sec. Sec. 3.23-3.25
    figures, changing, in unauthorized appropriation, Sec. Sec. 3.38-
        3.40, 3.42
    further legislation, amendments adding, Sec. Sec. 3.18-3.22, 3.29-
        3.33

[[Page 5214]]

    lesser duty than that contemplated by pending legislation, 
        Sec. 3.41
    mandating expenditures, Sec. 3.42
    policy, congressional, changing statement of, Sec. 3.43
    repeating existing legislation verbatim, Sec. 3.44
    striking out language, Sec. 22.11
    transfers between appropriations, provision permitting approval by 
        Director of Budget of, amendment imposing additional duties 
        offered to, Sec. 52.12
    unauthorized appropriation, changing sum of, Sec. Sec. 3.38-3.40, 
        3.42
    unauthorized lump sum, earmarking part of, Sec. 3.45
Permanent law, House resolution made, Sec. 22.7
Points of order
    amended, bill as, point of order considered in relation to, 
        Sec. 2.24
    amendment offered to paragraph, points of order against paragraph 
        must be made before, Sec. Sec. 2.21-2.23
    Atomic Energy Commission, bill appropriating funds for, multiple 
        grounds for points of order against title of, Sec. 22.21
    bill considered as read, Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16, 2.22
    bill open to amendment at any point, where, Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16, 
        2.22
    Chair as asking for points of order where reading dispensed with, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16, 2.27
    Chair as not asking for points of order during reading, Sec. 2.27
    conceding, effect of, Sec. 2.3
    consideration, objection to, Sec. Sec. 2.8, 2.9
    grounds, several, for objection, Sec. 2.20
    modified, bill as, point of order considered in relation to, 
        Sec. 2.24
    open to points of order and to amendment at any point, where bill 
        is, Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16, 2.22
    paragraph headings, bill read ``scientifically'' by, Sec. 2.26
    part of pararaph, against, Sec. Sec. 2.4-2.7
    present form of bill, point of order considered in relation to, 
        Sec. 2.24
    prior ruling, consideration of point of order in relation to 
        modified form of bill that resulted from, Sec. 2.24 reading 
        bill ``scientifically'' by paragraph headings, Sec. 2.26
    reading, during, Sec. Sec. 2.10-2.12
    reservations of, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2, 2.22, 2.25
    timeliness, Sec. Sec. 2.8, 2.9, 2.17-2.19, 2.21-2.23
Policy, change in, by negative restriction on use of funds, Sec. 22.22
Postal rates computation, language changing formula for, Sec. 46.8
President, duties imposed on, that are not required by existing law 
    (see also President's authority, provisions affecting)
    communist countries, sales to, permitted where President determines 
        it to be in national interest, Sec. 56.8
    Cuba, Presidential determination relating to aid for nations that 
        deal with, Sec. Sec. 56.5, 56.6
    economic assistance, Presidential determination and report relating 
        to, Sec. Sec. 56.2, 56.3
    military assistance, Presidential determination and report relating 
        to, Sec. 56.1
    procurement from foreign firms permitted where President waives 
        restrictions in national interest, Sec. 56.7
    sales to communist countries permitted where President determines 
        it to be in national interest, Sec. 56.8

[[Page 5215]]

    United Arab Republic, Presidential determination relating to 
        assistance for, Sec. 56.4
    Vietnam, North, Presidential determination relating to aid for 
        nations that deal with, Sec. 56.6
President's authority, provisions affecting (see also President, duties 
    imposed on, that are not required by existing law)
    affirmative directive, Sec. 55.2, 56.2
    aggressor nations, determinations to be made by President relating 
        to, Sec. 55.9, 55.10
    certification by President following investigation of British aid 
        to Arab League, Sec. 55.8
    condition precedent to funding, imposing duties as, Sec. 55.5
    determinations to be made by President, Sec. 55.6, 55.7, 55.9, 
        55.10
    discretionary authority, new, grant of, Sec. 55.1, 55.11
    earmarking funds for use as President may direct, Sec. 55.12
    limiting President's legal authority, Sec. 55.3
    military procurement policies, Presidential determination as to, 
        Sec. 55.6
    proclamation relating to foreign aggression, Sec. 55.9
    report, annual, provisions requiring, Sec. 55.4
    Soviet troop reductions, Presidential determination as to, 
        Sec. 55.7
Prior appropriation acts, amendment seeking to change limitation on 
    expenditures contained in, Sec. 22.10
Prior appropriation acts, inclusion of legislative language in, 
    Sec. Sec. 1.7, 3.17, 52.44
Property, transfers or disposition of, see Transfers or disposition of 
    property
Public works, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
    Federal Works Administrator, delegation of authority of, Sec. 45.5
    storage buildings, as adjunct to forest road construction, 
        Sec. 45.7
    water, use of, conditioned upon compliance with state compact, 
        Sec. 45.6
Public works, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific 
    topics under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations 
    for
Qualification of recipients, judging, see Recipients of funds, judging 
    qualifications of
Reading appropriation bills ``scientifically'' by paragraph headings, 
    Sec. 2.26
Reading, point of order during, Sec. 2.10-2.12
Recipients of funds, conditions imposed on, Sec. 53.1
Recipients of funds, judging qualifications of
    employment, past, of heads of departments, Sec. 54.1
    supplier of goods or services, qualification of, Sec. 54.2
Recommit, motion to, legislation contained in, Sec. 1.4
Recommit, motion to rise and report with recommendation to, Sec. 1.6
Reenacting limitation contained in prior law, Sec. 22.23
Reference to legislative provision elsewhere in bill, Sec. 22.8
Reimbursements
    airport, receipts from operations of, to repay federal investment, 
        Sec. 3.10
    available for administrative expenses, Sec. 38.6

[[Page 5216]]

    commissary revenue, Sec. 38.4, 38.5
    educational expenses, reimbursements for, Sec. 38.14
    irrigation projects, Sec. 38.11
    Presidential use, funds for, to be expended without reimbursement, 
        Sec. 38.9
    refunds credited to current appropriation, Sec. 38.1
    sales, crediting proceeds from, Sec. Sec. 38.2, 38.3
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Sec. 38.12
    travel expenses paid by states, Sec. 38.13
    waived for lands not producing revenue, Sec. 38.8
    waiver of reimbursement requirements in law, Sec. 38.7
Repealing existing law
    contract authority, rescission of, Sec. 24.4
    future authorization, ending, Sec. 24.3
    prior appropriation law, repealing restriction in, Sec. 24.6
    rescission of contract authority, Sec. 24.4
    salaries and expenses for current year, repealing expenditure limit 
        on, Sec. 24.7
    waiver of previous limitation, Sec. 24.5
    ``without regard to'' specified statutes, sums appropriated, 
        Sec. 24.8
Request for additional debate, point of order after, Sec. 2.17
Reservation of points of order, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2
Restating existing law, see Incorporating or restating existing law
Retrenchment, see Holman rule entries
Rise and report, motion to, with recommendation of recommittal, 
    Sec. 1.6
Salaries and Allowances, congressional, see Congressional salaries and 
    allowances, provisions relating to, as changing existing law
Senate amendments (see also Conference)
    amendments to, Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.9
    authority of conferees where rule waived against House provision, 
        Sec. 6.6
    conferees authorized to agree to, Sec. 6.3, 6.4
    conference agreement, amendment within, held authorized, Sec. 6.7
    consideration of, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 6.2
    disagreement, Senate amendments reported in, Sec. Sec. 6.5, 6.9
    germane amendment to Senate legislative amendment reported in 
        disagreement, Sec. 6.9
    point of order against Senate amendment reported in disagreement, 
        Sec. 6.5
    waiver of rule against House provision, conferees' authority 
        following, Sec. 6.6
Senate rule, Sec. 6.8
Source of appropriated funds, change in, see Change in source of 
    appropriated funds or in methods of financing
Special rule, legislation permitted by, see Waiver of points of order
Striking out language, Sec. 22.11
Striking out language in legislation permitted to remain, Sec. 22.11
Supplemental appropriations, generally, Sec. 1.3
Terms of bill or law, definition of, see Definition or construction of 
    terms of bill or law
Testimony of Congressmen, provision mandating, in specified 
    circumstances, Sec. 46.14
Third reading, point of order upon, Sec. 2.19
Timeliness of point of order, Sec. Sec. 2.8, 2.9
Timing of expenditures, provisions affecting, Sec. Sec. 51.23, 63.10, 
    64.23

[[Page 5217]]

Total amount appropriated by bill, limitation on, see Limitation on 
    total amount appropriated by bill
Total expenditures, availability of particular funds made dependent 
    upon, Sec. Sec. 48.9, 48.11
Transfer of funds not limited to same bill (see also Transfer of funds 
    within same bill)
    agencies of government, transfer of funds to other, for authorized 
        work, Sec. 30.21
     agency, transfer of funds specifically authorized for, to other 
        unspecified agencies, Sec. Sec. 30.22, 30.23
    approval of committee, transfer among accounts upon, Sec. 30.24
    bond proceeds, transfer from fund created from, Sec. 30.3
    budget estimates submitted by President, making available other 
        funds by reference to, Sec. 30.13
    ceiling on appropriation, lifting, Sec. 30.6
    Commodity Credit Corporation, transfer from funds available to, 
        Sec. 30.4
    continuation of availability of funds for same purpose, Sec. 30.20
    continuation of previous appropriations for new purpose, Sec. 30.10
    departments, transfers between, Sec. 30.16
    department, transfers within, Sec. Sec. 30.14, 30.15
    previous appropriation, transfer to, Sec. 30.5
    previous appropriations, transfer from, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.2
    purpose, new, for previously appropriated funds, Sec. Sec. 30.8-
        30.10
    purpose, new, funds in other acts available for, Sec. Sec. 30.17-
        30.19
    purpose of permanent appropriation, change in, Sec. 30.7
    purpose, same, funds continued available for, Sec. 30.20
    warrant action, appropriation continued without, Sec. Sec. 30.11, 
        30.12
Transfer of funds within same bill (see also Transfer of funds not 
    limited to same bill)
    generally, Sec. Sec. 29.1-29.7
    account in bill, transfer of funds to, Sec. 29.3
    approval of Bureau of Budget, transfers subject to, Sec. 29.7
    approval of Committee on Appropriations, transfer with, Sec. 29.12
    authority, transfer granting, Sec. 29.4
    Bureau of the Budget, bestowing new authority on, Sec. 29.1
    carried forward for same purpose, funds, Sec. 30.19
    Committee on Appropriations, transfer with approval of, Sec. 29.12
    defense ``funds available'' to state, transfer of, Sec. 30.25
    discretionary transfer of funds, Sec. 29.11
    ``funds available'' to state, transfer of, Sec. 30.25
    indefinite amount, permissive authority to transfer, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.2-29.7
    interchange of appropriations, Sec. 29.8
    interchangeable, funds used, among offices with approval of Bureau 
        of Budget, Sec. 29.7
    limiting amounts transferred within accounts in bill, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.5, 29.6
    restrictions on transfers between accounts in paragraph, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.9
    state, transfer of defense ``funds available'' to, Sec. 30.25
    unallocated funds in pending bill, Sec. 29.10

[[Page 5218]]

Transfers or disposition of property
    appropriation of property, Sec. 31.4
    District of Columbia, transfer of hospitals in, between agencies, 
        Sec. 31.6
    facilities and property rights, transfer of, Sec. 31.5
    federal property, transfer of, from one agency to another without 
        exchange of funds, Sec. 31.1
    federal property, transfer of, to territory, Sec. 31.3
     hospitals, transfer of, between agencies, Sec. 31.6
     Interior Department, excess property transferred to, Sec. 31.2
     withheld from distribution, no property to be, Sec. 31.7
 Trust, provisions affecting funds held in
     District of Columbia gasoline tax fund, Sec. 28.6
     farm labor supply revolving fund, Sec. 28.8
     forest roads and trails, Sec. 28.2
     highway trust fund, diverting from, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.3, 28.4
     Indians' judgment fund, Sec. 28.7
     unemployment trust fund, transfer from, Sec. 28.5
Unauthorized purposes, application of rule prohibiting appropriations 
    for
     administrative expenses, incidental, authorized, Sec. 15.31
     airport lighting (District of Columbia), application to provisions 
        affecting, Sec. 14.8
     airport services, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.4
     Alaskan Highway, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.5
     Ambassadors' and Ministers' pay, Sec. Sec. 17.16, 17.17
     American Legion Convention expenses in District of Columbia, 
        application to provisions affecting, Sec. 14.3
     annual authorization for Department of Justice, Sec. 18.3
     annual authorization for Department of State, requirement of, 
        Sec. 17.21
     arms control and disarmament, Sec. 17.18
     Attorneys, United States, provisions relating to training of, 
        Sec. 18.1
     authorization not yet signed into law, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.11
     Bituminous Coal Commission, provisions affecting, Sec. 15.34
     Boulder Canyon project, Sec. 15.20
     branch library building in District of Columbia, application to 
        provisions affecting, Sec. 14.13
     Broadcasting, International Board for, Sec. 17.19
     buildings not approved by Public Works Committee, Sec. 19.1
     Bureau of Reclamation, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.8
     Census Bureau data, to provisions affecting, Sec. 12.1
     centennial of Agriculture Department, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 11.2
     civil defense, to provisions relating to, Sec. 20.1
     Civil Rights Commission, Sec. 18.2
     Civilian Conservation Corps, liquidation expenses of, Sec. 12.7
     Civilian Conservation Corps, to provisions affecting, Sec. 12.7
     claims, authority to settle, Sec. 15.10
     claims of prison employees in District of Columbia, application to 
        provisions affecting, Sec. 14.6
     Commerce, Secretary of, appropriation for expenses of attendance 
        at meetings for, Sec. 12.6

[[Page 5219]]

     Committee on Fair Employment Practice, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 13.2
     compilation of consumer statistics, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 11.7
     congressional parking lot, to provisions affecting, Sec. 20.3
     conservation, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.4
     construction and improvement of barracks, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 13.5
     contingent upon enactment of authorization, appropriation, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.3
     cooperative range improvements, Sec. 11.3
     cultural relations program, Sec. Sec. 17.10, 17.11
     currencies, foreign for children's hospital in Poland, Sec.  17.5
     deficits, Virgin Islands, Sec. 15.14
     disarmament, Sec. 17.18
     diversion dam at Missouri Basin, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 19.10
     division of geography created by executive order, Sec. 15.6
     division of grazing, provisions affecting, Sec. 15.11
     division of investigations, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.12, 15.13
     dutch elm disease, to provisions relating to, Sec. 11.12
     education, higher, programs for, Sec. 20.17
     emergencies of confidential nature, fund for, Sec. 15.12
     employment of People's Counsel, Sec. 14.11
     Environmental Protection Agency, funds to establish board to 
        review contracts of, Sec. 15.2
     Environmental Protection Agency, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2
     equipment expenses, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.8
     erosion, shelter-belt trees to prevent, Sec. 11.15
     executive order not sufficient authorization, Sec. Sec. 7.6-7.9
     farm commodities, to provisions affecting consumption of, 
        Sec. 11.1
     federal employees, representation allowances for, Sec. Sec. 16.2, 
        16.3
     federal employment, provisions relating to, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4
     federal office buildings, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.2
     Fishermen's Protective Act, Sec. 17.1
     foreign currency, purchase of, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 17.4, 17.5
     foreign literature, translation of, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 17.7
     foreign military assistance, Sec. 13.3
     foreign service auxiliary, to provisions relating to, Sec. 17.14
     foreign service incidental expenses, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 17.13
     function of government, new, created by executive order, Sec. 15.6
     gasoline tax fund, use of, for motor vehicle licenses in District 
        of Columbia, Sec. 14.18
     gasoline tax fund, use of, for personal services in District of 
        Columbia, Sec. 14.16
     gasoline tax fund, use of, for salaries in District of Columbia, 
        Sec. 14.14
     gasoline tax fund, use of, for sidewalks and curbing, Sec. 14.17
     gasoline tax fund, use of, for street repair and improvements, 
        Sec. 14.15
     Geography, Division of, created by executive order, Sec. 15.6

[[Page 5220]]

     Government Corporation Reserve Fund, provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 20.8
     incidental administrative expenses authorized, Sec. 15.31
    incidental expenses, to provisions relating to, Sec.  7.15
     Indian affairs, to provisions affecting, Sec. Sec. 15.21-15.27
     Indian agents under contract, Sec. 15.27
     Indian forest lands, Sec. 15.25
     Indian Tribal Councils, expenses of, Sec. 15.23
     Indians, assistance to, Sec. 15.24
     Indians, authorization relating to, under Snyder Act, Sec. 15.26
     international arms aid, to provisions affecting, Sec. 13.3
     International Broadcasting, Board for, Sec. 17.19
     International Committee on Political Refugees, provisions relating 
        to, Sec. 17.15
     International Communications Agency, Sec. 17.20
     International Conference on Education, Sec. 17.12
     international exhibition, to provisions relating to, Sec. 17.6
     international organization, authority to join, as implying 
        authority for expense, Sec. 17.3
     international organizations, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 17.2, 17.3
     investigative staff of congressional committee, provisions 
        affecting, Sec. 20.2
     Justice, Department of, annual authorizations required for, 
        Sec. 18.3
     Justice Department, provisions affecting, Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.3
     juvenile detention center in District of Columbia, Sec. 14.9
     labor force, provisions relating to sample surveys of, Sec. 12.2
     language limiting expenditures to authorized projects, Sec. 19.6
     language of limitation as constituting new authority, Sec. 7.16
     limit, authorized, appropriations not exceeding, Sec. 7.14
     limitation on funds for unauthorized project, Sec. 15.8
     lump-sum appropriation only for authorized purposes, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.10-7.13
     Main Library Building in District of Columbia, application to 
        provisions affecting, Sec. 14.12
     Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 14.2
     moth control, to provisions relating to, Sec. 11.13
     NASA scientific consultations, provisions affecting, Sec. 20.9
     national park, streets adjacent to, provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 15.15
     National Resources Planning Council, provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 20.10
     nations not authorized to receive aid, appropriations for, 
        Sec. 17.8
     nuclear naval vessel, substituting conventional vessel for, where 
        both unauthorized, Sec. 13.6
     Office of Corporation Counsel in District of Columbia, to 
        provisions affecting, Sec. 14.1
     officials' expenses (Commerce Department), application to 
        provisions relating to, Sec. Sec. 12.5, 12.6
     organic act as authorization for agriculture research and 
        demonstration projects, Sec. 11.11

[[Page 5221]]

     overseas allowances for federal employees, provisions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.1, 16.2
     Park Service, educational lectures of, Sec. 15.18
     Park Service, educational services of, Sec. 15.17
     Park Service educational services, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.17, 15.18
     Park Service photographic supplies, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 15.19
     payroll deductions in Bureau of Reclamation, authority to make, 
        Sec. 15.9
     payroll deductions (Interior Department), to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 15.10
     penalty refunds, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.6
     personal services in District of Columbia, to provisions 
        affecting, Sec. 14.10
     post office construction, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.3
     Presidential commission, funds for, Sec. 16.4
     Presidential committee, appropriation for, Sec. 15.7
     Presidential Committee on Education, to provisions relating to 
        expenses of, Sec. 20.4
     Presidential directives (Interior Department), Sec. 15.7
     President's emergency fund, provisions affecting, Sec. 20.12
     President's wife's salary, provisions relating to, Sec. 20.13
     protection of deer, to provisions affecting, Sec. 15.5
     public buildings in District of Columbia, personal services in, 
        Sec. 14.10
     public buildings, requirement for committee approval of, Sec. 19.3
     public health service mineral disease treatment, provisions 
        relating to, Sec. 20.14
     public service jobs, earmarking funds for, Sec. 20.18
     Public Works Committee, buildings not approved by, Sec. Sec. 19.1, 
        19.2
     public works, to provisions relating to, generally, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.1-19.3
     purchase of municipal asphalt plant in District of Columbia, 
        application to provisions affecting, Sec. 14.19
     reclamation fund, appropriations from ``general funds'' instead 
        of, Sec. 15.28
     reclamation law, Sec. Sec. 15.28-15.31
     reindeer industry in Alaska, provisions affecting, Sec. 15.33
     report, submission of, as constituting authorization, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.29, 15.30
     research on use of potatoes, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.9
     river and harbor projects, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4
     rivers and harbors, Sec. 19.7
     school lunch program, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.5
     school playgrounds in District of Columbia, Sec. 14.5
     schools in District of Columbia, application to provisions 
        affecting, Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.5
     scientific and technological aid for business, to provisions 
        affecting, Sec. 12.4
     secretary, new authority granted to, relating to incidental costs, 
        Sec. 15.32
     Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, representation 
        expenses for, Sec. 20.19
     Secretary of Interior, discretion of, in purchasing equipment, 
        Sec. 15.32

[[Page 5222]]

     shelter-belt trees to prevent erosion, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 11.15
     signed into law, authorization not yet, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.11
     Smithsonian Institution, Sec. 15.22
     Soil Conservation Service, equipment expenses of, Sec. 11.8
     State, Department of, requirement of annual authorization for, 
        Sec. 17.21
     storage buildings, provisions relating to, Sec. 15.8
     street lighting in District of Columbia, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 14.7
     student aid, to provisions affecting, Sec. 20.15
     subsequent authorization, effect of law requiring, Sec. 7.4
     Surgeon General entertainment expenses, provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 20.16
     Tariff Commission, investigations by, to provisions affecting, 
        Sec. 12.3
     telephones in government-owned residences, to provisions relating 
        to, Sec. 15.16
     Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, to provisions relating to, Sec. 19.9
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act, Sec. 19.12
     timber protection, Sec. 15.13
     transmission lines, Bonneville power, to provisions relating to, 
        Sec. 19.11
     travel and other expenses incidental to authorized program, 
        Sec. 13.4
     travel and per diem in division of Department of the Interior, 
        Sec. 15.11
     travel expenses in executive departments, provisions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 20.5-20.7
     treaty, expenses incident to, Sec. 17.9
     use of gasoline tax fund in District of Columbia, to provisions 
        affecting, Sec. Sec. 14.14-14.18
     vehicles, purchase of, to provisions affecting, Sec. 11.14
     Veterans' Administration, to provisions affecting, Sec. 13.1
     Virgin Islands, deficits of, Sec. 15.14
     Virgin Islands, to provisions affecting, Sec. 15.14
     waiver of points of order against items ``not yet authorized,'' 
        Sec. 17.5
     War Mobilization, Office of, to provisions affecting incidental 
        expenses of, Sec. 13.4
     Weather Bureau buildings, equipment and repair of, to provisions 
        relating to, Sec. 11.16
 Unconstitutional standards, language requiring official to apply, 
    Sec.  22.28
 Veterans, provisions affecting funds for the benefit of, as changing 
    existing law, Sec. Sec. 46.15-46.17
 Veterans, unauthorized appropriations relating to, see specific topics 
    under Unauthorized purposes, rule prohibiting appropriations for
 Vouchers for expenditure, sufficiency of, Sec. 22.20
 Waiver of points of order (see also Perfecting text permitted to 
    remain)
    amendment of waiver, Sec. 3.12
     amendments, waiver of points of order against, Sec. 3.13
     authorization, rule waiving Rule XXI pending, Sec. 3.35
     class, new, added to those covered by legislative direction, 
        Sec. 3.34
     effect of waiver, Sec. 3.14-3.16
     enactment, legal effect of legislative language after, Sec. 3.17
     identical language, combining, with numerical change, Sec. 3.28

[[Page 5223]]

     increasing limitation on expenditures, Sec. 3.27
     joint resolution, form of resolution providing for consideration 
        of, Sec. 3.11
     special rules, by, Sec. Sec. 3.2-3.10, 64.19
     striking out legislation permitted to remain and inserting 
        identical language with numerical change, Sec. 3.28
     unanimous consent, by, Sec. 3.1
Withdrawal of reservation, point of order after, Sec. 2.18
 Works in progress
    ``addition'' to building, Sec. 8.8
     authorized, project not originally, Sec. 8.2
     authorized, statutory requirement that repairs be, Sec. 8.9
     commenced, when, Sec. 8.1
     evidence required, Sec. Sec. 8.5-8.7
     reappropriation for works in progress, Sec. 8.3
     reappropriation to Public Works Administration, Sec. 8.4
     statutory requirement that repairs be authorized, Sec. 8.9
     unauthorized, project as originally, Sec. 8.2





[[Page 5225]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 1. Generally; Scope



    A House rule prohibits the inclusion in general appropriation bills 
of ``unauthorized'' appropriations, except for works in progress, and 
prohibits provisions ``changing existing law,'' usually referred to as 
``legislation on an appropriation bill,'' except for provisions that 
retrench expenditures under certain prescribed 
conditions.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1985). The 
        ``retrenchment'' provision is known as the Holman rule, and is 
        discussed in Sec. Sec. 4, 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statement of the rule under which most of the precedents in 
this chapter were decided is as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1973). This 
        chapter discusses significant recent rulings through 1984. For 
        earlier treatment, see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3701-4018; 
        7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1125-1570, 1579-1720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation 
    bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure 
    not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of 
    appropriations for such public works and objects as are already in 
    progress. Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
    thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
    expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
    officers of the United States, by the reduction of the compensation 
    of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or by 
    the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill. . . .

    On Jan. 3, 1981, the 98th Congress restructured and amended the 
clause as follows: paragraph (a) retained the prohibition against 
unauthorized appropriations in general appropriation bills and 
amendments thereto except in continuation of works in progress; 
paragraph (b) narrowed the ``Holman Rule'' exception from the 
prohibition against legislation to cover only retrenchments reducing 
amounts of money included in the bill as reported, and permitted 
legislative committees with proper jurisdiction to recommend such 
retrenchments to the Appro

[[Page 5226]]

priations Committee for discretionary inclusion in the reported bill; 
paragraph (c) retained the prohibition against amendments changing 
existing law but permitted limitation amendments during the reading of 
the bill by paragraph only if specifically authorized by existing law 
for the period of the limitation; and paragraph (d) provided a new 
procedure for consideration of retrenchment and other limitation 
amendments only when reading of a general appropriation bill has been 
completed and only if the Committee of the Whole does not adopt a 
motion to rise and report the bill back to the House.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The broad requirement that appropriations be ``authorized'' by 
prior legislation is discussed in another chapter.(4) In 
practice, the concepts ``unauthorized appropriations'' and 
``legislation on general appropriation bills'' have frequently been 
used almost interchangeably as grounds for objection in making points 
of order pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2. It can, of course, readily be 
seen that an appropriation sought to be made without prior 
authorization has, in a sense, the effect of legislation, particularly 
in view of rulings of long standing (5) that a ``proposition 
changing existing law'' may be construed to include the enactment of a 
law where none exists. The two concepts are treated separately in this 
chapter, however. For example, it will be seen that the objection that 
an appropriation is ``unauthorized'' is frequently employed where the 
general purpose of the appropriation has been authorized, but the 
amount sought to be appropriated allegedly exceeds the amount 
authorized.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Ch. 25, supra, discussing general principles applicable to 
        appropriation bills and the reporting and consideration 
        thereof.
 5. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3812, 3813.
 6. See, for example, Sec. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequently, rulings on points of order will turn on whether a 
proposition is in fact one of legislation, or whether it is merely a 
permissible ``limitation'' on the funds sought to be appropriated. Such 
limitations may validly be imposed in certain circumstances, where the 
effect is not to directly change existing law. Thus, just as the House 
may decline to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law, it may by 
limitation prohibit the use of the money for part of the purpose while 
appropriating for the remainder of it.(7) The lan

[[Page 5227]]

guage of the limitation may provide that no part of the appropriation 
under consideration shall be used for a certain designated 
purpose.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3936; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1595.
 8. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3917-3926; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such limitations must not be legislative in character; for example, 
they must not give affirmative directions, impose new duties upon 
executive officers, or by their terms restrict executive discretion to 
such a degree as to constitute a change in policy rather than a matter 
of administrative detail. A separate division in this chapter 
(9) discusses those instances in which the Chair, usually in 
response to points of order based on Rule XXI clause 2, has held that 
the proposition in question was a permissible limitation on the use of 
funds.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 64-79, infra.
10. A limitation may also be imposed on the total amount appropriated 
        by a bill. See Sec. 80, infra. Pursuant to Sec. 401(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-344), 
        legislative bills authorizing contract or borrowing spending 
        authority must provide that such authority is available only to 
        the extent or in such amounts provided in appropriations acts. 
        Thus, a properly drafted limitation on new spending authority 
        may be included in a general appropriation bill if specifically 
        required by the act containing that contract or borrowing 
        authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule against unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
general appropriation bills is one of long standing. Its purpose has 
been to prevent delay of appropriation bills because of contention over 
propositions of legislation while at the same time to require prior 
consideration and enactment of authorizing legislation reported by 
legislative committees with legislative and oversight jurisdiction over 
the policies and programs which form the basis for expenditure of 
government funds.
    It should be emphasized that the rule applies only to ``general'' 
appropriation bills. The broad question as to when a bill may be 
considered a ``general'' appropriation bill, and when not, is discussed 
in another chapter.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: The rulings cited in this chapter are intended to illustrate 
the application of the rule requiring appropriations to be based on 
prior authorization. No attempt has been made to indicate whether 
measures similar to those ruled upon, if offered today, would in fact 
be authorized under present 
laws.

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

``General'' Appropriation Bills

Sec. 1.1 Restrictions imposed by Rule XXI clause 2 apply only

[[Page 5228]]

    to general appropriation bills.

    On May 21, 1937,(12) there was under consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 361) providing 
for appropriations ``to continue to provide relief and work relief on 
useful public projects,'' including projects previously approved for 
the Works Progress Administration. The funds appropriated were to be 
used ``in the discretion of and under the direction of the President.'' 
During consideration of the joint resolution, a point of order was 
raised against the following amendment, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 4936, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 
        7345, 7365, 7366, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1939 
        (proceedings relating to H.J. Res. 326, the work relief and 
        public works appropriation bill and a point of order raised by 
        Mr. Claude V. Parsons [Ill.]).
            For further discussion of the distinction between 
        ``general'' appropriation bills and those not falling within 
        that category, see Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 3, after line 18, insert the following: ``The funds 
    allocated hereunder to the Works Progress Administration shall be 
    so apportioned and distributed over the 12 months of the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1938, and shall be so administered during such 
    fiscal year as to constitute the total amount that will be 
    furnished during such fiscal year through such agency for relief 
    purposes.'' . . .
        Mr. Parsons: I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not in order because it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    bill in question is not a general appropriation bill, and therefore 
    clause 2 of Rule XXI does not apply. The Chair overrules the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Appropriations

Sec. 1.2 Parliamentarian's Note: The rule against legislation in 
    appropriation bills is limited to general appropriation bills; 
    thus, a joint resolution continuing appropriations for government 
    agencies pending enactment of the regular appropriation bills, 
    which is not a ``general appropriation bill'' as it does not 
    provide appropriations on an annual basis, is not subject to the 
    prohibitions of Rule XXI clause 2 against legislative language.

    On Sept. 21, 1967,(14) The following proceedings 
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent

[[Page 5229]]

    that it may be in order on Wednesday, September 27, or any day 
    thereafter, for the House to consider a joint resolution making 
    continuing appropriations.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, I wish to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is this: Is a 
    continuing resolution subject to amendment when it is brought onto 
    the floor of the House, if the amendment is germane?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any germane amendment 
    will be in order. It would have to be a germane amendment.
        Mr. Bow: I thank the Speaker, and I withdraw my reservation of 
    object.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas? . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, may I ask the gentleman from Texas if this is the 
    second, third, fourth, or fifth continuing resolution?
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this is the third continuing resolution 
    to be considered by the House this year.
        I would also say in this case, as in former cases, that the 
    continuing resolution would be considered in the House under the 5-
    minute rule, and I assume any relevant amendment could be offered.
        Mr. Gross: This would be considered in the House under the 5-
    minute rule, and any amendment that is germane could be offered?
        Mr. Mahon: We have considered them heretofore under the 5-
    minute rule and that would be my intention in this case. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman 
    says the 5-minute rule will prevail and that any germane amendments 
    will be in order to the continuing resolution, I withdraw my 
    reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Mahon]?
        There was no objection.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Parliamentarian's Note: Had this been a general appropriation bill, 
        it would have been called up as a privileged bill under Rule XI 
        clause 22 (now clause 4), rather than by unanimous consent. See 
        Ch. 25, supra, for further discussion of the privileged nature 
        of general appropriation bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Appropriations

Sec. 1.3 A supplemental appropriation joint resolution containing 
    additional funds for two agencies for the balance of the fiscal 
    year was held not to be a ``general'' appropriation bill within the 
    meaning of the rule prohibiting appropriations in general 
    appropriation bills for unauthorized expenditures.

    On Apr. 12, 1973,(17) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
called up for

[[Page 5230]]

consideration in the House as in Committee of the Whole a joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 496) making supplemental appropriations for the 
Civil Aeronautics Board and the Veterans' Administration for fiscal 
year 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 12191, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Permission for 
        consideration of this bill was granted on Apr. 10, 1973. The 
        bill was filed on Apr. 11, 1973, pursuant to a unanimous-
        consent agreement to permit filing after adjournment. No points 
        of order against the bill were reserved, either at the time of 
        filing or at the time permission was granted for consideration 
        of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, raised a point of order 
against the appropriation for the Civil Aeronautics Board, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order in regard to 
    the payments to air carriers for an additional amount for 
    ``payments to air carriers'' in the amount of $26,800,000, to 
    remain available until expended.
        The point of order is that it exceeds the authority to fix 
    rates as set by the Congress under section 406, 72 statute 763, as 
    amended by 76 statute 145, 80 statute 942, and 49 U.S.C. 1376.
        The law states:

            The Board is empowered and directed, upon its own 
        initiative or upon petition of the Postmaster General or an air 
        carrier, (1) to fix and determine from time to time, after 
        notice and hearing, the fair and reasonable rates of 
        compensation for the transportation of mail by aircraft.

        Later on, in section (b) of the same authority to fix rates, 
    the rate may be determined under (3):

            The need of each such air carrier (other than a 
        supplemental air carrier) for compensation for the 
        transportation of mail sufficient to insure the performance of 
        such service, and, together with all other revenue of the air 
        carrier . . . .

        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that this 
    appropriation exceeds the authorization as passed by the Congress 
    and signed into law by the President. . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending House joint resolution is not a general 
    appropriation bill. The point of order which the gentleman has made 
    does not apply to this pending legislation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill, containing as it did 
appropriations for two agencies for the remainder of the fiscal year, 
would have qualified as a ``general appropriation bill'' under the 
precedents. However, the Committee on Appropriations filed the bill 
under the impression it was not a general bill, and since no points of 
order were reserved, none could have been pressed in Committee of the 
Whole.

Legislation in Motion to Recommit

Sec. 1.4 If any portion of a motion to recommit with instruc

[[Page 5231]]

    tions constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, the entire 
    motion is out of order.

    On Sept. 1, 1976,(19) During consideration in the House 
of the legislative branch appropriation bill (H.R. 14238), a point of 
order was raised and sustained against a motion to recommit as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 28883, 28884, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. The Clerk read as 
        follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania] moves to 
        recommit the bill, H.R. 14238, to the Committee on 
        Appropriations, with instructions to that Committee to report 
        the bill back to the House forthwith, with the following 
        amendments: On page 7, after line 24, insert the following new 
        section: . . .
            ``Expenditure of any appropriation contained in this Act, 
        disbursed on behalf of any Member or Committee of the House of 
        Representatives, shall be limited to those funds paid against a 
        voucher, signed and approved by a Member of the House of 
        Representatives, stating under penalty of perjury, that the 
        voucher is for official expenses as authorized by law: Provided 
        further, That any Member of the House of Representatives who 
        willfully makes and subscribes to any such voucher which 
        contains a written declaration that it is made under the 
        penalties of perjury and which he does not believe at the time 
        to be true and correct in every material matter, shall be 
        guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined 
        not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than five 
        years, or both.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit falls in violation of the 
    rules against legislation in an appropriation bill. Under the rules 
    of the House, Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit is subject to the 
    same germaneness tests as any other amendment to a piece of 
    legislation.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore make a point of order against the 
    motion on the grounds that it constitutes an attempt to legislate 
    in an appropriation bill. . . .
        On page 3, there is a requirement that any Member who makes a 
    willful statement subscribing any voucher shall be guilty of the 
    penalties of perjury.
        This adds essentially a new amendment to the Criminal Code, 
    which most properly can be found in title 18 of the United States 
    Code, and it imposes further, Mr. Speaker, a requirement that such 
    act shall constitute a felony which will be punishable by not more 
    than $2,000 or subject to imprisonment of not more than 5 years. . 
    . .
        Mr. Coughlin Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order that has been raised. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order addressed to 
    the execution of vouchers under penalties of perjury, that does not 
    impose a significant additional duty in compliance with the facts 
    that those vouchers must already be executed by the Members 
    certifying that they are for official expenses. This motion says 
    they would be executed under penalty of perjury.

[[Page 5232]]

        The additional amendment would concede the point of order as it 
    applies to the second paragraph on page 3 of the motion, but I 
    think it would be beneficial to the Members to have that 
    explanation there; and I would hope that the point of order would 
    be withdrawn as to that point. . . .
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is going to sustain the point of order. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has conceded one portion of the point of order, and 
    with that the entire motion to recommit is subject to a point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure for Offering Limitations

Sec. 1.5 When a general appropriation bill has been read, or considered 
    as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair (after 
    entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments which are 
    not prohibited by Rule XXI clause 2(c), and then recognizes for 
    amendments proposing limitations not contained or authorized in 
    existing law pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2(d), subject to the 
    preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been agreed 
    to.

    On Oct. 27, 1983,(1) The Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriation bill (H.R. 4139), when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. --, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it be in order at this time to offer a change in the language that 
    would not be considered under the House rules to be legislating on 
    an appropriations bill?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will first entertain any 
    amendment to the bill which is not prohibited by clause 2(c), rule 
    XXI, and will then entertain amendments proposing limitations 
    pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49, 
        immediately after line 2, add the following new section:

            ``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
        employees health benefit program which provides any benefits or 
        coverages for abortions, under such negotiated plans after the 
        last day of the contracts currently in force.''

[[Page 5233]]

        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard on my point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman's point of 
    order.
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is 
    that this amendment constitutes a limitation on an appropriation 
    and cannot be considered by the House prior to the consideration of 
    a motion by the Committee to rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no 
    such preferential motion has yet been made.
        The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing a 
    limitation.

Motion to Rise and Report With Recommendation For Recommittal

Sec. 1.6 Pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2, as adopted in the 98th 
    Congress, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    a general appropriation bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing 
    a limitation not contained or authorized in existing law, after the 
    bill has been read for amendment in its entirety; accordingly a 
    motion that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted, with instructions 
    to the committee to report the bill back to the House (whether or 
    not forthwith) with an amendment proposing such a limitation, does 
    not take precedence of the motion to rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

    The following motions were made on Sept. 19, 1983,(3) 
during consideration of H.R. 3222 (Departments of Commerce, State, 
Justice, and the Judiciary appropriations for fiscal 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. --, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa moves that the Committee do now 
        rise and report the bill to the House with sundry amendments 
        with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and 
        that the bill as amended do pass.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a preferential motion at the desk.
        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Walker moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as

[[Page 5234]]

         amended, be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations 
        with instructions that the committee report the bill, as 
        amended, back to the House with the following amendment:
            At the end of title II, add the following new section:
            ``None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be 
        used to prevent or in any way prohibit the implementation of 
        programs of voluntary school prayer and meditation in the 
        public schools.''

    Mr. Smith made a point of order against the preferential motion on 
the ground that the motion violated clause 2 of Rule XXI.
    The effect of the Walker motion would have been to reverse the 
precedence contemplated by Rule XXI clause 2(d) by allowing a vote on a 
limitation amendment before the motion to rise and report. Accordingly, 
the Chair indicated that, although a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that 
the bill be recommitted is preferential to a motion to rise and report 
where a bill has been read in full under the general five-minute rule 
of the House,(5) instructions in a recommittal motion may 
not propose an amendment which would not be in order. The Chair applied 
the principle that it is not in order to do indirectly (by a motion to 
recommit with instructions to report a particular amendment back to the 
House) that which may not be done directly under the rules of the House 
by way of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On appeal, the Chair's decision was sustained by a voice vote.

Legislative Language in Prior Appropriation Acts

Sec. 1.7 The fact that legislative language may have been included in 
    appropriation acts in prior years applicable to funds in those laws 
    does not permit the inclusion in a general appropriation bill of 
    similar language requiring officials to make determinations not 
    otherwise required by law for the fiscal year in question.

    The ruling of the Chair on Sept. 22, 1983,(6) as that a 
provision in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds 
therein to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would 
be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, and providing that the 
several states shall remain free not to fund abortions to the extent 
they deem appropriate, is legislation requiring federal officials to 
make determinations and judgments not required by law, not

[[Page 5235]]

withstanding the inclusion in prior year appropriation bills of similar 
legislation applicable to funds in prior years. The proceedings are 
discussed in Sec. 52.44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. --, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 2. Points of Order; Timeliness

    As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the 
enforcement of Rule XXI clause 2 must ordinarily occur during 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, where the Chair, on the 
raising of a point of order, may rule out any portion of the bill in 
conflict with the rule. No report of parts of the bill thus ruled out 
is made to the House. It is the practice, therefore, for some Member to 
reserve points of order when a general appropriation bill is referred 
to Committee of the Whole, in order that portions in violation of the 
rule may be eliminated in the Committee. On one occasion where points 
of order were not reserved against an appropriation bill when it was 
reported to the House and referred to the Committee of the Whole, 
points of order in the Committee of the Whole against a proposition in 
violation of this clause were overruled, on the ground that the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole lacked authority to pass upon 
the question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General appropriation bills are read ``scientifically'' only by 
paragraph headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order 
against a paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto 
or before the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount. Where 
the bill is considered as having been read and open to amendment by 
unanimous consent, points of order against provisions in the bill must 
be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be reserved pending 
subsequent action on amendments.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See the discussion in House Rules and Manual Sec. 835 
        (1983).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Points of Order

Sec. 2.1 Since points of order had not been reserved on an 
    appropriation bill when it was reported to the House and referred 
    to the Committee of the Whole, points of order against a 
    proposition in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 were overruled on the 
    ground that the Chairman lacked authority to pass upon the 
    question.

[[Page 5236]]

    On Apr. 8, 1943, the Clerk read a provision of a bill containing 
legislative and judiciary appropriations for 1944,(9) as 
follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2409.
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3150, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries of clerks of courts: For salaries of clerks of United 
    States circuit courts of appeals and United States district courts, 
    their deputies, and other assistants, $2,542,900: Provided, That 
    the positions of deputy clerk of the United States district court 
    at Springfield, Mass., Cumberland, Md. . . . and Pueblo, Colo., are 
    hereby abolished and such provisions of law as require offices of 
    clerks of courts to be maintained at such places are hereby 
    repealed.

    The following points of order were then made: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 3150, 3151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the material contained in line 20, page 55, 
    down to the end of the paragraph on page 56, line 11, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there was no reservation made when this bill 
    was introduced with reference to points of order, and the Record 
    will bear me out. Therefore a point of order against anything in 
    the bill now is not in order.
        The Chairman (12) subsequently ruled as follows: 
    (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James P. McGranery (Pa.).
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3153, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule, if there is no withdrawal of the 
    points of order.
        In this connection the Chair feels that there is a duty upon 
    all Members to read the rules, which are published. This is not 
    just mere custom, as the Chair sees it.
        The Journal discloses that there were no points of order 
    reserved on the pending bill when it was reported to the House on 
    April 6, 1943.
        The Chair has been very deeply impressed with the decisions on 
    this question which run back to 1837, particularly an opinion 
    expressed by Chairman Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, on March 31, 
    1896--Hinds' Precedents, volume V, section 6923--in which it was 
    stated:

            In determining this question the Chair thinks it is 
        important to take into consideration the organization and power 
        of the Committee of the Whole, which is simply to transact such 
        business as is referred to it by the House. Now, the House 
        referred the bill under consideration to this Committee as an 
        entirety, with directions to consider it. The objection raised 
        by the gentleman from North Dakota would, in effect, cause the 
        Chair to take from the Committee the consideration of part of 
        this bill, which has been committed to it by the House. The 
        Committee has the power to change or modify this bill as the 
        Members, in their wisdom, may deem wise and proper, but it is 
        not for the Chairman, where no points of order were reserved in 
        the House against the bill. . . . The effect would be, should 
        the Chair sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
        North Dakota, to take from the consideration of the Committee 
        of the Whole a part of this bill which has been committed to it 
        by the House without reservation of this right to the Chairman.

[[Page 5237]]

        Hopkins then held that he had no authority to sustain a point 
    of order against an item in the bill.
        The present occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow 
    the precedents heretofore established and sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran).

    Note: On occasion, a Member has by unanimous consent reserved 
points of order against an appropriation bill already reported and 
referred to the Calendar.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 2.2 The reservation of a point of order against an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is within the discretion of the Chair. Thus, 
    even though a Member states that he ``will reserve a point of 
    order'' and then seeks the Chair's recognition to speak in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair may dispose of the point of 
    order first.

    On June 6, 1963,(15) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 10411, 10412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 33, 
    after line 12, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 607. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to 
    pay the salary of any officer or employee who negotiates agreements 
    or contracts or in any other way, directly or indirectly, performs 
    duties or functions incidental to supporting the price of Upland 
    Middling Inch cotton at a level in excess of 30 cents a pound.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but I will reserve the point 
    of order at this time.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    reserves the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak 
    on the point of order.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    press his point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: I will not press it for the moment and yield to 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones].
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri has indicated he 
    desires to be heard on the point of order which has not been made.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, if I may.

[[Page 5238]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the 
    basis that the prohibition that would be set up here would require 
    new duties to be performed in determining who negotiates, whether 
    their actions constitute negotiations, or whether their actions in 
    any of these particulars are in such a manner as to have their 
    salaries not paid, particularly in view of other laws which require 
    that employees of the Federal Government be paid certain specified 
    sums.
        Mr. Chairman, it does call for new duties and there is no 
    limitation in its entirety.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: I desire to be heard, Mr. Chairman, on 
    the point of order. . . . Mr. Chairman, I contend this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill because it would prohibit the 
    Secretary from carrying out the duties and the authority that he 
    has under legislation that has not been changed. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment which provides for the insertion of a new section, which 
    amendment provides in words that none of the funds provided in the 
    pending bill shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
    employee who does certain things.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that constitutes within the rules 
    of the House a limitation on the funds being appropriated and is a 
    proper form of limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Effect of Conceding Point of Order

Sec. 2.3 Where a point of order is made against language in an 
    appropriation bill and the point is conceded by the Member handling 
    the bill, the Chair normally sustains the point of order.

    On Apr. 12, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11666, a State, Justice, and Judiciary Departments 
appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for permanent representation. . . 
    $1,850,000.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and 
    running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to page 7 of the report on 
    the pending bill, H.R. 11666, which states:

            The following table sets forth the amounts allowed for each 
        organization.

        Item 7 provides $30,000 for the Interparliamentary Union.
        Mr. Chairman, I also call your attention to page 1035 of the 
    hearings and the justification for this appropriation, from which I 
    read as follows:

            The act of June 28, 1935, as amended by Public Law 409, ap

[[Page 5239]]

        proved February 6, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 276), authorizes an amount 
        of $15,000 to assist in meeting the expenses of the American 
        group of the Interparliamentary Union for each fiscal year.

        I further read from the justification to be found on the same 
    page:

            Although the enabling legislation authorizes an 
        appropriation of $15,000, there is included in this request 
        $30,000.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this violates rule 
    21, paragraph 2, of Cannon's Procedures which provides that no 
    appropriation shall be made without prior authorization.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: . . . It is the fact, and 
    we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has been in 
    existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an authorization for 
    expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the newly created 
    NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian Interparliamentary 
    Union have authorizations for $30,000. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of 
    order is well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

Point of Order Against Part of Paragraph

Sec. 2.4 Where a point of order is made against an entire paragraph in 
    an appropriation bill on the ground that a portion thereof is in 
    conflict with the rules of the House and the point of order is 
    sustained, the entire paragraph is eliminated.

    On July 23, 1970,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I make a further point of order under 
    this title and under the heading ``Office of Economic 
    Opportunity,'' on page 38, lines 1 through 25, including the colon 
    after the word ``grant'', predicated upon the fact that this is 
    further legislation in an appropriation bill and that it involves 
    specifically, Mr. Chairman, the phrase on line 14 ``and for 
    purchase of real property for training centers:'' and other 
    legislation language which is foreign to an appropriation bill. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky will be heard.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the point of order 
    raised by

[[Page 5240]]

    the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman moved to strike the 
    language on page 38 from what line through what line?
        Mr. Hall: The Chair has just repeated it. Line 1, including the 
    title and the heading, down through the colon following the word 
    ``grant.''
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, lines 1 
    through 5 including the amount authorized and appropriated, 
    $2,046,200,000, follows the language in the authorization bill. We 
    do have some new language commencing on lines 14 through 15 that is 
    not in the authorization bill presently, but this is the language 
    that has been carried on previous appropriation bills. The language 
    that I specifically refer to that is not in the authorization bill 
    is on line 14 after ``1964,'' commencing with ``and for purchase of 
    real property for training centers.''
        Now, this language is not in the authorization bill.
        The language commencing on line 18 and the rest of the 
    paragraph down to line 21 is language on an appropriation bill, in 
    my judgment, because there is nothing in the authorization bill. 
    But we certainly do not want the amount that is appropriated for 
    the economic opportunity act stricken from this bill. It is in 
    strict compliance with the authorization amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There are ample precedents for ruling a complete paragraph out 
    of order, if any part of that paragraph is out of order. The 
    gentleman from Kentucky has conceded that part of it is not in 
    order, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall).

Sec. 2.5 When part of a paragraph is subject to be stricken on a point 
    of order as being legislation, the entire paragraph is subject to 
    the point of order.

    On May 11, 1960,(1) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 10032, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 
        19726, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1961 (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 9169); and 83 Cong. Rec. 652, 75th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Jan. 17, 1938 (proceedings relating to H.R. 8947, a 
        Treasury and Post Office Departments appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Marketing services: For services relating to agricultural 
        marketing and distribution, for carrying out regulatory acts 
        connected therewith, and for administration and coordination of 
        payments to States, $26,838,000 . . . Provided, That the 
        Department is hereby authorized and directed to make such 
        inspection of poultry products processing plants as it deems 
        essential to the protection of public health and to permit the 
        use of appropriate inspection labels where it determines from 
        such inspection that such plants operate in a manner which 
        protects the public health, and not less than $500,000 shall be 
        available for this purpose.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a

[[Page 5241]]

    point of order against the language beginning in line 2, page 17, 
    commencing with the word ``Provided,'' right down through the end 
    of that paragraph on page 17, line 9.
        This constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph, beginning in line 15, 
    page 16, through line 9 on page 17, on the ground it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee does not care to oppose the point of order. I do not 
    think there is any question but what points of order lie.
        The Chairman:(2) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes both points of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Minnesota and the entire paragraph is 
    ruled out as legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.6 Where a point of order is made against an entire proviso on 
    the ground that a portion of it is subject to the point of order, 
    and the point of order is sustained, the entire proviso is 
    eliminated.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(3) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3491-94, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of 
    sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act . . . not to exceed $50,000 for the preparation and 
    display of exhibits. . . . Provided further, That in order to 
    effect (specified reductions) such part of the funds available for 
    salaries and administrative expenses shall be transferred under 
    section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 
    February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing extension services 
    of the land-grant colleges in the several States to enable them to 
    carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional 
    activities in connection with such programs in these States and no 
    other funds than those so transferred shall be expended for such 
    activities . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law, persons who in 1943 carry out farming operations 
    as tenants or sharecroppers on cropland owned by the United States 
    Government and who comply with the terms and conditions of the 1943 
    agricultural conservation program, formulated pursuant to sections 
    7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 
    Act, as amended, shall be entitled to apply for and receive 
    payments, or to retain payments heretofore made, for their 
    participation in said program to the same extent as other 
    producers. . . .
        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fulmer: On Page 65, beginning in line 9, with the words 
    ``Provided further,'' I make a point of order against

[[Page 5242]]

    all of that section down to line 18, including the word 
    ``activities,'' the language reading, ``Provided further,'' That in 
    order to effect such 50-percent reduction such part of the funds 
    available for salaries and administrative expenses shall be 
    transferred under section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act of February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing 
    extension services of the land-grant colleges in the several States 
    to enable them to carry out all necessary educational, 
    informational, and promotional activities in connection with such 
    programs in these States and no other funds than those so 
    transferred shall be expended for such activities''; that it is the 
    legislation on an appropriation bill without authorization. I make 
    that point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman has other points of order against 
    the paragraph?
        Mr. Fulmer: Yes.

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman indicate those?
        Mr. Fulmer: On page 67, line 16, down to and including line 3 
    on page 68, which language is as follows: ``Provided further, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States Government and who comply with 
    the terms and conditions of the 1943 agricultural conservation 
    program, formulated pursuant to sections 7 to 17 inclusive, of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, shall be 
    entitled to apply for and receive payments, or to retain payments 
    heretofore made, for their participation in said program to the 
    same extent as other producers: And provided further, That no part 
    of such amount shall be available for carrying out the provisions 
    of section 202 (a) to (f) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938,'' on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill without any authorization in law. . . .
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, if a part of a paragraph or section in 
    a bill is subject to a point of order and a point of order is made 
    to the paragraph or section, does that not carry out the entire 
    paragraph or section?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, for 
    clarification, the point of order was not made against the entire 
    paragraph as I understand it.
        The Chairman: The entire proviso. That is what the gentleman 
    had in mind?
        Mr. Bland: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the first point of 
    order submitted by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer]. 
    . .  .
        The gentleman from Illinois concedes that the point of order is 
    sound and well taken for that part of the proviso beginning after 
    the word ``States'' in line 15, as follows: ``to enable them to 
    carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional 
    activities, that it is subject to the point of order, being 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5243]]

        If any part of the proviso is subject to a point of order, the 
    whole proviso falls, therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer]. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood there was a point of order against another portion of 
    the paragraph, the concluding proviso. I only wish to be heard at 
    this time on the point of order as far as it relates to the 
    concluding proviso, that is, on page 68, line 1:

            That no part of such amount shall be available for carrying 
        out the provisions of section 202 (a) to (f) of the 
        Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

        Those are the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938 which make available $4,000,000 from this fund for the 
    maintenance of the four regional laboratories. We have already 
    appropriated in a preceding paragraph of the bill $4,000,000, from 
    the Federal Treasury and not from this fund for those laboratories. 
    For that reason, it became necessary to provide that the same 
    amount should not again be made available from this particular 
    fund, which would result in $8,000,000 being made available to the 
    four regional laboratories when no such amount was estimated 
    therefor.
        This is a limitation under the Holman rule. This simply limits 
    the expenditures which are authorized under this paragraph, so that 
    this appropriation which has already been made in a preceding 
    paragraph of the bill cannot be duplicated from these funds.
        Mr. Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, after rereading this provision and 
    hearing the gentleman's argument, I confine my point of order to 
    the proviso on page 67 beginning in line 16 and running down 
    through line 25, ending with the word ``producers.'' . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 16 and running down to and 
    including the word ``producers'' in line 25 that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. With the information available to the 
    Chair, the Chair is of the opinion that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and sustains the point of order.

Sec. 2.7 A point of order may be made against part of a paragraph 
    which, if sustained, would not necessarily affect the remainder of 
    such paragraph unless a point of order were specifically made 
    against the entire paragraph.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 4108, 4109, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: For 
    an additional 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: Pro

[[Page 5244]]

    vided, 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: Provided further, That 
    before approving any local slum clearance program under title I of 
    the Housing Act of 1949, the Administrator shall give consideration 
    to the efforts of the locality to enforce local codes and 
    regulations relating to adequate standards of health, sanitation, 
    and safety for dwellings and to the feasibility of achieving slum 
    clearance objectives through rehabilitation of existing dwellings 
    and areas: Provided further, That the authority under title I of 
    the National Housing Act shall be used to the utmost in connection 
    with slum rehabilitation needs.
        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: (6) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to make a point of 
    order to one part of a paragraph and have it limited to that 
    particular part?
        The Chairman: A Member may make a point of order to any 
    objectionable language in the paragraph.
        Mr. Whitten: Separating it from the remainder of the paragraph?
        The Chairman: Yes.

Timeliness--Objection to Consideration

Sec. 2.8 A point of order against consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill, on grounds that the total of proposed 
    appropriations exceeds the total amount authorized, will not lie in 
    the House. The proper time to demand enforcement of Rule XXI clause 
    2 (the rule against reporting appropriations not previously 
    authorized) is when such item is read for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23140, 23141, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the

[[Page 5245]]

    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10871) 
    making appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes; 
    and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
    general debate on the bill be limited to 3 hours, one-half of that 
    time to be controlled by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Shriver] 
    and one-half to be controlled by myself.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, at the proper time I shall ask for recognition to make a 
    point of order against consideration of the bill. I should like to 
    be advised as to that time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say that if the unanimous-consent 
    request is granted the gentleman may then assert whatever he wants 
    to under the rules.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Louisiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    consideration of this bill on the ground that in adoption of the 
    conference report by the Congress, and with the signature of the 
    President of the United States now a fact, and, therefore, the 
    authorization bill is law, it includes a new section, section 649, 
    which reads as follows:

            Limitation on aggregate authority for use in the fiscal 
        year 1966. . . .

        The Speaker: What is the number of that section?
        Mr. Gross: Section 649.
        The Speaker: Of the authorization bill?
        Mr. Gross: Of the authorization bill, which reads as follows:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the 
        aggregate of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
        use during the fiscal year 1966 for furnishing assistance and 
        for administrative expenses under this act shall not exceed 
        $3,360 million. . . .

        The limitation contained in the conference report, which is now 
    law, is $3,360 million. The report accompanying this bill states 
    clearly there is sought to be appropriated by this bill 
    $3,630,622,000.
        Mr. Passman: . . . Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct 
    attention to the fact that the authorization bill limited new 
    appropriations to $3,360 million. We are only recommending new 
    appropriations in the amount of $3,285 million which is $75 million 
    below the amount authorized.
        Under section 645 of the basic act, and I quote:

            Unexpended balances: Funds made available pursuant to this 
        Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1955, as amended, Public Law 
        86-735, are hereby authorized to be continued available for the 
        general purposes for which appropriated and may at any time be 
        consolidated and in addition may be consolidated with 
        appropriations made available for the same general purposes 
        under the authority of this Act.

        Mr. Speaker, this is the basic legislation.
        If I may make one further observation, Mr. Speaker, a good part 
    of the section that the gentleman is referring

[[Page 5246]]

    to has to do with no-year funds anyway. The no-year funds in which 
    the appropriation or unexpended balance is automatically carried 
    forward would be $120,978,000. We have moved on the premise that 
    the original basic act authorized the continuation of the 
    unexpended or unobligated funds from previous years. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the new section 
    inserted in the authorization bill which has been read, and I am 
    sure the Speaker understands it thoroughly, makes no provision for 
    new funds. It says explicitly, ``notwithstanding any other 
    provision of this Act, the limitation is $3,360 million.''
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Without passing upon the question, that might arise later on, 
    if it does, the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order 
    should be made against the item or items in the appropriation bill 
    which the gentleman from Iowa might claim to be in excess of the 
    amount authorized by law, and not against the consideration of the 
    bill itself.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        The question is on the motion.

Sec. 2.9 A point of order against an unauthorized appropriation does 
    not lie in the House against consideration of a special 
    appropriation bill made in order pursuant to a rule reported from 
    the Committee on Rules.

    Where the House had agreed to a resolution providing for 
consideration of a joint resolution making temporary appropriations, an 
objection to consideration of the joint resolution on the ground that 
the authorization for the appropriations therein had expired was held 
not to be in order. The proceedings on Aug. 21, 1951,(9) 
during which the House was considering House Resolution 397, making in 
order the consideration of House Joint Resolution 320, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10479-81, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See also Sec. 2.8, 
        supra. The point of order based on lack of authorization only 
        lies against an item in a general appropriation bill when that 
        item is read for amendment in Committee of the Whole under the 
        five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 397) which I submitted earlier in the day, 
    making in order House Joint Resolution 320, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve 
        itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
        the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. 
        Res. 320) amending an act making temporary appropriations for 
        the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes. . . . At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
        resolution to

[[Page 5247]]

        the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
        resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

        The Speaker: (10) The question is, Will the House 
    consider the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the House decided to consider the joint resolution. . . .
        [The resolution was subsequently agreed to.] (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 10481, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 320) amending an act making temporary 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against consideration of the joint resolution on the 
    ground that the authorization has expired, and that there is no 
    authorization for this appropriation.
        The Speaker: The resolution just adopted makes in order the 
    consideration of the joint resolution, and, therefore, the point of 
    order does not lie.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Point of Order During Reading

Sec. 2.10 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill on the ground that it is legislation will not 
    lie until the paragraph is read; and such a point of order is not 
    precluded by the fact that, by unanimous consent, an amendment was 
    offered to the paragraph before it was read.

    On July 31, 1969,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 13111) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school or the attendance of students at a particular school as 
        a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
        available to any State, school district, or school.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of 
    the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not 
    a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional 
    duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408 
    because it would require additonal personnel to determine whether 
    busing has been

[[Page 5248]]

    used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, two, to require 
    the attendance of any student at any particular school. You would 
    have to have investigators there to determine this as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State school district or school. No. 1, for the abolition of any 
    school, and No. 2, whether the attendance of any student at any 
    particular school could be investigated there to determine this as 
    a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
    available to any State, school district or school.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chairman to sustain the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I raised the point awhile ago that the gentleman, 
    having asked unanimous consent that the amendments to the two 
    sections be considered en bloc and having obtained that unanimous-
    consent request, and after having the amendments considered en bloc 
    in connection with the two sections, that the House has already 
    considered section 409 and the point of order comes too late. That 
    is the situation on the one hand.
        Second, a reading of the section clearly shows that the House 
    has already considered section 409 in connection with the prior 
    amendments. In addition to that, this is clearly a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and does not have to conform to the Holman rule. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The objection of the gentleman from Mississippi which has been 
    made to the effect that this section had been considered when, by 
    unanimous consent amendments to the two sections were considered, 
    does not nullify the fact that section 409 had not been read. 
    Therefore, when section 409 was read it was subject to points of 
    order.

Sec. 2.11 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill is not in order until that paragraph is read; 
    and the Chairman has declined to recognize a Member to make a point 
    of order against both paragraphs of a particular section when only 
    the first of such paragraphs has been read.

    On June 4, 1970,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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

[[Page 5249]]

        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.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman make his point 
    of order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frelinghuysen: When I get the opportunity, I shall 
    certainly make the point of order against section (b) also. If it 
    is in order, I shall be glad to make the point of order against 
    both sections (a) and (b) at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to rule on the sections 
    separately. The gentleman has made a point of order against section 
    107(a). The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Sec. 2.12 A point of order against language in a general appropriation 
    bill comes too late after the reading of the subsequent paragraph.

    On June 6, 1963,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6754) proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 
        24752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 16, 1963 (H.R. 9499).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning 
    with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on 
    line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair may say to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The 
    Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Considered as Read

Sec. 2.13 Where all of a general appropriation bill (and not just the 
    portion not yet read), was, by unanimous consent, considered as 
    read and open to points of order and amendment at any point, the 
    Chairman sustained a point of order against a provision conceded to 
    be legislation in a paragraph which had been passed in reading for 
    amendment when the unanimous-consent request was agreed to.

    On June 7, 1972,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 15259), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           General Operating Expenses

            General operating expenses, $65,029,000, of which $629,700 
        shall

[[Page 5250]]

        be payable from the highway fund (including $72,400 from the 
        motor vehicle parking account), $94,500 from the water fund, 
        and $67,300 from the sanitary sewage works fund. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, open to amendment at any point, and subject to any points 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3, 
    line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificates of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this 
        appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony 
        expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary:

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order 
    against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line 
    13.
        This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill 
    without authorization.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has 
    raised his point of order was previously read prior to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Hall] is correct, and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

        Are there any further points of order?
        Are there any amendments to be proposed?

Bill Opened for Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 2.14 Where an appropriation bill partially read for amendment is 
    then opened for amendment ``at any point'' (rather than for ``the 
    remainder of the bill''), points of order to paragraphs already 
    read may yet be entertained.

    On June 7, 1972,(20) in a paragraph appropriating funds 
for

[[Page 5251]]

general operating expenses for the District of Columbia, a proviso 
stating that certificates of the Commissioner and Chairman of the City 
Council shall be sufficient vouchers for expenditure from that 
appropriation was conceded to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
clause 2 and was ruled out on a point of order. The part of the bill 
against which the point of order was directed had been read prior to a 
unanimous-consent request that the bill be open for amendment at any 
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Missouri will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3, 
    line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificate of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this 
        appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony 
        expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary. . . .

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order 
    against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line 
    13.
        This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill 
    without authorization.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has 
    raised his point of order was previously read prior to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall) is correct, and we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.
        Are there any further points of order?
        Are there any amendments to be proposed? (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1973 
        [H.R. 8658].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has granted unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of a general appropriation bill be 
    considered as read and open to points of order or amendment at any 
    point, the Chair first inquires whether any Member desires to raise 
    a point of order against any portion of

[[Page 5252]]

    the pending text, and then recognizes Members to offer amendments 
    to that text.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15931) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 2.22, infra, 
        as to the proper time for making points of order against 
        provisions of the bill where the bill is considered as read and 
        open to points of order and amendments at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the 
    bill be considered as read and open to points of order or amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the language contained in section 
    411, beginning on line 12, through line 20 on page 61, which reads 
    as follows:

            Sec. 411. In the administration of any program provided for 
        in this Act, as to which the allocation, grant, apportionment, 
        or other distribution of funds among recipients is required to 
        be determined by application of a formula involving the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available for distribution, the 
        amount available for expenditure or obligation (as determined 
        by the President) shall be substituted for the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available in the application of 
        the formula.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that the 
    section in question constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and does not come within the exception.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, the language is patently legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania concedes the 
    point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language on page 57, lines 9 through 16, which reads as 
    follows:

            Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic 
        Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory 
        funding levels, including mandatory funding levels for the 
        newly authorized programs for alcoholic counseling and recovery 
        and for drug rehabilitation, shall be effective during the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1970: Provided further, That of the 
        sums appropriated not less than $22,000,000 shall be used for 
        the family planning program.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page 5253]]

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Flood: Not on this point, Mr. Chairman; no.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition 
    on this point of order:
        Mr. O'Hara: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment simply restates 
    existing law in the authorizing legislation, and if that is indeed 
    the case, I do not think it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that if this restates existing 
    law, there is no point in it being in the bill, and the fact that 
    it is in the bill on its face would indicate there must be 
    legislation in it in addition to that contained in existing law. 
    The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        Are there any further points of order?
        The Chair will recognize at this time Members who wish to offer 
    amendments.

Sec. 2.16 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill 
    comes too late when the Committee of the Whole has granted 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and open at any point to points of order or to amendments and 
    the Chairman has asked for amendments after having asked for points 
    of order.

    On Aug. 19, 1949,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6008, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        Sec. 2.22, infra, as to the proper time for making points of 
        order against provisions of the bill where the bill is 
        considered as read and open to points of order and amendments 
        at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        If not, are there any amendments?
        Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wheeler: On page 6, line 17, 
        strike out all the paragraph to and including all of lines 16 
        on page 7. . . .

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.

[[Page 5254]]

        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time 
    the further reading of the bill was dispensed with, the Chair 
    requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that 
    time.

After Request for Additional Debate

Sec. 2.17 After an amendment to an appropriation bill has been read by 
    the Clerk and a reservation of objection has been made against a 
    unanimous-consent request for an additional five minutes' debate, 
    it has been held to be too late to raise a point of order against 
    the amendment.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(7) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On 
    page 57, in line 19, strike out ``$900,000'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof ``$1,900,000.''
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for an additional 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object----
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that this increase is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: (8) The point of order of the 
    gentleman from New York comes too late. A request has already been 
    presented, and there has been a reservation of objection to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Withdrawal of Reservation

Sec. 2.18 A point of order against an amendment to an appropriation 
    bill does not come too late if made immediately after the 
    withdrawal of a prior reservation of a point of order since the 
    initial reservation of a point of order inures to all Members.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10904, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 5165, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Hospital Construction Activities

        To carry out the provisions of title VI of the Act, as amended, 
    $188,572,000. . . .
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 5255]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of New York: On page 25, line 
        21, immediately before the period insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated in 
        this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color.''

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I 
    rise to support an amendment which would provide a limitation upon 
    the appropriations for hospital construction activities: that is, 
    relating to page 25 of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the use of funds 
    appropriated under the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction 
    for segregated facilities.
        The Hill-Burton program has provided Federal financing to help 
    construct more than 2,000 medical care facilities in 11 Southern 
    States. Since the inception of the Hill-Burton program these States 
    have received $562,921,000 for hospital construction. Authorities 
    have pointed out that virtually all of these institutions 
    discriminate in various ways against Negro citizens. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, is it in order 
    for me at this time to make a point of order against the amendment?
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Rhode Island 
    has reserved his point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island insist on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have 
    stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I 
    ask the committee to vote down the amendment.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to make 
    a point of order against the amendment?
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, does not the 
    point of order come too late?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia is making a 
    parliamentary inquiry at the present time.
        Mr. Yates: I beg pardon.

        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island was recognized and I was on my feet 
    for the purpose of making a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Rhode Island being a member of 
    the committee, the custom is that he be recognized first.
        The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, has not the point of order been waived 
    by the gentleman from Rhode Island speaking to the question?
        The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
    Rhode

[[Page 5256]]

    Island was speaking to his point of order and insisted then on the 
    defeat of the amendment.
        Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, no 
    point of order is proper at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] 
    now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order 
    against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order. 
    However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from 
    Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, one final parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of order by the 
    gentleman from Georgia come too late?
        The Chairman: Not under the circumstances. The Chair would 
    assume there is a possibility of more than one point of order being 
    made and for more than one reason.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from New York has offered an 
    amendment to which a point of order has been made. The language of 
    the amendment to which a point of order has been raised is as 
    follows:

            Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated 
        in this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a proper 
    limitation under the rules of the House and, therefore, overrules 
    the point of order.

Upon Third Reading

Sec. 2.19 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill is 
    not in order at the third reading of the bill in the House.

    On June 6, 1963,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 10399, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning 
    with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on 
    line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair may say to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The 
    Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 5257]]

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to make a point 
    of order on the third reading of the bill?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to 
    page 17 for the purpose of making a point of order.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.

Various Grounds for Objection

Sec. 2.20 Points of order were made against an entire title in an 
    appropriation bill for the Atomic Energy Commission which included, 
    in part, provisions for (1) the employment of aliens; (2) rental of 
    space upon a determination of need by the Administrator of General 
    Services; (3) use of unexpended balances of previous years; (4) 
    transfer of sums to other agencies; (5) a sum to remain available 
    until expended; (6) reappropriation of funds for plant and 
    equipment; and (7) a power reactor project not authorized by law 
    and the title was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On July 24, 1956,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second supplemental appropriation bill, a 
point of order was raised against a title containing provisions as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 14289, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clarence Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and now be 
    open to points of order and amendments to any part of the bill.
        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title 
    I and also the item for the Bureau of Reclamation on page 7.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman making a point of order against 
    the entire title I?
        Mr. Cannon: Title I and the material indicated as well as on 
    page 7.
        The Chairman: Let us pass on one point of order at a time, 
    please. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] against title I?
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: On what basis is the point 
    of order made?
        Mr. Cannon: Not authorized by law and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

[[Page 5258]]

        Mr. Judd: A lot of it is authorized by law.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the items in 
    title I, with the exception of the several provisos, are entirely 
    within the statute and are authorized. I thought I had an 
    understanding that the only item to go out was the $400 million 
    item, but as long as the point of order is made on that, I will 
    offer an amendment to cover everything except that last proviso 
    after the point of order is disposed of.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, title I, in its entirety, is subject 
    to a point of order. Part of the paragraph being subject to a point 
    of order, the entire paragraph is subject to a point of order.
        Title I is subject to a point of order on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Missouri makes the point of order against title I of the pending 
    bill on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    or contains appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair has 
    gone through title I and has observed that every paragraph in it 
    either contains legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in 
    violation of the rules of the House, or contains appropriations 
    which are not authorized by law, which is also in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Point of Order Too Late After Amendment Offered to Paragraph

Sec. 2.21 A point of order must be made against a paragraph of a 
    general appropriation bill after it is read and before an amendment 
    is offered thereto (even if the amendment is ruled out of order).

    On June 22, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Department of Transportation appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3329), when an amendment was offered and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 305. None of the funds provided under this Act for 
        Formula grants shall be made available to support mass transit 
        facilities, equipment, or operating expenses unless the 
        applicant for such assistance has given satisfactory assurances 
        in such manner and forms as the Secretary may require . . . 
        that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during 
        nonpeak hours shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally 
        applicable to other persons at peak hours: Provided, That the 
        Secretary, in prescribing the terms and conditions for the 
        provision of such assistance shall (1) permit applicants to 
        continue the use of preferential fare systems for elderly or 
        handicapped persons where those systems were in effect on or 
        prior to November 26, 1974. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mra-
        zek: Insert the following on page 36,

[[Page 5259]]

        line 24, ending with the phrase ``prior to November 26, 1974,'' 
        ``provided that said applicant adopts and implements 
        appropriate standards of eligibility which includes those 
        citizens who reside in the district served by the mass transit 
        system''.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I would remind the House under the rules of the House, though, 
    an issue of this kind with substantive merit needs to come before 
    the House--under the rules adopted primarily with votes from the 
    majority side earlier in this Congress--needs to come before the 
    body in the authorization bills rather than in the appropriations 
    bill.
        In this particular instance, the amendment that we have before 
    us constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        My objection to the amendment rests on that procedural grounds 
    that legislation in an appropriations bill is beyond the scope of 
    the present consideration and that this amendment must properly be 
    brought before the House in the course of the authorization 
    process. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. The gentleman 
    might have and I indeed had considered making a point of order 
    against the section as being not in order for reasons that the 
    gentleman has stated with respect to this amendment.
        No such point of order was made, however. Therefore, it is too 
    late to knock out the legislation on the basis that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This amendment merely seeks to make technical changes in the 
    language which is already there and to which no objection was made. 
    Therefore, it should be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    clear that the amendment proposed now that is in question deals 
    with perfecting language. We are talking about the very same 
    standards in this amendment that are recognized in the bill. All we 
    are talking about is extending those standards to another group of 
    citizens that are covered by this bill and this authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) If no other Member wishes to be 
    heard, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the pending section of the bill includes legislation 
    which was allowed to remain when no point of order was raised, the 
    fact is that the amendment adds additional legislative requirements 
    that appropriate standards of eligibility be determined for an 
    additional category of citizens not covered by section 305 and, 
    therefore, the Chair must rule that it is more than perfecting and 
    in fact does constitute additional legislation on an appropriation 
    and is out of order at this time.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at this time, 
    then, to assert a point of order against section 305?

[[Page 5260]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman that the 
    assertion of that point of order comes too late.

Time for Making Points of Order Against Provisions of Bill Considered 
    as Read

Sec. 2.22 Where a general appropriation bill is by unanimous consent 
    considered as read and open to points of order and then to 
    amendments at any point, points of order against provisions in the 
    bill must be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be 
    reserved pending subsequent action on amendments, since points of 
    order lie against provisions in the bill as reported under Rule XXI 
    clause 2, and separately against amendments in violation of that 
    rule.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriation bill (H.R. 7205), a parliamentary 
inquiry was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 28175, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. Sec. 2.15, 
        2.16, supra, for earlier precedents on related issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The portion of the bill to which the parliamentary inquiry 
    relates is as follows:

                                special programs

            For carrying out the consolidated programs and projects 
        authorized under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and 
        Improvement Act of 1981; . . .

         . . . Mr. Chairman, is it possible, since the bill is open to 
    amendment [at] any point, to reserve a point of order and to make 
    it at a later time against certain lines in the bill?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the 
    point of order must be made at this time, before amendments are 
    offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Paragraph Where Amendment Has Been Offered

Sec. 2.23 While a point of order can be made against an entire 
    paragraph of a general appropriation bill if any portion 
    contravenes the rules, it is too late to rule out the entire 
    paragraph after points of order against specific portions have been 
    sustained and an amendment to the paragraph has been offered.

    On June 27, 1974,(19) during consideration of the 
Departments

[[Page 5261]]

of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 
15580), the following proceedings occurred as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 21671, 21672, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flood: Page 18, line 7, insert ``: 
        Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
        pay any amount for basic opportunity grants for full-time 
        students at institutions of higher education who were enrolled 
        as regular students at such institutions prior to April 1, 
        1973.'' . . .

         Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against this amendment. The point of order is what I cited a 
    moment ago, Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, on 
    page 246:

            If a part of a paragraph . . . is out of order, all is out 
        of order and a point of order may be raised against the portion 
        out of order or against the entire paragraph. . . .

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood), does appear to meet the tests of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. It limits the funds in this specific bill and 
    it is negatively stated. For these reasons it would clearly appear 
    to be admissible as a limitation, distinguishable from that 
    language which was stricken in the proviso that had appeared in the 
    original bill.
        The Chair does not understand that the gentlewoman had raised a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph. The gentlewoman raised 
    two specific points of order on which the Chair ruled.
        If the gentlewoman had at that time intended to make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph she should so have stated, and 
    the Chair believes that a point of order at this moment on those 
    grounds would be untimely made since an amendment to the paragraph 
    is now pending.

Point of Order Weighed Against Bill as Amended

Sec. 2.24 A point of order against an amendment as legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill must be determined in relation to the 
    bill in its modified form (as affected by disposition of prior 
    points of order).

    On June 14, 1978,(1) the Chair found that, to a general 
appropriation bill from which all funds for the Federal Trade 
Commission had been stricken as unauthorized, an amendment prohibiting 
the use of all funds in the bill to limit advertising of (1) food 
products containing ingredients found safe by the Food and Drug 
Administration or considered ``generally recognized as safe'', or not 
con

[[Page 5262]]

taining ingredients found unsafe by the FDA, and (2) toys not declared 
hazardous or unsafe by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, imposed 
new duties upon the Federal Communications Commission (another agency 
funded by the bill) to evaluate findings of other federal agencies--
duties not imposed upon the FCC by existing law, and therefore violated 
Rule XXI clause 2. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 58.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 17644-47, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserving Points of Order on General Appropriation Bill

Sec. 2.25 Once points of order have been reserved in the House against 
    provisions in a general appropriation bill pending a unanimous 
    consent request for filing of the report thereon and referral to 
    the Union Calendar when the House would not be in session, points 
    of order need not be reserved again when the report is filed from 
    the floor as privileged on a later day, as the initial reservation 
    carries over to any subsequent filing on that bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1983,(2) privileged report was submitted on 
H.R. 1718, the essential and productive jobs and unemployment 
compensation appropriation bill, 1983:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi], from the Committee on 
    Appropriations, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-11) on 
    the bill (H.R. 1718) making appropriations to provide emergency 
    expenditures to meet neglected urgent needs, to protect and add to 
    the national wealth, resulting in not make-work but productive jobs 
    for women and men and to help provide for the indigent and homeless 
    for the fiscal year 1983, and for other purposes, which was 
    referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) All points of order on 
    the bill have previously been reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While there did not appear to be a 
precedent directly on this point, it was decided merely as a matter of 
convenience to the minority that where they have once reserved points 
of order (so that provisions in violation of Rule XXI clauses 2 and 6 
might be stricken on points of order by the Committee of the Whole and 
not reported back to the House), the minority Member need not be back 
on the floor to again reserve points of order when the report is filed.

Appropriation Bills Read ``Scientifically'' by Paragraph Headings

Sec. 2.26 General appropriation bills are read only by para

[[Page 5263]]

    graph headings and appropriation amounts, and the Clerk reads the 
    page and line numbers of those headings for the information of 
    Members only when the reading of the bill has been interrupted by 
    debate or amendment.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7158 
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriation bill), the 
Chair made a statement regarding the timeliness of points of order 
during the reading of appropriation bills as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 28066, 28067, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order which I would like to assert at page 25, 
    lines 8 through 20.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman in order to do that, that section of the bill having been 
    read, he will have to request unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    permitted to assert a point of order on page 25, lines 8 through 
    20. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard. . . .
        The Chair would make only one observation and that is this: 
    that the Clerk is reading this bill as Clerks for years and years 
    and years have read appropriation bills. Under that procedure, 
    normally page numbers are not cited at all unless the reading of 
    the bill has been interrupted by the offering of an amendment or by 
    debate.
        So it does, the gentleman is correct, require closer attention 
    than the reading of a normal bill or bills other than appropriation 
    bills.

Chair Normally Does Not Ask For Points of Order

Sec. 2.27 The Chair does not inquire whether any points of order are to 
    be made against a paragraph of a general appropriation bill which 
    has been read by the Clerk (except where reading has been dispensed 
    with by unanimous consent).

    On May 31, 1984,(6) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 610. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available by this Act may be obligated or expended to issue, 
        implement, administer, conduct or enforce any antitrust action 
        against a municipality or other unit of local government. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5264]]

        The Clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
        Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, is the Chair not going to ask for points of order on 
    this segment?
        The Chairman: The Clerk had completed reading the section, so 
    the Chair did not ask for points of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 3. Waiver of Points of Order; Perfecting Text Permitted to Remain

    Points of order against provisions of an appropriation bill may be 
waived by unanimous consent or special rule. Such waiver will not 
preclude points of order against amendments offered from the floor; 
but, of course, the waiver of points of order may be made applicable to 
such amendments, or to specified amendments.
    In addition, language of the bill or amendment that is subject to a 
point of order may be permitted to remain through mere failure to make 
the point of order.
    Language that has been permitted to remain in the bill or amendment 
may be modified by a further amendment, provided that such amendment is 
germane and does not contain additional legislation or additional 
separately earmarked unauthorized items of appropriation.
    The precedents which follow discuss these 
principles.                          -------------------

Waiver by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.1 The House may grant unanimous consent that points of order be 
    waived against all of the provisions contained in an appropriation 
    bill, even before such bill is reported to the full committee by a 
    subcommittee.

    On May 23, 1944,(8) a unanimous-consent request was 
granted, as follows, relating to H.R. 4879, the national war agencies 
appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 90 Cong. Rec. 4917, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order to take up the war agencies bill 
    immediately after disposition of business on the Speaker's table on 
    Thursday next, that points of order on the bill be waived, and that 
    general debate be confined to the bill.
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: Is there objection to the 
    request of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cannon)?
        Mr. [John] Taber of New York: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, the gentleman means points of order on matters contained 
    in the bill?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Yes; only points of order on matters 
    reported by

[[Page 5265]]

    the committee, not points of order that may be raised during 
    consideration of any amendment that may be offered to the bill in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Taber: Did the gentleman incorporate in his request that 
    debate be confined to the bill?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Yes; that debate be confined to the 
    bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]?
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, may I ask the chairman of the 
    Appropriations Committee if any arrangements have been made as to 
    the period of general debate, so that it may be in the Record?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: General debate will not exceed 1 day. 
    We hope to begin reading the bill before the close of the day.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]? There was no objection.

     On May 25, 1944,(9) H.R. 4879 was reported to the House 
and the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 4990-92, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
    reported the bill (H.R. 4879) making appropriations for war 
    agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, and for other 
    purposes (Rept. No. 1511), which was . . . with the accompanying 
    report, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union and ordered to be printed.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order on the 
    bill, and I desire to propound a parliamentary inquiry at this 
    time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon prior to 
    adjournment the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked 
    unanimous consent in substance that it might be in order to take up 
    this bill today and that all points of order against it be waived. 
    There being no objection, that consent was given.
        My parliamentary inquiry is: That bill not having been reported 
    by the subcommittee to the full Committee on Appropriations or by 
    the full Committee on Appropriations of this House, were points of 
    order against the bill waived? . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it has been 
    my observation that unanimous-consent requests to waive points of 
    order against appropriation bills have always been submitted after 
    the bill has been reported, I am not aware of any practice of 
    coming in 2 days ahead of the reporting of a bill at a late hour in 
    the afternoon when very few Members are on the floor and obtaining 
    unanimous consent to waive points of order against a bill which has 
    not even been formulated, not even introduced, not even as yet 
    considered by the committee from which it is to be reported.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I have known of at least 10 cases in 
    the last 10 years where the same practice has been followed.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        . . . It has been held that the Committee on Rules may report a 
    resolu

[[Page 5266]]

    tion providing for the consideration of a bill which has not been 
    introduced. When a rule is reported it can be adopted only by a 
    majority vote of the House.
        It would seem to the Chair that a unanimous-consent request 
    about which there was no contest would be even stronger than that.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Would the Chair hold that 
    the Committee on Appropriations, which does not have legislative 
    authority, would have no right to report a legislative provision, 
    unanimous consent having been obtained before the bill was even 
    reported to the full committee, no matter what objectionable 
    legislative features may have been put in the bill by the full 
    committee, and yet when it comes to the House it would not be 
    subject to a point of order?
        The Speaker: Any time that any Member of the House desires to 
    object to a request of this kind he may exercise his right to do 
    it.
        The Chair holds that points of order against the provisions in 
    this bill have been waived.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, in view 
    of the importance of this as a matter of setting a precedent, I 
    respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair and ask for 
    recognition. . . .
        The question involved is whether or not you want the Speaker to 
    recognize Members to ask for the consideration of appropriation 
    bills with points of order waived and let that recognition come at 
    any time regardless of whether or not the bill has been reported to 
    the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on 
    the table.
        The Speaker: The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    preferential.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided; and there were--ayes 175, noes 54.
        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Twenty-six Members have risen, not a sufficient 
    number.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is agreed to, and the decision of the Chair 
    sustained.

Waiver by Special Rules, Generally

Sec. 3.2 The House may adopt a resolution waiving points of order 
    against a section of an appropriation bill which contains 
    legislative provisions in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 27, 1969,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 14055, 14056, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 424 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 5267]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 424

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11582) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
        Departments, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
        independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
        and for other purposes, all points of order against section 502 
        of said bill are hereby waived.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Pepper] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) and myself 
    such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 424 provides for a rule waiving 
    all points of order against section 502 of H.R. 11582, the 
    Treasury, Post Office, and Executive Office appropriation bill, 
    1970.
        The reason for the waiver is that section 502 constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This section 502 would set aside, Mr. Speaker, only for 1 year 
    the personnel ceiling on the Treasury, Post Office, and Executive 
    Office which ceiling was placed on the governmental agency by 
    Public Law 90-364.

    The resolution was agreed to.

Use and Importance of Special Rules

Sec. 3.3 A statement was made by the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations as to the use of resolutions, reported by the 
    Committee on Rules and adopted by the House, waiving points of 
    order against legislation in appropriation bills; the chairman then 
    indicated to government departments and legislative committees of 
    the House that, in the next session, nothing would be included in 
    an appropriation bill, however customary or urgent, that was not 
    specifically authorized by law.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(12) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
made the following statement concerning House Resolution 194, a 
resolution waiving points of order against legislative provisions of 
H.R. 2689, the Agriculture Department appropriation for 1946:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 2672, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The resolution] is not in contravention of the rules 
    because the rules specifically provide in rule XI that the 
    Committee on Rules can at any time come in here and report a 
    resolution giving a legislative committee appropriating power or 
    giving an appropriating committee legislative power. The 
    proposition before us is entirely and completely within the purview 
    of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, what has brought about the necessity for this 
    rule? We

[[Page 5268]]

    have brought in and considered all the appropriation bills of this 
    session up to this time without such a rule.
        And we would have brought in this bill without a rule, but for 
    the fact that certain Members of the House . . . objected to every 
    minor legislative provision inserted. . . .
        . . . In this instance, the great Committee on Agriculture, 
    which has jurisdiction, approved the bill and the Committee on 
    Rules approved it; otherwise we would not have reported it to the 
    House. But I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to add 
    as an individual member of the committee that in view of the fact 
    that points of order have been so persistently raised on this bill 
    that the Committee on Appropriations should in the future, 
    notwithstanding the needs of the departments in the transaction of 
    their routine business, be like Caesar's wife: innocent of even the 
    implication of any infringement upon any rule or practice of the 
    House. I should like to give notice to the departments, to the 
    legislative committees of the House and to all concerned that in 
    the next session nothing will be included in any appropriation 
    bill, however customary or however urgent, that is not specifically 
    authorized by law. I trust this notice is in ample time to permit 
    any department to make application to legislative committees having 
    jurisdiction, and in time for such committees to report such 
    authorization, if they so desire.

Sec.  3.4 On an occasion when the Committee on Rules failed to grant a 
    rule waiving points of order against provisions in an appropriation 
    bill, a member of the Committee on Appropriations cited the need 
    for such rule and made points of order against several paragraphs 
    of the bill as it was read for amendment, for purposes of 
    demonstrating the desirability of waiving points of order against 
    provisions in appropriation bills.

     On July 14, 1955,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 10573, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1956, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate proceed not to 
    exceed 4 hours. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, with malice 
    toward nobody but with determination to do my duty as I see it, I 
    want to report to this House that yesterday I appeared before the 
    Committee on Rules, as was the request of the full Committee on 
    Appropriations. I told the Committee on Rules that this bill was 
    filled with paragraphs that were subject to points of order; that 
    the bill probably contained very few pages where a ruling could be 
    denied against points of order, and the bill would be

[[Page 5269]]

    bad. I said there were so few pages that I limited it to about four 
    pages that would not be subject to a point of order.
         I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber), the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Phillips), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Davis) were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a
    rule. To my surprise the committee
    failed to act, and we find ourselves
    with a bill involving approximately
    $1,650,000,000. . . .
        Rather than to have a field day on points of order I intend to 
    ask unanimous consent to ask for deletion from the bill of all the 
    paragraphs subject to a point of order so the House may work its 
    will on that part of the bill on which the decision of the Rules 
    Committee permits us to function. This will represent a big saving 
    in time and much useless talk. . . .
        . . . So this is my notice that I intend to cite the paragraphs 
    that are subject to points of order and ask for their deletion from 
    this bill.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I opposed 
    the rule because there was a paragraph in the bill that I felt was 
    not proper, and I do not believe that the Members of the House will 
    feel it is proper if they read it. When that point is reached I 
    propose to offer a point of order against it.
        On the other hand, there are in the bill an enormous number of 
    items, as always appear in a supplemental bill at the end of the 
    session, that contain language that makes them particularly subject 
    to a point of order. Those paragraphs have been before the House 
    time after time and very seldom, if ever, have points of order been 
    raised against them.
        Frankly, I do not see how we can meet our responsibility in 
    connection with the Government without consideration of a very 
    large number of items that are covered in this bill. I cannot 
    understand just why any Member of the House would feel that he 
    should want to make a point of order against an item unless that 
    item was, in his opinion, against the interests of the Government. 
    That will be my approach to the problem and I will confine my 
    points of order to what I believe may not be in the interest of the 
    Government.
        With that statement, I shall feel obliged to object to an 
    omnibus request to be made before the reading of the individual 
    paragraphs.

    In the proceedings that followed with respect to the bill, Mr. 
Rabaut made numerous points of order against provisions of the bill.

Illustrative Forms of Special Rules

Sec. 3.5 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, waiving 
    points of order against consideration of a general appropriation

[[Page 5270]]

    bill which had not been reported for three calendar days, and 
    waiving points of order against certain provisions in the bill 
    which were not authorized by law or which constituted legislation.

    On May 14, 1970,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 15575, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1004 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1004

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 6 of Rule XXI to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 17575) making appropriations 
        for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and 
        Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1971, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
        against the provisions contained under the following headings 
        are hereby waived: ``Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration'' beginning on page 19, line 14 through line 19; 
        ``Economic Development Administration'' beginning on page 23, 
        line 5 through line 23; ``National Bureau of Standards'' 
        beginning on page 29, line 7 through line 16; ``Maritime 
        Administration'' beginning on page 30, line 13 through page 33, 
        line 12; ``Arms Control and Disarmament Agency'' beginning on 
        page 43, line 8 through line 12; ``Commission on Civil Rights'' 
        beginning on page 43, line 14 through line 17; and ``Small 
        Business Administration'' beginning on page 45, line 17 through 
        page 46, line 10.

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.6 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against 
    certain paragraphs in an appropriation bill not authorized by law 
    or containing legislative language is set out below, accompanied by 
    related proceedings.

     On June 24, 1969,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 17045, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 449 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 449

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        12307) making appropriations for sundry independent executive 
        bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, offices, 
        and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order

[[Page 5271]]

         against the provisions contained under the following headings 
        are hereby waived: ``Appalachian Regional Development 
        Programs'' beginning on page 3, line 22, through page 4, line 
        3, ``Independent offices--Appalachian Regional Commission'' 
        beginning on page 4, line 15 through page 4, line 21, 
        ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration'' beginning on 
        page 21, line 13, through page 23, line 3; and ``National 
        Science Foundation'' beginning on page 23, line 5, through page 
        25, line 2.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Smith) and pending that I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, the three specific waivers of points of order are 
    necessary because the items on which the waivers are given or 
    proposed by this resolution have not been authorized by law. I 
    explained this to the House during the colloquy between the 
    majority and minority leaders last Thursday. The items are, as 
    anyone who listened to the reading of the resolution knows, the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science 
    Foundation, and a part of the Appalachian development programs. The 
    waiver makes it possible for Members of the House to work their 
    will on the specific provisions of the appropriation, and the 
    Committee on Rules felt that it was wiser to handle the matter in 
    this fashion rather than permitting a situation to develop in which 
    the Senate almost surely would add the items on the Senate side 
    when the matter came up, and the only participation of the House 
    would be in conference, and on the conference report.
        Therefore the Committee on Rules recommends the waiver on these 
    three points of order.
        I urge the adoption of the resolution.

     The resolution was adopted.

Sec. 3.7 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against one 
    title of an appropriation bill is set out below. On June 16, 
    1964,(17) a rule in the following form was adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 13953, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 785, and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11579), making appropriations for certain civil functions 
        administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, 
        certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic 
        Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
        Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Delaware 
        River Basin Commission, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1965, and for other purposes, all points of order against title 
        III of said bill are hereby waived.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution waiving points of order was 
        requested since the atomic energy authorization bill, H.R. 
        10945, had not passed the Senate at the time this appropriation 
        bill was called up in the House.

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

[[Page 5272]]

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.8 The form of a resolution providing that during the 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill all points of order 
    against a specified chapter thereof or any provision contained 
    therein be waived, and further waiving points of order against a 
    designated amendment containing legislation, is set forth below.

    On May 9, 1950,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 6725, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 593 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution (H. Res. 593), as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government 
        for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other 
        purposes, all points of order against chapter XI of said bill 
        or any provision contained therein are hereby waived and all 
        points of order against the following amendment to such chapter 
        are hereby waived:

        On Page 425, after line 13, insert:

            ``Sec. 1113. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of any officer or employee of the Department of 
        State or of the Foreign Service of the United States whenever 
        he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the 
        interests of the United States.
            ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the act of 
        August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of any other 
        law, the Secretary of Commerce may, in his absolute discretion, 
        during the current fiscal year, terminate the employment of any 
        officer or employee of the Department of Commerce whenever he 
        shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the best 
        interests of the United States.''

    Following debate, the resolution was adopted.

Sec. 3.9 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against the 
    legislative provisions of a supplemental appropriation bill.

    On Sept. 23, 1940,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 12480, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois], from the Committee on 
    Rules, submitted the following report on the bill (H.R. 10539) 
    making supplemental appropriations for the support of the 
    Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for other 
    purposes, which was read and referred to the

[[Page 5273]]

    House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                              House Resolution 609

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        10539) making supplemental appropriations for the support of 
        the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and 
        for other purposes, all points of order against the legislative 
        provisions of the bill are hereby waived.

    After debate, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.10 The form of a resolution making in order, during the 
    consideration of the foreign aid appropriation bill, the offering 
    of a specific amendment containing legislation.

    On May 26, 1949,(1) the following resolution was 
considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 6890, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, it shall be in 
        order to consider without the intervention of any point of 
        order the following amendment:
            ``On page 4, line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon, 
        and the following: `Provided further, That the entire amount 
        may be apportioned for obligation or may be obligated and 
        expended, if the President after recommendation by the 
        Administrator deems such action necessary to carry out the 
        purposes of said act during the period ending May 15, 1950'.''

Form of Resolution Providing for Consideration of Joint Resolution

Sec. 3.11 The form of a resolution providing for consideration of a 
    joint resolution making appropriations, waiving all points of order 
    against provisions in the joint resolution, making in order without 
    the intervention of any point of order any amendment offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Appropriations.

    On May 12, 1938,(2) the following resolution was called 
up and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 6777, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 497.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              House Resolution 497

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 5274]]

        House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
        of House Joint Resolution 679, a joint resolution making 
        appropriations for work relief, relief, and otherwise to 
        increase employment by providing loans and grants for public 
        works projects, and all points of order against said joint 
        resolution are hereby waived. That upon the expiration of the 
        general debate fixed by order of the House of May 4, 1938, the 
        joint resolution shall be read by sections for amendment under 
        the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
        intervention of any point of order any amendment offered by 
        direction of the Committee on Appropriations. At the conclusion 
        of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the 
        joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have 
        been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the joint resolution and the amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit with or without instructions.

Amendment of Waiver in Special Rule

Sec. 3.12 Where the Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a 
    waiver of points of order against unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill but not against legislative language therein, 
    the Member calling up the resolution offered an amendment to 
    reflect that intention.

    On July 21, 1970,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order against said bill for failure to comply with 
        the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a 
    resolution waiving points of order against certain provisions of 
    H.R. 18515, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
    Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1971. . . .
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule--so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error.

[[Page 5275]]

        Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''
            The amendment was agreed to. . . .
            The resolution was agreed to.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 3.13 The previous question was rejected on a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against a 
    general appropriation bill, and the resolution was amended to 
    permit consideration of an amendment to the bill containing 
    legislation.

    On May 10, 1973,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 15273-81, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 389

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        7447) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against said bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are hereby 
        waived.

        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the rule for the purpose of asking the House to vote 
    down the previous question in order that an amendment to H.R. 7447 
    can be offered, which will correct a grievous error which was made 
    in the urgent supplemental, which restricted the allocation of 
    funds under impact aid for category B children to the rate of 54 
    percent.
        The rule which we are now considering, which waives in other 
    instances 109 points of order, did not offer us this same 
    opportunity to present this amendment to the House to permit the 
    House to work its will. . . .
        Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
    a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 5276]]

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    184, nays 222, not voting 27, as follows: . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: Strike out the period at 
        the end of House Resolution 389 and insert ``and it shall be in 
        order to consider, without the intervention of any point of 
        order, an amendment on page 10, after the heading on line 13, 
        in the following form: . . .
            `` `The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 93-25 is 
        amended by striking out ``54%''. . . .' ''
            [The resolution as amended was agreed to.]

Extent of Waiver; Applicability to Amendments

Sec. 3.14 Where a general appropriation bill is considered under terms 
    of a special resolution ``waiving points of order against said 
    bill,'' the waiver applies only to the provisions of the bill and 
    not to amendments thereto.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18381, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 27417, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Glenard P.] Lipscomb [of California]: 
    On page 2, after line 10 insert: . . .

                ``Procurement of Aircraft and Missiles, Navy

        ``For an additional amount for `Procurement of aircraft and 
    missiles, Navy,' $431,000,000, to remain available until 
    expended.'', and renumber the succeeding chapter and section 
    numbers accordingly.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the Committee on 
    Appropriations operates under authorizing legislation, which we 
    often refer to as ``412,'' providing annual authorization for the 
    procurement of aircraft, ships, missiles, and so forth. The House 
    Armed Services Committee has not reported, and Congress has not 
    authorized these additional funds, this $431 million for the 
    procurement of additional aircraft.
        So I make the point of order against the amendment on the 
    grounds that it would exceed the authorization. I would withhold 
    the point of order if the gentleman wishes to discuss the 
    amendment, but I must insist upon the point of order. . . .
        It is true that we are operating under a rule waiving points of 
    order,(8)

[[Page 5277]]

    but the rule waived points of order only with respect to the 
    content of the bill, not with respect to amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See H. Res. 1058, 112 Cong. Rec. 27405, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        18, 1966, stating:
            ``Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18381) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1967, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clearly it seems to me that this amendment is subject to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas has stated the content of the 
    resolution providing for the consideration of the bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole correctly. The resolution waives points of 
    order against the bill but it does not waive points of order 
    against amendments to the bill.
        Inasmuch as there seems to be agreement between the gentleman 
    from Texas and the gentleman from California that the funds 
    contained in the amendment are not authorized by legislation 
    enacted into law, the point of order is sustained.
        The Clerk will read.

Sec. 3.15 Where the House had adopted a resolution providing that 
    ``during the consideration of'' a general appropriation bill ``the 
    provisions of Rule XXI clause 2 are hereby waived,'' the Chair, 
    based on legislative history during debate on the resolution, ruled 
    that the waiver extended only to provisions in the bill and not to 
    amendments offered from the floor.

    On June 22, 1973,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8825), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 20981-83, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Robert O.] Tiernan [of Rhode 
        Island]: Page 4, line 18, strike out ``to remain available'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and 
        expended for such assistance as authorized by such title, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.
            Page 5, line 2, strike out ``to remain available'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and expended 
        for such grants as authorized by such title and section, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.
            Page 5, line 13, strike out ``to remain available'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``which shall be obligated and expended 
        for such grants and assistance as authorized by such title, and 
        shall remain available for that purpose''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland ]of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on all three amendments. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, [the provision] is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and mandates spending for which there is no 
    legislation. It appears in statutory responsibility otherwise 
    provided by law relating to the Secretary.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tiernan: Yes, I do.
        First of all, the chairman said this would provide for 
    mandatory spending

[[Page 5278]]

    in programs that are not authorized. Under the rule we adopted 
    today, all points of order with regard to that would be waived. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
    is correct in asserting that if the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Tiernan) is out of order at all it 
    is out of order because of the second sentence of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI, which contains the provisions that ``nor shall any provision 
    in any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in 
    order,'' and so forth, setting forth exceptions. But the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends and the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The 
    Chair has again read the rule. It says:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development . . . the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived.

        It does not say that points of order are waived only with 
    respect to matters contained in the bill. It says ``During the 
    consideration of the bill'' the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
    are waived.
        The Chair was troubled by that language and has examined the 
    statements made by the members of the Committee on Rules who 
    presented the rule to see if their statements in any way amplified 
    or explained or limited that language. The Chair has found that 
    both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their explanations of the resolution did, 
    indeed, indicate that it was their intention, and the intention of 
    the committee, that the waiver should apply only to matters 
    contained in the bill and that it was not a blanket waiver.
        Therefore whatever ambiguity there may have been in the rule as 
    reported, the Chair is going to hold, was cured by the remarks and 
    legislative history made during the presentation of the rule, which 
    were not disputed in any way by the gentleman from Connecticut or 
    anyone else. However, the Chair recognizes that it is a rather 
    imprecise way of achieving that result and would hope that in the 
    future such resolutions would be more precise in their application. 
    . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    provides: ``These funds shall be expended.''
        These are the words used by the amendment. Affirmative 
    direction by a long line of precedents has been held to be 
    legislation on appropriation bills.
        The Chair is not holding that it is not within the power of 
    Congress to give such affirmative directions. It may or it may not; 
    that is a subject of some dispute right now. The Chair simply holds 
    that an appropriation bill is no place to do it, and the Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Extent of Waiver; Applicability to House Resolutions Incorporated in 
    Bill

Sec. 3.16 Where the House is considering a general appropriation bill 
    under a resolution waiving all points of order

[[Page 5279]]

    against the bill, a paragraph enacting the provisions of several 
    House-passed resolutions as permanent law, though concededly 
    legislative in character, is not subject to a point of order.

    On Dec. 10, 1970,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
19928), a point of order was raised against the following provision, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 40941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provisions of House Resolutions 1270 and 1276, relating to 
    certain official allowances; House Resolution 1241, relating to 
    compensation of the clerks to the Official Reporters of Debates; 
    and House Resolution 1264, relating to the limitation on the number 
    of employees who may be paid from clerk hire allowances, all of the 
    Ninety-first Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
    thereto.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23 of page 12 
    and running through line 4 of page 13 as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not a retrenchment.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    point of order would be appropriate except, of course, for the fact 
    that we do have a rule waiving points of order against the bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Claude D. Pepper (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: No, sir.
        The Chairman: Under the resolution the House adopted points of 
    order against the bill are waived. The point of order is not 
    sustained.

Legal Effect of Legislative Language After Enactment

Sec. 3.17 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but if not challenged it 
    becomes permanent law where it is permanent in its language and 
    nature and as such may serve as sufficient authorization in law for 
    subsequent appropriations.

    On May 20, 1964,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriations 
bill (H.R. 11202), the following point of order was raised, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: My point of order is to lines 
    3 through 9, the portion of the section beginning with the figure 
    in parentheses 5. I will read it. It reads as follows:

            (5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase 
        domestic con

[[Page 5280]]

        sumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority contained in 
        Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount $2,000,000 
        shall remain available until expended for construction, 
        alteration and modification of research facilities.

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (14)  The gentleman will include the 
    word ``and'' on line 2, I assume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the section in the bill, last year where Congress 
    passed permanent legislation authorizing this in the appropriation 
    act in which we said hereafter this could be done. It is in last 
    year's appropriation act which was written for this specific 
    purpose and provides hereafter not to exceed $25 million may be 
    appropriated for these purposes. We cite chapter and verse there, 
    so to speak, and it is quite clear.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that? . . .
        My point is that the activity which would be appropriated for 
    in this paragraph (5) has not been authorized in legislation 
    heretofore.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Findley: The language authority cited in the public law was 
    a reference to a public law which was an appropriation act; am I 
    correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair pointed that out. The Chair might say, 
    incidentally, that while legislation on an appropriation bill may 
    be subject to a point of order, if none is made it is perfectly 
    valid legislation and becomes permanent law if it is permanent in 
    its language and nature.

Amendments Adding Further Legislation

Sec. 3.18 The fact that legislative provisions restricting the uses of 
    funds in other acts for certain purposes have been permitted to 
    remain in a general appropriation bill by failure to make a point 
    of order does not permit the of

[[Page 5281]]

    fering of an amendment adding additional legislation prohibiting 
    the availability of funds in other acts for certain other purposes.

    On Aug. 1, 1973, (15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 27292, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 36, after line 
        23, insert a new section: . . . .
            (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this or any 
        other Act, or of funds available for expenditure by any 
        corporation or agency, shall remain available to any agency 
        whenever either House of Congress, or any committee or 
        subcommittee thereof (to the extent of matter within its 
        jurisdiction) requests the presence of an officer or employee 
        of an agency for testimony regarding matters within the 
        agency's possession or under its control unless the officer or 
        employee shall appear and supply all information requested. . . 


        Mr. [Howard W.] Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order again on the proposed amendment as amended by the 
    gentleman from Florida on the ground that it is still legislation 
    on an appropriation act, resting that again on the basis that the 
    language makes it apply to ``this or any other act.''
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to be strictly a 
    limitation within the purview of the rule. I call the attention of 
    the Chair to the language in 607(a), which says--

            No part of any appropriations contained in this or any 
        other Act, or of funds available for expenditure by any 
        corporation or agency, shall be used for publicity . . .

        Once having done that in this legislation, it seems to me that 
    where language is clearly a limitation within the purview of the 
    legislation or extending the legislation, that the amendment would 
    be in order.
        The Chairman: (16) The mere fact that this similar 
    language remains in the bill does not protect the gentleman's 
    amendment from the fact that it adds additional legislation to that 
    which has been permitted to remain in the bill and is itself 
    subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 3.19 To a section of an appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of the Army be authorized to require from the Chief of 
    Engineers a planning report for each river and harbor project, and 
    each flood control project, an amendment seeking to give such 
    authority to the Secretary of the Interior as well was held to add 
    further legislation.

    On Aug. 20, 1951,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5215, a supplemental appropriation bill. When the fol

[[Page 5282]]

lowing section was pending for amendment, a motion to strike out the 
section was offered. A perfecting amendment to the section was then 
offered and was ruled out as legislation, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 10406, 10408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 1313. In the administration of the various acts 
    authorizing construction of river and harbor and flood-control 
    projects, the following shall be hereafter applicable:
        (a) The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to 
    have the Chief of Engineers prepare a planning report for each 
    river and harbor project, and for each flood-control project, 
    heretofore or hereafter adopted and authorized by law. 
    Appropriation for construction of an adopted and authorized 
    project, or authorized modification thereof, is authorized only 
    after submission by the Secretary of the Army of a planning report 
    to Congress and the printing thereof as a document of Congress. . . 
    .
        After the planning report for a project has been submitted to 
    Congress, and after initial construction funds have been 
    appropriated, such project shall be reviewed by the Chief of 
    Engineers in the first half of each succeeding fiscal year, and a 
    statement of progress thereon, in such form as to permit of ready 
    comparison with the planning report, shall be filed by him with the 
    Appropriations Committees of Congress not later than the following 
    1st day of February.
        (b) The Chief of Engineers is directed to make a report to the 
    Congress not later than December 31, 1952, upon all river and 
    harbor projects, and flood-control projects, adopted and authorized 
    since March 3, 1925, the construction or further improvement of 
    which under present conditions is undesirable, inadvisable, or 
    uneconomical, or in which curtailment of the projects should be 
    made for any other reason.
        Mr. [Henry] Larcade [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Larcade: On page 42, line 3, 
        strike out all of section 1313.

        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Louisiana is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Larcade: I yield briefly.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I would like 
    to offer as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Louisiana. May I offer that subsequent to his presentation and 
    debate and prior to the vote on his amendment?
        The Chairman: The proposed substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) is rather in the nature of a perfecting 
    amendment and would have to be taken up by the committee first.
        The gentleman may offer his amendment after the gentleman from 
    Louisiana has concluded. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Ford:
        Page 42, line 6, strike out the word ``is'' and insert ``and 
    the Secretary of the Interior are.''
        Page 42, line 7, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
    following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation''.

[[Page 5283]]

        Page 42, line 13, after the word ``Army'' insert the following, 
    ``and the Secretary of the Interior.''
        Page 43, line 23, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
    following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation''.
        Page 44, line 1, strike out the word ``him'' and insert the 
    word ``them.''
        Page 44, line 3, strike out the word ``is'' and insert ``and 
    the Commissioner of Reclamation are.''
        Mr. [John J.] Dempsey [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dempsey: The amendment is not germane to this section, and 
    in addition to that, it is purely legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to 
    address himself to the point of order?
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from New Mexico, I would like to say first that under 
    the rule adopted at the time this legislation came to the floor all 
    points of order were waived. Secondly, I think that the amendment 
    is germane because it does apply to engineering and construction of 
    Federal projects, and section 1313 in itself applies to engineering 
    and construction of Federal projects. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With respect to the question of waiving all points of order, 
    that runs only to the provisions of the bill and not to amendments 
    offered to the bill. A proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add further 
    legislation. The Chair is of the opinion that this amendment does 
    add further legislation, and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.20 To an amendment containing legislation (because prohibiting 
    activities from funds ``in this or any other act'') but permitted 
    to be offered to a general appropriation bill pursuant to a 
    resolution waiving points of order against that amendment, an 
    amendment adding additional legislation (making the activities 
    illegal) to that permitted to remain was ruled out in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 29, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9055), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 22352, 22362, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Mr. [John J.] Flynt Jr., [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: Page 57, line 21, strike 
        out all of section 307 and insert a new section 307, as 
        follows:

        Sec. 307. None of the funds herein appropriated under this Act 
    or heretofore appropriated under any other

[[Page 5284]]

    act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat 
    activities in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or 
    over Laos by the U.S. forces. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Flynt: At the end of the Flynt Amendment strike the 
        period and insert a semicolon and the words ``and from the date 
        of the enactment of this law it shall be illegal for anyone to 
        participate in, or order, any such activities.''

        The Chairman: (20) All time under the limitation 
    having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Cederberg: Legislation on an appropriation bill is subject 
    to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) was protected by the rule. An amendment to 
    that amendment which would add language making an act illegal would 
    be in effect legislation on an appropriation bill, in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 3.21 Legislative language in a general appropriation bill which is 
    permitted to remain therein because of a waiver of points of order 
    may be perfected by germane amendment but such amendment may not 
    contain additional legislation.

    On June 26, 1973,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and 
Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 8877), which read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Office of Education

                     elementary and secondary education

        For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, title I 
    ($1,810,000,000), title III ($146,393,000) . . . and section 
    222(a)(2) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, $2,105,393,000: 
    Provided, That the aggregate amounts made available to each State 
    under title 1-A for grants to local education agencies with that 
    State shall not be less than such amounts as were made available 
    for that purpose for fiscal year 1972: Provided further, That the 
    requirements of section 307(e) of Public Law 89-10, as amended, 
    shall be satisfied when the combined fiscal effort of the local 
    education agency and the State for the preceding fiscal year was 
    not less than such combined fiscal effort in the second preceding 
    fiscal year.

[[Page 5285]]

    An amendment was then offered:

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie: On page 18, line 7, insert 
        ``(1)''' before ``shall'', strike out line 9, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: purpose for fiscal year 1972; but 
        (2) shall not be more than \3/4\ the difference between the 
        amounts which would be made available to such State under this 
        Act without application of this clause and the amounts made 
        available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, 
        and (3) shall not be more than 110 percent of the amounts made 
        available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, 
        plus \1/2\ the difference between such amounts and the amounts 
        which would be made available to such State under this Act 
        without application of this clause or clause (2) of this 
        proviso: Provided further, that the

        Mr. [Neal] Smith [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: That is the sum and substance of it. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        It might be said that the provision it seeks to amend is also 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, but that point was waived in 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. Quie: . . . I believe the gentleman is correct in saying 
    that the language the amendment seeks to amend would have been 
    subject to a point of order if the committee had not gone to the 
    Rules Committee to get a waiver of points of order. However, under 
    the Holman Rule there is permitted language which would retrench 
    expenditures, and the effect of this amendment would be to retrench 
    expenditures. For that reason I believe the amendment is in order. 
    . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, which forbids legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, it is made clear that if an amendment modifies 
    such legislation as has been left in the bill--and it is admitted 
    that this is legislation which is left in by reason of the 
    resolution under which we are considering it--that amendment 
    modifying legislation which is already in the bill will be 
    permitted, although if it attempts to add something new it will not 
    be permitted.
        I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Quie 
    amendment simply modifies that language. The language says:

            Shall receive not less than the amount received in 1972.

        The Quie amendment says:

            Shall receive not less than \3/4\ of the amount received in 
        1972.

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my 
    amendment says, ``Not more than,'' so it is truly a limitation.
        Mr. O'Hara: ``Not more than''.
        In any event, it is simply a modification of the 100-percent 
    figure that is already in the bill.

[[Page 5286]]

        The Chairman: . . . The Quie amendment does strike out words in 
    line 9, but it also adds a considerable amount of language to that 
    already in the bill.
        The language is as follows:

            (2) but shall not be more than 3/4 the difference between 
        the amounts which would be made available to such State under 
        this Act without application of this clause and the amounts 
        made available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 
        1972, and (3) shall not be more than 110 percent of the amounts 
        made available to such State for that purpose for fiscal year 
        1972, plus \1/2\ the difference between such amounts and the 
        amounts which would be made available to such State under this 
        Act without application of this clause or clause (2) of this 
        proviso:

        The amendment would add language which the Chair feels is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and it is not in order as a 
    certain retrenchment of expenditures.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.22 Where a general appropriation bill containing legislative 
    provisions is being considered under a procedure waiving all points 
    of order against the bill, amendments which add further legislation 
    are not in order.

    On Dec. 8, 1971,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole, under a resolution waiving points of order, of 
the foreign assistance appropriation bill (H.R. 12067), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 45495, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: 
        On page 10 after line 21 insert the following: ``Sec. 114. No 
        part of any appropriations contained in this Act may be used to 
        provide assistance to Ecuador, unless the President determines 
        that the furnishing of such assistance is important to the 
        national security of the United States and reports within 30 
        days such determination to the Congress.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    insist on and desire to be heard on his points of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Passman: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I do so reluctantly, 
    because there is a lot of merit to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pelly), but I think it would impose 
    additional duties upon the President. I believe it would be subject 
    to a point of order. I shall not press the point further, or 
    elaborate at length, but ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: Unless the gentleman from Washington desires to 
    be heard the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pelly) submitted an 
    amendment

[[Page 5287]]

    to limit the funds available in this bill to Ecuador, contingent 
    upon a decision and a report to be made by the President of the 
    United States. The key words of the amendment are: ``unless the 
    President determines and reports within 30 days to the Congress.'' 
    Obviously, in the opinion of the Chair, that is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Germane Exception From Legislative Provision

Sec. 3.23 An amendment which comprises legislation on an appropriation 
    bill but which has been permitted to remain because no point of 
    order was raised against it, may be perfected by germane 
    amendments.

    On Jan. 31, 1938, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The following 
amendment was agreed to: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ambrose J.] Kennedy of Maryland: Page 
    13, line 2, after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For the use of the House District of Columbia Committee to 
    employ such clerical help as will be necessary to make a complete 
    study of the various surveys previously made of the government of 
    the District of Columbia for the express purpose of forming such 
    legislation as will effect a more efficient and economic handling 
    of the government affairs of the District of Columbia, $5,000.''

    An amendment was then offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: 
    Page 13, line 2, after the amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy, insert 
    a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For a complete investigation of the administration of public 
    relief in the District of Columbia, to be made under the 
    supervision and direction of the Commissioners, including the 
    employment of personal services without reference to the 
    Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and civil-service 
    requirements, $5,000.''

    Subsequently Mr. Caldwell offered an amendment to his amendment: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Caldwell to the amendment pending: 
        After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        'not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, furthermore, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation for an item not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (7) Objection is heard. The Chair is 
    ready to rule. The

[[Page 5288]]

    gentleman from Florida offers an amendment to the pending amendment 
    in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        That is the amendment to the amendment offered and to which the 
    gentleman from Arkansas addresses his point of order. The original 
    amendment proposed legislation on an appropriation bill, but no 
    point of order was raised against it. That being so, an amendment 
    that would contain an exception would be germane and in order, 
    certainly. Therefore, the point of order that the gentleman directs 
    to the amendment to the amendment must be overruled.

    Mr. Fuller then contended that his right to make a point of order 
against the original Caldwell amendment was renewed by the attempt to 
amend that amendment. The Chair rejected this conclusion, reiterating 
the grounds for his ruling.

Sec. 3.24 To a legislative section permitted to remain in an 
    appropriation bill and providing that hereafter no funds shall be 
    available to pay for annual leave accumulated and unused at the end 
    of a year, an amendment exempting a designated class of employees 
    from the operation of such provision was held to be in order as a 
    valid exception which did not add further legislation to that 
    permitted to remain.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 2690, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Title IV--General Provisions

        Sec. 401. Hereafter no part of the funds of, or available for 
    expenditure by any corporation or agency included in this or any 
    other act, including the government of the District of Columbia, 
    shall be available to pay for annual leave accumulated by any 
    civilian officer or employee during any calendar year and unused at 
    the close of business on June 30th of the succeeding calendar year: 
    Provided, That the head of any such corporation or agency shall 
    afford an opportunity for officers or employees to use the annual 
    leave accumulated under this section prior to June 30 of such 
    succeeding calendar year: . . . Provided further, That this section 
    shall not apply with respect to the payment of compensation for 
    accumulated annual leave in the case of officers or employees who 
    leave their civilian positions for the purpose of entering upon 
    active military or naval service in the Armed Forces of the United 
    States.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Rees of Kansas: On page 62, line 
        17, after

[[Page 5289]]

        the words ``United States'', insert ``or employees who are 
        entitled to less than 15 days of annual leave.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, it adds additional duties and it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to analyze the language of the 
    amendment and feels that the amendment is an exception to the 
    legislative limitation starting on line 5 of page 62 of the pending 
    bill. Section 401, which starts on line 5 of page 62, is a 
    legislative provision allowed by waiver of points of order to 
    remain in an appropriation bill. The pending amendment appears to 
    the Chair merely to be a perfecting amendment which is germane to 
    the provision to which it applies and one which does not add 
    legislation. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 3.25 Where a legislative provision in a general appropriation bill 
    is permitted to remain by the adoption by the House of a resolution 
    waiving points of order, and where there is pending an amendment in 
    the form of a limitation to that provision, it is in order to offer 
    an amendment to such amendment which provides a germane exception 
    from the limitation and which does not constitute additional 
    legislation.

    On May 7, 1970,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
17399), the following occurred after the Clerk had read a legislative 
paragraph protected by the special rule waiving points of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 14569-71, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 501. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        of the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1971, shall not exceed $200,771,000,000: Provided, That 
        whenever action, or inaction, by the Congress on requests for 
        appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the 
        President's recommendations reflected in the Budget for 1971 
        (H. Doc. 91-240, part 1), the Director of the Bureau of the 
        Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his 
        estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on budget 
        outlays, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
        correspondingly adjusted: Provided further, That the Director 
        of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and 
        to the Congress his estimate of the effect on budget outlays of 
        other actions by the Congress (whether initiated by the 
        President or the Congress) and the limitation set forth herein 
        shall be correspondingly adjusted, and reports, so far as 
        practicable, shall indicate whether such other actions were 
        initiated by the President or by the Congress.

[[Page 5290]]

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boland: On page 53 on line 25 
        after the amount ($200,771,000,000), insert the following: ``, 
        of which expenditures none shall be available for use for 
        American ground combat forces in Cambodia.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Boland: In front of the period insert the following: 
        ``except those which protect the lives of American troops 
        remaining within South Vietnam.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: I make a point of order on the ground that the 
    amendment requires particular and special duties.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The imposition of additional duties on officials as constituting a 
        ``legislative'' enactment is discussed in detail in 
        Sec. Sec. 52 and 53, infra. The Chair here apparently took the 
        view that the determination of the purpose of American troops 
        in Cambodia was not such a newly required duty as would 
        constitute a change in existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it does not impose any 
    specific duties. No report is required. No determination is 
    required. It applies simply to troops that are there for a specific 
    purpose.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the proposed amendment to 
    the amendment. In the opinion of the Chair the proposed amendment 
    to the amendment constitutes an exception to the limitation that 
    was offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, does not 
    constitute additional legislation, and is germane. Therefore the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Contract Authority Contained in Bill

Sec. 3.26 To a section of an Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    containing legislation authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    make such additional commitments as may be necessary in order to 
    provide full parity payments, an amendment providing that the 
    payments shall not exceed an amount necessary to equal parity 
    ``when added to the market price and the payment made for 
    conservation . . . of agricultural land resources,'' was held a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of

[[Page 5291]]

    funds which did not add further legislation to that already 
    contained in the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
bill, the Clerk read the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 2124, 2125, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              parity payments

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make parity payments 
    to producers of wheat, cotton, corn (in the commercial corn-
    producing area), rice, and tobacco pursuant to the provisions of 
    section 303 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, there are 
    hereby reappropriated the unobligated balances of the 
    appropriations made under this head by the Department of 
    Agriculture Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1941 and 1942, 
    to remain available until June 30, 1945, and the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to make such additional obligations as may 
    be necessary in order to provide for full parity payments: . . . 
    Provided further, That such payments with respect to any such 
    commodity shall be made with respect to a farm in full amount only 
    in the event that the acreage planted to the commodity for harvest 
    on the farm in 1943 is not in excess of the farm acreage allotment 
    established for the commodity under the agricultural conservation 
    program, and, if such allotment has been exceeded, the parity 
    payment with respect to the commodity shall be reduced by not more 
    than 10 percent for each 1 percent, or fraction thereof, by which 
    the acreage planted to the commodity is in excess of such 
    allotment. The Secretary may also provide by regulations for 
    similar deductions for planting in excess of the acreage allotment 
    for the commodity on other farms or for planting in excess of the 
    acreage allotment or limit for any other commodity for which 
    allotments or limits are established under the agricultural 
    conservation program on the same or any other farm.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: On page 
    77, line 5, after the word ``farm,'' strike out the period, insert 
    a colon and a proviso as follows: ``Provided further, That parity 
    payments, under the authority of this paragraph, shall not exceed 
    such amount as is necessary to equal parity when added to the 
    market price and the payment made or to be made for conservation 
    and use of agricultural land resources under sections 7 to 17, 
    inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act 
    approved February 29, 1936, as amended; and the provisions of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended; Provided further, 
    That the total expenditures made and the contracts entered into in 
    pursuance of this paragraph shall not exceed in all $212,000,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I submit a 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber]. . . .
        Mr. Taber: . . . The bill, on page 75, provides that the 
    Secretary is au

[[Page 5292]]

    thorized and directed to make such additional commitments or incur 
    such additional obligations as may be necessary in order to provide 
    for full parity payments.
        That is legislation. It is brought in order under the rule. The 
    language that I have submitted is clearly germane to that provision 
    because it provides a method. It is purely a limitation to the 
    payments that shall be made for parity under the authority of this 
    paragraph. For this reason it is clearly germane and it is clearly 
    in order.
        It would be in order if there was no legislation in the 
    paragraph because it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 14. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I make the 
    observation that if the proposal is clearly a limitation, even 
    though it embraces some legislation, it is in order under the 
    Holman rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] if there are any funds other than those 
    appropriated in this bill to be used for parity payments?
        Mr. Taber: None.
        The Chairman: Just the funds in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The amendment the gentleman is offering is to 
    limit the funds offered in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is my intention. I think perhaps I ought to 
    insert after the word ``payments'' in the third line the words 
    ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' With that in, it would 
    clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] ask 
    to modify his amendment?
        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word 
    ``payments'' ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber]?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has 
    offered an amendment, on page 77, line 5, undertaking to provide 
    further limitations on the payment and the administration of parity 
    payments, to which the gentleman from Georgia has made a point of 
    order.
        It seems to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York constitutes a limitation 
    upon the funds appropriated by this paragraph or proposed to be 
    appropriated by this paragraph and does not constitute legislation.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Increasing Limitation on Expenditures

Sec. 3.27 Where the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of 
    order against a section of an appropriation bill setting a 
    limitation on fiscal year expenditures and con

[[Page 5293]]

    taining legislative provisions, an amendment increasing the 
    limitation by an amount equal to certain budgetary fixed costs was 
    allowed as a germane amendment perfecting that portion of the bill.

    On May 21, 1969,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11400), the following section of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 13270, 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 113 
        Cong. Rec. 32886, 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1967, 
        and 113 Cong. Rec. 32966, 32967, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 
        1967 (proceedings relating to H.R. 13893).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Title IV

               limitation on fiscal year 1970 budget outlays

        Sec. 401. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) of 
    the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
    shall not exceed $192,900,000,000: Provided, That whenever action, 
    or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and 
    other budgetary proposals varies from the President's 
    recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of 
    the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net 
    lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
    correspondingly adjusted.
        (b) The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report 
    periodically to the President and to the Congress on the operation 
    of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of 
    the first month which begins after the date of approval of this 
    Act; subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar 
    month during the first session of the Ninety-first Congress, and at 
    the end of each calendar quarter thereafter.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan of California: On 
    page 62, line 3, add the following as a new section:
        ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as adjusted 
    in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, shall be 
    increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount by which 
    expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the fiscal year 
    1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended programs and 
    fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of the Budget for 
    the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the aggregate expenditures 
    and net lending (budget outlays) estimated for those items in the 
    April review of the 1970 budget.''

    The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5294]]

        The Chair has examined title IV. This [amendment] is a new 
    subparagraph to title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and all points of order have been waived 
    (against) title IV, as a result of [its] being legislation. 
    Therefore the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    provisions contained in title IV and overrules the point of order.

Striking Out Legislation Permitted to Remain, Inserting Identical 
    Language With Numerical Change

Sec. 3.28 An amendment striking out a legislative provision that had 
    been allowed by waiver of points of order to remain in the 
    independent offices appropriation bill, and reinserting said 
    provision in identical terms except for a change in the number of 
    housing units authorized by such provision, was held proper as not 
    adding further legislation.

    On Mar. 20, 1952,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill, which 
read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 2626-29, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       public housing administration

        Annual contributions: For the payment of annual contributions 
    to public housing agencies in accordance with section 10 of the 
    United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1410), 
    $29,880,000: . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 
    the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect to 
    projects initiated after March 1, 1949, (1) authorize during the 
    fiscal year 1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 
    25,000 dwelling units, or (2) after the date of approval of this 
    act, enter into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which 
    will bind the Public Housing Administration with respect to loans, 
    annual contributions, or authorizations for commencement of 
    construction, for dwelling units aggregating in excess of 25,000 to 
    be authorized for commencement of construction during any one 
    fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year 1953, unless a greater 
    number of units is hereafter authorized by the Congress. . . .

    An amendment was offered by Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 24, line 11, after the 
    words ``Provided further'', strike out the remainder of line 11 and 
    all lines thereafter through the word ``Congress'' in line 25, and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Public 
    Housing Administration shall not, with respect to projects 
    initiated after March 1, 1949, authorize during the fiscal year 
    1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 50,000 
    dwelling units.''

[[Page 5295]]

    Subsequently, Mr. O. Clark Fisher, of Texas, offered a substitute 
amendment: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 2628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 24, strike out line 11, all 
    the language down to and including the word ``Congress'' in line 25 
    and insert the following: ``Provided further, That notwithstanding 
    the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
    amended, the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect 
    to projects initiated after March 1, 1949 (1) authorize during the 
    fiscal year 1953 the commencement of construction of in excess of 
    5,000 dwelling units, or (2) after the date of approval of this act 
    enter into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which will 
    bind the Public Housing Administration in respect to loans, annual 
    contributions, or authorizations for commencement of construction, 
    for dwelling units aggregating in excess of 5,000 to be authorized 
    for commencement of construction during any one fiscal year 
    subsequent to the fiscal year 1953, unless a greater number of 
    units is hereafter authorized by the Congress.''

    Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., of New York, here ascertained by 
parliamentary inquiry that a waiver of points of order against the 
above provisions of the bill did not apply to amendments.

        Mr. Roosevelt: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in the future as well as at present.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to read and to analyze the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher]. The 
    gentleman's amendment is identical with the language in the bill on 
    page 24, beginning with line 11 through the word ``Congress'' in 
    line 25, except for the figures in lines 16 and 22, where the 
    gentleman's amendment would strike the words ``twenty-five'' in 
    each instance and insert ``five.'' That, to the Chair, is a 
    perfecting amendment, and under the rules it is entirely possible 
    for this procedure to be followed. The section of the bill to which 
    the amendment is offered is legislation which has been permitted to 
    remain by waiver of points of order. Such legislative provisions 
    can be perfected by germane amendments which add no further 
    legislation. The amendment before us is germane and adds no further 
    legislation. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Examples of Perfecting Amendments Ruled Out as Adding Legislation to 
    That in Bill

Sec. 3.29 A section which proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, being permitted to remain, may be perfected by 
    a germane amendment, but this does not permit an amendment which 
    adds further legisla

[[Page 5296]]

    tion; thus, where a provision in the Defense Department 
    appropriation bill required the Secretary of Defense to furnish 
    certain information on proposed purchases to small business 
    enterprises, an amendment requiring expenditures to be made in 
    accordance with provisions of other laws relating to small business 
    was held to be additional legislation and not in order.

    On May 10, 1956,(1) a section of the Defense Department 
appropriation bill (H.R. 10986) was read in Committee of the Whole, and 
an amendment offered, as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 7967, 7968, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 609. Insofar as practicable, the Secretary of Defense 
        shall assist American small business to participate equitably 
        in the furnishing of commodities and services financed with 
        funds appropriated under this act by making available or 
        causing to be made available to suppliers in the United States, 
        and particularly to small independent enterprises, information, 
        as far in advance as possible, with respect to purchases 
        proposed to be financed with funds appropriated under this act, 
        and by making available or causing to be made available to 
        purchasing and contracting agencies of the Department of 
        Defense information as to commodities and services produced and 
        furnished by small independent enterprises in the United 
        States, and by otherwise helping to give small business an 
        opportunity to participate in the furnishing of commodities and 
        services financed with funds appropriated by this act.

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roosevelt: On page 36, line 13, 
        section 609 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following language:
            ``The expenditures of all appropriations contained in this 
        act effected by this section shall be made in accordance with 
        the policies and provisions of Public Law 413, 80th Congress, 
        Section 2(b) and Public Law 163, 83d Congress, section 203.''

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Roosevelt] was 
    good enough to give me in advance a copy of his proposed amendment, 
    and I have submitted it to a number of my committee colleagues. We 
    are all very much in favor of helping small business. The bill as 
    written is designed to that end. Because of the views entertained 
    by those with whom I have conferred, however, I feel constrained to 
    insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: No, Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.

[[Page 5297]]

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.30 Where an appropriation for an object not authorized by law is 
    allowed to remain in an appropriation bill under a resolution 
    waiving points of order, an amendment requiring not less than a 
    certain portion of that appropriation to be used for a different 
    purpose not authorized by law was held to be legislation in 
    violation of the rule.

    On July 27, 1954,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
10051), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 12286, 12287, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 3, line 24, 
        after ``$100,000,000'', insert ``of which not less than 
        $4,100,000 shall be made available to the Food and Agriculture 
        Organization of the United Nations for carrying out 
        multilateral technical cooperation programs authorized by 
        section 306.''

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The language is not 
    authorized by law. There is no authorization for any of these items 
    here except the rule under which the bill was brought in.
        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I will have to 
    concede the point of order. In other words, everything in the bill 
    would be subject to a point of order, except for the fact that the 
    Committee on Rules waived points of order against the printed bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.31 To a provision in an appropriation bill imposing a penalty 
    upon persons who accept employment, the compensation for which is 
    paid from funds in the bill, if such persons belong to a specified 
    type of organization, an amendment extending such penalty to 
    persons who refuse to answer questions before a committee of 
    Congress regarding their membership in such an organization was 
    ruled out of order as adding further legislation to that in the 
    bill and as not being germane to the section to which offered.

[[Page 5298]]

    On July 2, 1953,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Defense Department appropriation bill (H.R. 5969), 
which, in part, provided for penalties upon persons who accept 
employment for which compensation is paid from funds in the bill, if 
such persons belong to an organization which asserts the right to 
strike against the government or which advocates overthrow of the 
government. An amendment was offered to such provision, and a point of 
order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 99 Cong. Rec. 7974, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sutton: On page 46, line 10, after 
        ``violence'', insert the following: ``or refuses to answer 
        questions before any committee of Congress regarding his or her 
        membership in or affiliation with such organization on the 
        ground that such testimony may incriminate such person.''

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Scrivner: Mr. Chairman, although the committee understands 
    the purpose of the amendment and knows the results it might obtain, 
    we nevertheless feel that the amendment is subject to a point of 
    order, and insist on the point of order that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Tennessee desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, this is a restriction on an 
    appropriation. I talked with the chairman of the full Committee on 
    Appropriations about this amendment and also talked to the chairman 
    of the subcommittee handling the bill and also the ranking minority 
    member of the subcommittee. I was hopeful they would accept this 
    amendment. To me it is a restriction on an appropriation and is 
    something I believe the entire Congress would be in favor of. I 
    hope the gentleman will withdraw his point of order and let this 
    amendment go into the appropriation bill. I still insist, Mr. 
    Chairman, that it is a restriction.
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee adds further legislation to 
    that in the bill, and the amendment is not germane to the section 
    to which it is offered. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 3.32 Where a provision in a general appropriation bill established 
    a continuing fund in the ``Southeastern Power Area,'' to be 
    available for designated expenditures in such area, an amendment 
    establishing a similar fund from receipts of the ``Southwestern 
    Power Administration'' for similar expendi

[[Page 5299]]

    tures in the southwestern area was held to add legislation 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Apr. 24, 1951(7), the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following paragraph was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 4293, 4294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All receipts from the transmission and sale of electric power 
    and energy under the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control 
    Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), generated or purchased 
    in the southeastern power area, shall be covered into the Treasury 
    of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, except that the 
    Treasury shall set up and maintain from such receipts a continuing 
    fund of $50,000, and said fund shall be placed to the credit of the 
    Secretary, and shall be subject to check by him to defray emergency 
    expenses necessary to insure continuity of electric service and 
    continuous operation of Government facilities in said area.
        Mr. [Boyd] Tackett [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: Strike out the period on 
        line 18, page 3, following the word ``area'' and insert the 
        following language: ``Provided, further, That all receipts from 
        the transmission and sale of electric power and energy under 
        the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
        December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), generated or purchased by 
        the Southwestern Power Administration, shall be covered into 
        the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, 
        except that the Treasury shall set up and maintain from such 
        receipts a continuing fund of $250,000. . . .''

        Mr. [James W.] Trimble [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and that the language used 
    changes the purpose of the legislation to be considered.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Arkansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tackett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I contend, Mr. Chairman, that this is a limitation upon 
    legislation and that it is germane to the provisions of the bill, 
    because the Southwestern Power Administration and the Southeastern 
    Power Administration are both authorized under section 5 of the 
    Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, and that this amendment 
    places the Southwestern Power Administration and other such 
    agencies under the Department of the Interior under the same 
    provisions and entitlement so far as the continuing fund is 
    concerned. It is certainly germane, Mr. Chairman, for the simple 
    reason that both such agencies are set up under the Flood Control 
    Act of 1944, and this is a limitation upon the legislation that is 
    provided by this section of the proposal now before the committee. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has offered an 
    amendment on page 3, line 18, to a paragraph of the bill which has 
    to do with the con

[[Page 5300]]

    tinuing fund of the Southeastern Power Administration. The 
    gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Trimble] makes a point of order 
    against the amendment. The Chair has had an opportunity to read and 
    analyze the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, which 
    has to do with the generation or purchase of electric power by 
    another agency than the Southeastern Power Administration, the 
    Southwestern Power Administration. The amendment contains language 
    that is clearly legislation.
        In answer to the suggestion of the gentleman from New York, 
    even though legislation may appear in an appropriation bill, that 
    language cannot be amended by other language which adds 
    legislation. Briefly, a proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law, but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, but such amendments may not add 
    legislation, and it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas proposes to add legislation 
    not authorized by law.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Trimble].

Sec. 3.33 A paragraph which proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill being permitted to remain may be perfected by a 
    germane amendment, but this does not make in order an amendment 
    which contains additional legislation.

    On June 1, 1944,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4899, a Department of Labor and Federal Security 
Agency appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 5152, 5153, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Employment office facilities and services: For all necessary 
    expenses of the War Manpower Commission in connection with the 
    operation and maintenance of employment office facilities and 
    services, and the performance of functions, duties, and powers 
    relating to employment service transferred to the War Manpower 
    Commission by Executive Order No. 9247, including the recruitment 
    and placement of individuals for work or training in occupations 
    essential to the war effort; such expenses to include . . . travel 
    expenses (not to exceed $2,268,000); and rent in the District of 
    Columbia: . . . Provided further, That the Chairman of the War 
    Manpower Commission may transfer funds from this appropriation to 
    the Social Security Board for ``grants to States for unemployment 
    compensation administration'' as authorized in title III of the 
    Social Security Act, as amended to meet costs incurred by States in 
    making available to the War Manpower Commission premises, 
    equipment, supplies, facilities, and services, needed by the 
    Commission in the operation and maintenance of employment office 
    facilities and services, any sum so transferred and not expended in 
    accordance with this proviso to be retransferred to this 
    appropriation, $57,968,079. . . . Provided further, That no portion 
    of the sum herein appropriated shall be expended by any Federal 
    agency for the salary of any person who is engaged for more than 
    half of the time, as determined by the State director of

[[Page 5301]]

    unemployment compensation, in the administration of the State 
    unemployment compensation act, including claims taking but 
    excluding registration for work.

    At this point, an amendment was offered.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: On page 61, line 4, strike 
        out the period, insert a semicolon, and insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That pending the return of the employment 
        offices and services to the States, the Federal agency 
        administering the United States Employment Service shall 
        maintain that service as an operating entity, and during the 
        period of its administration shall maintain all functions 
        performed by State employment offices on the date said offices 
        were loaned to the Federal Government.''

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I have two points of order. First, 
    the amendment comes too late. The succeeding paragraph ``training 
    within industry service'' has already been read and the Clerk had 
    begun to read section 702. The amendment is offered at a point 
    preceding the paragraph relating to training within industry. 
    Second, the amendment is legislative in character and proposes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Points of order against all 
    legislative matters contained in the bill were by unanimous consent 
    waived by the House on Monday of this week. But that waiver does 
    not include legislative provisions which may be offered by 
    amendment and which are not contained in the bill, and in this case 
    do not relate to any legislative provision contained in the bill. 
    The Wagner-Peyser Act authorizes the making of appropriations to 
    the employment service which has now been transferred by Executive 
    Order No. 9247 to Federal jurisdiction. But the appropriations for 
    that service are authorized by the Wagner-Peyser Act and the duties 
    of administrative officials in the administration of the Wagner-
    Peyser Act are clearly defined by law. The gentleman by his 
    amendment proposes to place upon them certain designated duties 
    which are not specifically required in existing law, and to that 
    extent proposes an alteration, if not an expansion, of the 
    provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act. . . .
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, addressing myself to [the point of 
    order, that this is legislation upon an appropriation bill], if I 
    understand the gentleman's argument it is that here is a 
    legislative attempt to change the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser 
    Act and to impose conditions upon the employment offices of the 
    country at variance with the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act. . 
    . . The fact of the matter is that the employment offices in many 
    of the States of this Union prior to the enactment of the Wagner-
    Peyser Act in 1933, on the 6th of June, were State offices and 
    State maintained and operated, pursuant to State law, and they were 
    financed in whole by State appropriations. Then, in 1933, we passed 
    the Wagner-Peyser Act, the sole purpose of

[[Page 5302]]

    which was to extend Federal aid to States in connection with the 
    operation of a State employment service. . . . Now then, this is a 
    simple limitation on this appropriation bill in the form of this 
    amendment, simply saying that the Federal Government in the 
    operation of these State offices that have been turned over to the 
    Federal Government for the duration of the war, shall be operated 
    on the same basis and with the same functions that they were 
    operated before the States turned them over to the Federal 
    Government; that they shall not do away with their functions, but 
    shall maintain them as an operating entity. . . . I find no 
    inference so far as I am able to see, which in any way seeks to 
    change the law of 1933, the Wagner-Peyser Act, or which seeks to 
    enact into this bill any legislative provision at all. It is simply 
    a limitation to the extent that they shall not do away with 
    functions that were functions in the offices when the Federal 
    Government took those offices over, when they were maintained as 
    State offices. There is not anything in the Wagner-Peyser Act which 
    is contrary to that position at all, because these State offices 
    with State functions were maintained with Wagner-Peyser Act funds 
    before the Federal Government took them over.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] offered an amendment 
    to which the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] interposed a point 
    of order.
        The general rule relating to this may be stated as follows:

            A paragraph which proposes legislation in a general 
        appropriation bill being permitted to remain may be perfected 
        by a germane amendment; but this does not permit an amendment 
        which adds additional legislation.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane, but 
    it certainly appears that it is additional legislation, in that it 
    directs that something shall be done.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Adding New Class to Those Covered by Legislative Direction; Ruled Out

Sec. Sec. 3.34 To a legislative provision permitted to remain in an 
    appropriation bill, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to 
    allow applicants for mass transit assistance to continue use of 
    preferential fare systems to an existing class covered by those 
    systems, an amendment requiring the applicants to extend their 
    preferential fare systems to a new class of recipients not then 
    covered was ruled out of order as adding legislation to that 
    permitted to remain.

    On June 22, 1983,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Department of Transportation appropriation bill

[[Page 5303]]

(H.R. 3329), when an amendment was offered and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 305. None of the funds provided under this Act for 
        Formula grants shall be made available to support mass transit 
        facilities, equipment, or operating expenses unless the 
        applicant for such assistance has given satisfactory assurances 
        in such manner and forms as the Secretary may require . . . 
        that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during 
        nonpeak hours shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally 
        applicable to other persons at peak hours: Provided, That the 
        Secretary, in prescribing the terms and conditions for the 
        provision of such assistance shall (1) permit applicants to 
        continue the use of preferential fare systems for elderly or 
        handicapped persons where those systems were in effect on or 
        prior to November 26, 1974. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mrazek: Insert the following on 
        page 36, line 24, ending with the phrase ``prior to November 
        26, 1974,'' ``provided that said applicant adopts and 
        implements appropriate standards of eligibility which includes 
        those citizens who reside in the district served by the mass 
        transit system''.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I would remind the House under the rules of the House, though, 
    an issue of this kind with substantive merit needs to come before 
    the House--under the rules adopted primarily with votes from the 
    majority side earlier in this Congress--needs to come before the 
    body in the authorization bills rather than in the appropriations 
    bills.
        In this particular instance, the amendment that we have before 
    us constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        My objection to the amendment rests on that procedural grounds 
    that legislation in an appropriations bill is beyond the scope of 
    the present consideration and that this amendment must properly be 
    brought before the House in the course of the authorization 
    process. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. The gentleman 
    might have and I indeed had considered making a point of order 
    against the section as being not in order for reasons that the 
    gentleman has stated with respect to this amendment.
        No such point of order was made, however. Therefore, it is too 
    late to knock out the legislation on the basis that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This amendment merely seeks to make technical changes in the 
    language which is already there and to which no objection was made. 
    Therefore, it should be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    clear that the amendment proposed now that is in question deals 
    with perfecting language. We are talking about the very same 
    standards in this amendment

[[Page 5304]]

    that are recognized in the bill. All we are talking about is 
    extending those standards to another group of citizens that are 
    covered by this bill and this authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) If no other Member wishes to be 
    heard, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the pending section of the bill includes legislation 
    which was allowed to remain when no point of order was raised, the 
    fact is that the amendment adds additional legislative requirements 
    that appropriate standards of eligibility be determined for an 
    additional category of citizens not covered by section 305 and, 
    therefore, the Chair must rule that it is more than perfecting and 
    in fact does constitute additional legislation on an appropriation 
    and is out of order at this time.

Rule Waiving Rule XXI Pending Authorization

Sec. 3.35 The Chairman and members of the Committee on Armed Services 
    on one occasion first opposed the adoption of a rule waiving points 
    of order against the Defense Department appropriation bill, then 
    agreed to support the rule after the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations announced that the appropriation bill would not be 
    called up pending final conference action on the authorization 
    measure.

    On July 26, 1968,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 23622, 23623, 23627, 23628, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    1273 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1273

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18707) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply makes in 
    order the consideration of the appropriation bill for the 
    Department of Defense for fiscal year 1969. Of course, as the 
    membership is aware, the Appropriations Committee reports and bills 
    are privileged. They do not require ordinarily a rule to bring them 
    to the floor. But in this case a rule was requested and granted 
    simply because the authorizing legislation which ordinarily 
    precedes the reporting and consideration of an appropriation bill 
    has not been finally enacted.
        The matter is now in conference, and the Committee on 
    Appropriations, I understand, with the concurrence of the 
    leadership, came to the Committee on Rules and requested a rule 
    waiving points of order. . . .
        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, of 
    course,

[[Page 5305]]

    there has been cooperation. This is perfectly satisfactory. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from South Carolina and the gentleman from Texas agree that upon 
    the adoption of the rule, the bill will not be called up in the 
    House by the Committee on Appropriations until the conference 
    report on the authorization bill has been adopted by both bodies.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to me. . . .
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Recognition for Debate on Legislation Permitted to Remain

Sec. 3.36 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on one occasion 
    ruled that, during consideration of a general appropriation bill, 
    members of the Committee on Appropriations are ordinarily entitled 
    to preference in recognition, but that when a rule is adopted 
    waiving points of order against legislative provisions in the bill, 
    recognition may be divided between members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations and other Members interested in the bill.

    On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(15) the following proceedings 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Pace] has been seeking recognition. The Chair realizes that this is 
    an appropriation bill, and that ordinarily members of that 
    committee would be entitled to preference, but under the rule 
    adopted yesterday we made this part of it a legislative bill by 
    making certain legislation in order. The Chair is going to divide 
    the time between the members of the Appropriations Committee and 
    the other Members of the House who are vitally interested in this 
    proposition. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Pace], a member of the Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John E. Rankin (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: The Chair made the statement that this is not an 
    appropriation bill; that it is a legislative bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania misunderstood the 
    occupant of the chair. . . .
        Permit the Chair to make a statement.

[[Page 5306]]

        On yesterday the question of recognizing members of the 
    committee to the exclusion of other Members of the House was 
    raised. The Chair stated that since we were operating under a rule 
    that makes in order legislation on an appropriation bill, the Chair 
    did not feel the policy that has grown up in recent years of 
    recognizing members of the committee to the exclusion of other 
    Members of the House should be followed. The Chair does not know 
    what attitude future Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole may 
    assume, but the present occupant of the chair wishes to lay down 
    what the Chair believes to be a sound principle in this respect.
        There are 40 members of the Committee on Appropriations. They 
    have control of all the time for general debate on bills coming 
    from that committee just as members of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, members of the Committee on Ways and Means, or other 
    committees have control of the time under general debate on bills 
    coming from their respective committees. There is no written or 
    adopted rule of this House giving members of the committee in 
    control of the bill the exclusive right to recognition under the 5-
    minute rule over other Members of the House, but a custom to that 
    effect seems to have grown up in recent years which the Chair 
    thinks is wrong.
        It is all right to give preference to the chairman of a 
    subcommittee or to the ranking minority member on that subcommittee 
    in connection with important amendments under the 5-minute rule, 
    but the Chair does not think it is fair to the rest of the 
    membership of the House to follow a policy, and gradually petrify 
    it into the rules of the House, of recognizing all members of a 
    committee handling the bill under the 5-minute rule to the 
    exclusion of other Members of the House.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I trust the 
    Chair has no intention of announcing a formal decision, which would 
    be in contravention of the practice of the House, which has been in 
    effect for a hundred years. From time immemorial the members of the 
    committee in control of the bill and charged with its passage have 
    been given precedence in recognition, other things being equal. . . 
    .
        . . . The members of a committee through months--sometimes 
    years--of work on a certain class of legislation or a recurring 
    bill are naturally more familiar with it, and under the rules of 
    the House are responsible for its disposition. And it naturally 
    follows that they must be in position to secure the floor and must 
    be accorded priority of recognition when that subject or that bill 
    is under consideration in order to expedite the business of the 
    House. There is no specific provision in the body of the rules, but 
    the practice has not only been established in the long history of 
    the American Congress but came down to us from the English 
    Parliament from which we received originally our parliamentary 
    code. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair may say to the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] that there is no written rule on this 
    subject, but within the last two or three decades appropriations 
    have been taken away from other committees and concentrated in the 
    hands of one committee. The Chair is not speaking any more with 
    reference to the Committee on Appropriations than any other 
    committee. It is perfectly fair for a committee to have charge of 
    gen

[[Page 5307]]

    eral debate and probably debate under the 5-minute rule to a large 
    extent, but the Chair does not think it is fair--especially under 
    conditions such as we have here, where a rule has been adopted 
    making legislation that ordinarily comes from the Committee on 
    Agriculture and from other committees of the House in order on the 
    bill--the Chair does not think it fair to the rest of the 
    membership of the House to recognize members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the exclusion of the 
    other Members of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Is this to be regarded 
    as a ruling today, or is it merely an observation of the Chair?
        The Chairman: It is a ruling as far as this bill is concerned.

On Rare Occasions the Committee on Appropriations Has Been Authorized 
    to Report Legislation

Sec. 3.37 The Committee on Appropriations has been authorized by House 
    resolution to examine allegations that certain persons in the 
    government were unfit for such service because of subversive 
    interests, and to incorporate in any appropriation measure any 
    legislation approved by such committee as a result of such 
    investigation.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(17) House Resolution 105, authorizing 
the Committee on Appropriations to investigate subversive activities, 
was reported from the Committee on Rules, considered, and adopted by 
the House. The resolution is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 734, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting 
        through a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the 
        chairman of such committee for the purposes of this resolution, 
        is authorized and directed to examine into any and all 
        allegations or charges that certain persons in the employ of 
        the several executive departments and other executive agencies 
        are unfit to continue in such employment by reason of their 
        present association or membership in or with organizations 
        whose aims or purposes are or have been subversive to the 
        Government of the United States. Such examination shall be 
        pursued with the view of obtaining all available evidence 
        bearing upon each particular case and reporting to the House 
        the conclusions of the committee with respect to each such case 
        in the light of the factual evidence obtained. . . . Any 
        legislation approved by the committee as a result of this 
        resolution may be incorporated in any general or special 
        appropriation measure emanating from such committee or may be 
        offered as a committee amendment to any such measure 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Changing Sum of Unauthorized Appropriation Permitted to Remain; Held in 
    Order

Sec. 3.38 Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in 
    a general appropriation bill by failure to raise, or by waiver of, 
    a point

[[Page 5308]]

    of order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding 
    legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another 
    unauthorized purpose is in order.

    On June 8, 1977, (18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a Department of Transportation appropriation bill (H.R. 
7557), when an amendment was offered and ruled in order as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 17941, 17942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  COAST GUARD

                               Operating Expenses

                         (including transfer of funds)

            For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
        the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not to 
        exceed twelve passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
        and recreation and welfare; $871,865,000 of which $205,977 
        shall be applied to Capehart Housing debt reduction: . . .

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: On page 3, line 7, strike 
        ``$871,865,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$878,865,000''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment under rule XXI, clause 2, the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New York is out of order because it has not been authorized. 
    The authorization for this is pending and the House has requested a 
    conference on this. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it the amendment which is offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi). That amendment simply changes 
    an unauthorized appropriations figure in the bill, striking that 
    figure and inserting in lieu thereof another. The gentleman does 
    not seek, in his amendment, to earmark these additional funds at 
    all.
        Under the precedents, then, where an amendment only seeks to 
    change an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in the bill by 
    failure to raise a point of order or by a waiver, and does not add 
    any legislative language or earmark for a specific unauthorized 
    project, that amendment is in order. (Deschler's ch. 25, sec. 
    23.11.)
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled and the gentleman is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 3.39 Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in 
    a general appropriation bill by a resolution waiving points of 
    order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding 
    legislative language is in order.

[[Page 5309]]

    On Oct. 1, 1975,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9861), a point of order against an amendment was overruled, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 31058, 31059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: 
        on page 31, line 10, strike out ``$3,146,050,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: ``$3,093,150,000'';
            And on page 31, line 14, strike out ``$801,419,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``$796,119,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [A]s I understood the gentleman's explanation, he says that 
    this continues research on the F-401 engine, but I would point out 
    to the Chair that on page 285 of the report, it is indicated that 
    this fiscal year 1976 budget requests $2 million for additional 
    termination charges for this engine, and any money that would 
    continue the research and development on this would not have a 
    proper authorization. Therefore, this would constitute legislation 
    in an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    Chappell amendment totally reduces the figure reported in the bill. 
    There is no other language in the amendment, so therefore it must 
    be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the point of order must be overruled 
    because there is no other legislative language included in this 
    amendment. It strictly goes to the dollar figure in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons so eloquently stated by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Addabbo), and where as here an appropriation for an 
    object not authorized by law is allowed to remain in an 
    appropriation bill under a resolution (H. Res. 752) waiving points 
    of order against unauthorized items in the bill, an amendment 
    merely changing the amount of such appropriation is in order 
    (Chairman Graham, July 27, 1954). Also it is obvious that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida reduces amounts 
    covered in the bill, and is in order under clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Changing Unauthorized Figure Not Yet Read For Amendment; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.40 Where by unanimous consent amendments were offered en bloc to 
    a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing an 
    unauthorized amount not yet read for amendment, one of the 
    amendments, which increased that unauthorized figure, was ruled out 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, since at that point it was not

[[Page 5310]]

    being offered to a paragraph which had been read and permitted to 
    remain by the Committee of the Whole.

    On June 21, 1984,(2) during consideration of the 
Treasury Department appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I have really 
    three amendments that I am offering today which are all related to 
    one issue, namely, the restoration of funds needed to effectively 
    operate the air support branches of the Customs Service, and since 
    the amendments do not change the overall totals contained with the 
    bill, but rather simply restore the funds to the accounts for which 
    the Office of Management and Budget approved them, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all three amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman:(3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . I reserve a point of 
    order on the English amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the remaining amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. English: Page 3, line 2, strike 
        out ``22,768,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$20,768,000''.
            Page 6, line 7, strike out ``$32,070,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$36,070,000''. . . .

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma contains appropriations of 
    funds not previously authorized, and, therefore, is in violation of 
    clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The amendment provides $4 million in additional funds for the 
    Customs Service on page 6. Funding for the Customs Service has not 
    been authorized by the Congress and, in addition, the amounts 
    contemplated by the English amendment are inconsistent with those 
    approved by the authorizing committee, the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the funding in the 
    English amendment has not been authorized and, therefore violates 
    clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. English waited until the Customs 
Service paragraph was read, and if no point of order were raised 
against the unauthorized amount in that paragraph, and had he then 
obtained unanimous consent to offer the same three amendments en bloc 
by returning to prior paragraphs to accomplish the reductions 
contemplated, his amendments en bloc would not have been subject to a 
point of order, since he would have been

[[Page 5311]]

merely perfecting an unauthorized amount permitted to remain by failure 
to raise a point of order against the paragraph. Mr. Frenzel, however, 
did make a point of order against the paragraph on the Customs Service 
interdiction program when that paragraph was read for amendment 
subsequently.

Lesser Duty Than That Contemplated by Pending Legislation; Held in 
    Order

Sec. 3.41 A legislative provision permitted to remain in a general 
    appropriation bill may be perfected by germane amendment as long as 
    the amendment does not add further legislation.

    On June 27, 1984,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), an amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
        employees health benefit program which provides any benefits or 
        coverages for abortions, under such negotiated plans after the 
        last day of the contracts currently in order. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 619. The provisions of section 618 shall not apply 
        where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
        were carried to term.

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: On page 51, in line 6, 
        delete ``life'' and insert in lieu thereof ``health''. . . .

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    is legislating on an appropriations bill, in violation of rule XXI, 
    clause 2, and I ask that it be ruled in such a way by the Chair. . 
    . .
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states, 
    ``No provision changing existing law shall be reported in any 
    general appropriation bill. . . .'' Out of this language comes the 
    general restriction prohibiting the consideration of legislation as 
    part of an appropriation bill. One way the Chair decides whether a 
    limitation constitutes legislation is to determine whether the 
    provision adds new affirmative directions for administrative 
    officers.
        Clearly, section 619 of H.R. 5798 would have been subject to a 
    valid point of order, had any Member sought to raise one. The 
    ``life of the mother'' exception to a limitation on funding for 
    abortions on an appropriations measure has on numerous occasions 
    been ruled out of order. This happened last year on this very 
    legislation.

[[Page 5312]]

        But, no Member raised that point of order on section 619. My 
    amendment seeks to amend section 619 by enlarging the exception to 
    apply to the ``health of the mother,'' rather than to the ``life of 
    the mother.'' The appropriate test is not whether section 619, as 
    amended, would be subject to a point of order but, rather, the test 
    is whether my amendment adds new or different affirmative 
    directions to an administrative officer. The question is whether my 
    amendment would change the nature of the legislation already on 
    this bill.
        To answer that question, we must refer to section 618 of the 
    bill, which prohibits the use of funds appropriated by the bill to 
    pay for an abortion or for administrative expenses in connection 
    with any health plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
    Program [FEHBP] which provides benefits or coverages for abortions. 
    Clearly, the first part of this section is a nullity, because there 
    is no authorization to use one penny appropriated by the bill to 
    pay directly for an abortion. The operative language is the second 
    part.
        The administrative burden imposed by section 619 is that the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management is required to 
    review contracts with health care providers to ensure that they 
    provide no reimbursement for abortions, unless the life of the 
    mother is at stake. Examining those same contracts to ensure that 
    they provide no reimbursement for abortions unless the health of 
    the mother is at stake is precisely the same administrative burden. 
    Each involves reviewing 130 contracts to see whether certain 
    language appears in them. There is no different administrative 
    burden.
         Arguably, section 619 creates another administrative burden 
    which requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
    to monitor the implementation of health benefit plans to ensure 
    compliance with the restriction. In this role, section 619 asks the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management to second guess 
    doctors and insurance carriers to decide whether the life of the 
    mother would truly have been endangered if the fetus had been 
    carried to term. Undoubtedly, this is an affirmative obligation 
    which is nowhere authorized in law and which the Director of the 
    Office of Personnel Management is uniquely unqualified to perform.
        My amendment reduces this administrative obligation. If the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management were obliged to 
    ensure compliance with section 619, as amended, he would merely 
    have to determine whether the health of the mother would have been 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This is a much 
    smaller burden.
        The life of the mother is a narrow subset of the health of the 
    mother. Medical personnel can say with far greater assurance that 
    the health of a patient might be impaired than that the life of the 
    patient might be lost. To make a determination that the life of the 
    mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, one 
    must make a prior determination that the health of the mother was 
    also endangered. Hence, section 619, as amended by my amendment, 
    would impose a part of the administrative burden imposed by section 
    619, as reported, but a substantially reduced part. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5313]]

        Under the precedents, a legislative provision permitted to 
    remain in a general appropriations bill may be perfected by 
    amendment so long as the amendment does not add further 
    legislation. The Chair would refer to Mr. Deschler, chapter XXVI, 
    section 2.3.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the determinations required by 
    section 619 of this bill, the present bill, as to whether the life 
    of the mother is in danger necessarily subsume determinations as to 
    whether the health of the mother is in danger and, for that reason, 
    the amendment adds no different or more onerous requirements for 
    medical determination to those already required and contained in 
    section 619.
        The Chair, therefore, would overrule the gentleman's point of 
    order.

Perfecting Unauthorized Figure but Mandating Expenditures; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.42 While an unauthorized item permitted to remain in a general 
    appropriation bill by a waiver of points of order may be changed by 
    amendment, an increase in that figure may not be accompanied by 
    legislative language directing certain expenditures.

    On June 18, 1976,(6) H.R. 14239 (Departments of State, 
Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary appropriations for fiscal 1977), was 
under consideration, which provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 19297, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For economic development assistance as authorized by titles I, 
    II, III, IV, and IX of the Public Works and Economic Development 
    Act of 1965, as amended, and title II of the Trade Act of 1974, 
    $300,000,000.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: In Title III, page 27, line 
        2, strike out ``$300,000,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof: 
        ``$329,500,000, of which not less than $77,000,000 shall be 
        used for economic adjustment as authorized by title IX of the 
        Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
        amended.''. . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment would violate clause 2 of rule XXI which provides:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditure not previously authorized by law. . . .

        The rule adopted earlier, waiving all points of order against 
    certain provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXI, applies only to those provisions 
    in the bill. The waiver does not apply to amendments which would 
    add additional provisions.
        This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would add a provision to the bill 
    earmarking $77 million for economic adjustment under title IX of 
    the Public

[[Page 5314]]

    Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. Extension 
    of that legislation which is required for fiscal year 1977 has not 
    been enacted. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the 
    funding level of title IX of this section from $47.5 to $77 
    million. It is my understanding that that section does fund 
    economic development assistance for titles I, II, III, IV, and IX 
    of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the amendment of the gentleman merely changed the 
    unauthorized figure permitted to remain in the appropriation bill, 
    it would be in order; but the amendment does mandate the 
    expenditure of not less than a certain amount of money for a 
    purpose which has not been authorized and as such constitutes 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Expressing Different Congressional Policy to That in Bill; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.43 To a provision in a general appropriation bill (permitted to 
    remain by failure to raise a point of order) stating the sense of 
    Congress that any new Panama Canal treaty must protect the vital 
    interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
    operation, maintenance, and defense of the Canal, an amendment 
    striking that provision and inserting a statement that it was the 
    sense of Congress that any such treaty must not abrogate or vitiate 
    the ``traditional interpretation'' of past Panama Canal treaties, 
    with special reference to territorial sovereignty, was ruled out as 
    constituting a different statement of legislative policy, not 
    merely perfecting in nature, which was further legislation.

    On June 10, 1977,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and the Judiciary appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 18402, 18403, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eldon J.] Rudd [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        (The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:)

            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must protect the vital 
        interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
        operation, maintenance, property and defense of the Panama 
        Canal.

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5315]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rudd: Page 14, delete lines 1 
        through 5 and insert in lieu thereof:
            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must not abrogate or vitiate 
        the traditional interpretation of the treaties of 1903, 1936, 
        and 1955, with special reference to matters concerning 
        territorial sovereignty. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order reluctantly, because the amendment deals with 
    matters not addressed in the bill and is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Rudd: . . . This is simply a clarification to section 104. 
    We have heard many statements here this afternoon and this morning 
    regarding the desire by many of our distinguished colleagues here, 
    and I think that they are in favor of retaining the Panama Canal. 
    All this does is to clarify this language, put it in proper 
    perspective, so that there will be no question about the retention 
    of the Panama Canal.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) offered an amendment to 
    section 104, which is a sense of the Congress section.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) 
    would change the sense of the Congress legislation permitted to 
    remain in the bill and would clearly alter it. The gentleman's 
    amendment would be further legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    subject to a point of order. The Chair must sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack).

Repeating Existing Legislation Verbatim; Held in Order

Sec. 3.44 An amendment to a general appropriation bill may not add 
    further legislation to that permitted to remain in the bill; and 
    the amendment is not subject to a point of order if containing, 
    verbatim, a legislative provision already contained in the bill.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(10) where an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibited the use of funds therein for the 
Occupational Health and Safety Administration for certain purposes, but 
exempted from such prohibitions persons ``engaged in a farming 
operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 
or fewer employees,'' the Chair, in overruling a point of order against 
the amendment, stated,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 23519-21, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No new duties or determination are required [by the amendment] 
    and the final proviso, while requiring findings as to the temporary 
    status of a farm labor camp, is already in the bill and the 
    amendment does not add legislation to that permitted to remain in 
    the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The proceedings are discussed in more detail in Sec. 73.11, infra.

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

[[Page 5316]]

Earmarking Part of Unauthorized Lump Sum; Ruled Out

Sec. 3.45 An unauthorized item in a general appropriation bill being 
    permitted to remain by a special rule waiving points of order, 
    figures in such item may be perfected but the provision may not be 
    changed by an amendment substituting funds for a different and 
    specified unauthorized purpose.

    For an item in a general appropriation bill containing funds for a 
nuclear aircraft carrier program, against which points of order had 
been waived for failure of the authorization bill to be enacted into 
law, a substitute amendment striking out those funds and inserting 
unauthorized funds for a conventional-powered aircraft carrier program 
was ruled out under Rule XXI clause 2, as unprotected by the waiver 
against the bill. The proceedings of Aug. 7, 1978,(12) were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 24710, 24712, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
        or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including armor 
        and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and machine 
        tools and installation thereof in public and private plants; . 
        . . as follows: . . . for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier 
        program, $2,129,600,000. . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 20, line 2, after 
        ``$128,000,000''; strike the words and amount on lines 2 and 3: 
        ``for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier program, 
        $2,129,600,000;''
            On page 20, line 8, after ``in all:'' strike 
        ``$5,688,000,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$3,558,400,000,''. . . .

        Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burlison of Missouri as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 20, 
        line 2, strike out ``for the CVN-71 nuclear aircraft carrier 
        program, $2,129,600,000;'' and insert in lieu thereof ``for the 
        conventional-powered aircraft carrier program, 
        $1,535,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, it would 
    seem to me that this amendment would be subject to a point of 
    order. I have not deeply researched the matter, but we do have a 
    bill before us which passed both the House and the Senate, and that 
    language provided for a nuclear carrier. This bill that is before 
    us specifically provides for a nuclear carrier, and it does not 
    provide for any other type of carrier. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will observe that the 
    Committee on Rules did waive points of order to the pend

[[Page 5317]]

    ing paragraph, but it did not waive points of order against 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will point out that unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill being considered under a special rule waiving 
    all points of order may be perfected by germane amendments merely 
    changing a figure, but such procedure does not permit the offering 
    of amendments adding further unauthorized items on appropriation. 
    As far as the Chair is aware, the conventional powered aircraft 
    carrier is not authorized, and the Chair would have to sustain the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chairman 
    has not addressed the point that I raised about the authorization 
    bill itself failing to designate what ships are to be built. In 
    other words, there is a single figure in the authorization bill for 
    shipbuilding, and that is what my amendment is to.
        The Chairman: The Chair would also have to observe that the 
    authorization bill is not signed and, therefore, it is not yet law.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 4. The Holman Rule

        The Holman rule (Rule XXI clause 2), which had its inception in 
    the 44th Congress, underwent various modifications between 1876 and 
    1911. At times it was dropped completely. The formulation of Rule 
    XXI clause 2, from 1911 until the 98th Congress, and under which 
    most of the decisions contained in this section were made, was as 
    follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1973). See also the note following 
        Sec. 834, House Rules and Manual, for history of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation 
    bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure 
    not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of 
    appropriations for such public works and objects as are already in 
    progress. Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
    thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
    expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
    officers of the United States, by the reduction of the compensation 
    of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or by 
    the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill: Provided, 
    That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the 
    report of the committee or any joint commission authorized by law 
    or the House Members of any such commission having jurisdiction of 
    the subject matter of such amendment, which amendment being germane 
    to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench expenditures.

    The second sentence of the clause comprises the Holman rule 
exception to Rule XXI, and permits legislative provisions in general 
appropriation bills or amendments, provided the stated conditions are 
met. The exception, of course, is to the prohibition against ``changing 
existing law,'' not to the prohibition against unauthorized 
appropriations.
    A distinction should be noted between provisions meeting the

[[Page 5318]]

 criteria of the Holman rule and ``limitations'' of the kind discussed 
in the latter part of this chapter.(15) Under the Holman 
rule, a provision that is admittedly ``legislative'' in nature is 
nevertheless held to fall outside the general prohibition against such 
provisions, because it accomplishes specified ends. The ``limitations'' 
discussed in later sections are not ``legislation'' and are permitted 
on the theory that Congress is not bound to appropriate funds for every 
authorized purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 64-79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of Rule XXI clause 2, as amended in the 98th Congress 
narrowed the ``Holman rule'' exception so that it covered only 
retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill, and not 
retrenchments resulting from reduction of the number and salary of 
officers of the United States or of the compensation of any person paid 
out of the U.S. Treasury. Paragraph (b) also eliminated separate 
authority conferred upon legislative committees or commissions with 
proper jurisdiction to report amendments retrenching expenditures, and 
permitted legislative committees to recommend such retrenchments to the 
Appropriations Committee for discretionary inclusion in the reported 
bill. Paragraph (d) as added in the 98th Congress provides a new 
procedure for consideration of all retrenchment amendments only when 
reading of the bill has been completed and only if the Committee of the 
Whole does not adopt a motion to rise and report the bill back to the 
House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In applying the Holman rule, care should be taken, of course, in 
assessing the relevance of those decisions which involved 
interpretation of that rule but which did not reflect the current form 
or interpretation of the rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Some of the precedents which would now be found to be inapplicable, 
        for example, are those at 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3846, 3885-
        92; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1484, 1486-92, 1498, 1500, 
        1515, 1563, 1564, 1569; and the decision of June 1, 1892, found 
        at 23 Cong. Rec. 4920, 52d Cong. 1st 
        Sess.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally; Abolishing Offices

Sec. 4.1 Legislation to be in order under the Holman rule must be 
    germane, must retrench expenditures, and the language used must be 
    essential to the accomplishment of that retrenchment.

    On Feb. 29, 1932,(18) the Treasury and Post Office 
Departments

[[Page 5319]]

appropriation bill (19) as under consideration. A provision 
was read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 75 Cong. Rec. 4957, 4958, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 9699.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The offices of comptrollers of customs, surveyors of customs, 
    and appraisers of merchandise (except the appraiser of merchandise 
    at the port of New York), 29 in all, with annual salaries 
    aggregating $153,800, are hereby abolished. The duties imposed by 
    law and regulation upon comptrollers, surveyors, and appraisers of 
    customs, their assistants and deputies (except the appraiser, his 
    assistants and deputies at the port of New York) are hereby 
    transferred to, imposed upon, and continued in positions, now 
    established in the Customs Service by or pursuant to law, as the 
    Secretary of the Treasury by appropriate regulation shall specify. 
    . . .

    A point of order was then made:

        Mrs. [Florence P.] Kahn [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the section, beginning in line 16, page 11, 
    and running through line 8, on page 12, that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and therefore out of order.

    In responding to the point of order, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the committee acknowledges that the provision to 
    which the point of order has been made, abolishing these offices of 
    appraisers, comptrollers, and surveyors of customs, is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and changes existing law.
        Under the provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI, known as the 
    Holman rule, legislation is in order upon an appropriation bill if 
    it conforms to that rule.
        The pertinent portion of clause 2 of that rule is as follows:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditure not previously authorized by law, unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress. Nor shall any provision in 
        any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in 
        order, except such as being germane to the subject matter of 
        the bill shall retrench expenditures by the reduction of the 
        number and salary of the officers of the United States, by the 
        reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the 
        Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of amounts 
        of money covered by the bill. . . .

        The committee contends that the paragraph in this bill to which 
    objection has been raised is in order under the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.
        Under previous decisions legislation to be in order under this 
    rule must be germane to the bill and must retrench expenditures in 
    one of the three methods set forth in the rule, namely (1) by 
    reduction of the number and salary of officers of the United 
    States, (2) by the reduction of the compensation of any person paid 
    out of the Treasury of the United States, or (3) by the reduction 
    of the amounts of money covered by the bill.
        Under previous decisions of the House it has also been held 
    that it is not enough merely to reduce the number and compensation 
    of officers of the United States or the compensation of any person 
    paid out of the Treasury, but the legislation must retrench ex

[[Page 5320]]

    penditures in doing that. On this point Chairman Saunders, in a 
    decision on December 9, 1922, said:

            The many rulings on this question are fairly uniform. They 
        all hold that when, on the face of the bill, the proposed new 
        legislation retrenches expenditures in one of three ways the 
        point of order should be overruled, and the rule is generally 
        laid down that the construction should be liberal in favor of 
        retrenchment of government expenditures.

        Under previous decisions it has also been held that the 
    retrenchment in expenditures must not be conjectural or speculative 
    but must show on the face of the legislation. In this connection 
    Speaker Kerr held:

            In considering the question whether an amendment operates 
        to retrench expenditures, the Chair can only look to what is 
        properly of record before him--that is, the pending bill, the 
        specific section under consideration, the law of the land, so 
        far as it is applicable, and the parliamentary rules and 
        practice of the House; and beyond these he is not permitted to 
        go in deciding the question.

        In discussing the question of the saving, Chairman Saunders 
    also said:

            The Chair can only act upon the proposition which is 
        presented on the face of that proposition.

        In presenting this paragraph under the Holman rule the 
    committee believes that it answers all of the requirements laid 
    down under sound decisions:
        (1) It is germane; (2) it reduces the number and salary of 
    officers of the United States; (3) it retrenches expenditures; (4) 
    the retrenchment is not speculative or argumentative but is 
    specific; (5) every part of the legislation is essential.
        1. Germaneness: The bill makes appropriations for the Customs 
    Service, and customarily carries salaries for the offices proposed 
    to be abolished.
        2. Reduction of offices and salaries: The paragraph provides 
    for the abolition of 29 offices established by law and now in 
    existence, with salaries aggregating annually $153,800. Under the 
    provisions of the paragraph these offices are eliminated commencing 
    with the date of approval of this bill. The incumbents in them will 
    at that time be removed from the pay roll.
        3. Retrenchment of expenditures: The paragraph retrenches 
    expenditures by the elimination of these offices and the saving of 
    the salaries. That is complete on the face of the legislation.
        4. The retrenchment is not speculative: The definiteness of the 
    saving can not be controverted. The bill abolishes the 29 
    positions. They will be gone. The duties are transferred 
    specifically to other positions in the service. The work will be 
    continued. No added expense will come from this transfer, because 
    the paragraph provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
    make the transfer and carry out the legislation without adding any 
    new positions. The retrenchment is specific, definite, and 
    complete. There is no escape from saving $153,800, and in making up 
    this bill the committee has taken out that amount.
        5. Every part of the legislation proposed is necessary to the 
    reduction: The legislation is divided into the following parts:
        (a) Abolition of the positions; (b) transfer of the duties to 
    positions now

[[Page 5321]]

    in the service; (c) change in title of existing positions after the 
    transfer to make the title accord to the new duties transferred to 
    them; (d) require the Secretary to administer the transfer of 
    duties in such a way as not to establish any new position.
        The necessity of all portions of the legislation and its 
    intimate relationship to the effectiveness and conclusiveness of 
    the retrenchment must be apparent. Without all of the parts the 
    legislation would not be effective.

    The Chairman, Edgar Howard, of Nebraska, ruled as follows:

        I am afraid the Chair is not in harmony with the position of 
    the lady from California. It would seem to the Chair that this 
    paragraph is safely enfolded in the embrace of the Holman Rule. For 
    the benefit of the lady from California the Chair will say that to 
    be in order under the Holman Rule three things must concur--first, 
    it must be germane; second, it must retrench expenditures; and, 
    third, the language embodied in the paragraph must be confined 
    solely to the purpose of retrenching expenditures.
        The Chair finds upon examination of the paragraph that it is 
    germane to the portion of the bill wherein it is inserted. The 
    paragraph on its face definitely reduces the number of officers of 
    the United States by 29 and thereby saves $153,800, thus 
    retrenching expenditures.
        The remaining question for the Chair to determine is whether 
    there is any language in the paragraph that is legislation which 
    does not contribute to the retrenchment of the $153,800.
        The Chair has examined the paragraph with considerable care in 
    order to determine whether the legislation is coupled up with and 
    essential to the reduction of money. The Chair finds that the 
    paragraph abolishes a number of positions, that it transfers the 
    duties heretofore performed by the officers holding those positions 
    to positions now in the service, that in order to accomplish that 
    it confers upon the Secretary of the Treasury authority to 
    designate the titles of the employees now in the service who are to 
    perform the additional duties, that it requires the Secretary to 
    administer the transfer of duties in such a way as not to establish 
    any new positions. It is apparent to the Chair that all the 
    legislation to be found in the paragraph is necessary to accomplish 
    the purpose of retrenching expenditures. The Chair thinks that the 
    paragraph clearly comes within the provisions of the Holman Rule 
    and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 4.2 A provision in an appropriation bill abolishing the offices of 
    the surveyor of customs at the Port of New York and seven 
    comptrollers of customs and transferring the duties of these 
    officers to positions already established in the Customs Service, 
    was held to be in order under the Holman rule.

    On Feb. 27, 1939,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post

[[Page 5322]]

Office Departments appropriation bill (H.R. 4492), a point of order was 
raised against the following proviso, and proceedings then followed as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 1961, 1962, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For collecting the revenue from customs, 
    for the detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs 
    revenue, and not to exceed $100,000 for the securing of evidence of 
    violations of the customs laws . . . Provided further, That the 
    offices of the surveyor of customs at the port of New York and 
    seven comptrollers of customs, with annual salaries aggregating 
    $51,600, are hereby abolished. The duties imposed by law and 
    regulations upon the surveyor of customs at the port of New York 
    and comptrollers of customs, their assistants and deputies are 
    hereby transferred to, imposed upon, and continued in positions now 
    established in the Customs Service by or pursuant to law, as the 
    Secretary of the Treasury by appropriate regulations shall specify; 
    and he is further authorized to designate the titles by which such 
    positions shall be officially known hereafter. The Secretary of the 
    Treasury, in performing the duties imposed upon him by this 
    paragraph, shall administer the same in such a manner that the 
    transfer of duties provided hereby will not result in the 
    establishment of any new positions in the Customs Service.
        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (21) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the language on page 16, line 14, beginning with the words 
    ``Provided further,'' and extending down to line 5, on page 17, as 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, especially that part of the 
    language beginning in line 23, which states ``and he is further 
    authorized to designate the titles by which such positions shall be 
    officially known hereafter.''
        To me this seems to be purely legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be heard?
        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
    believe there is any necessity for extended comment on this point 
    of order.
        In 1932 a provision in substantially identical language was 
    included in the Treasury-Post Office appropriation bill. The 
    gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Kahn] made a point of order 
    against the provision. The Chair ruled that the five considerations 
    essential to the application of the Holman rule were present in the 
    language proposed, namely, (1) that it was germane, (2) that it 
    reduced the number and salaries of officers of the United States, 
    (3) that it retrenched expenditures, (4) that the retrenchment was 
    not speculative or argumentative but was specific, and (5) that 
    every part of the legislation was essential.
        The point of order was, therefore, overruled and I submit it 
    should be in the instant case.
        May I say further there is no doubt about the application of 
    the Holman rule in cases where it is ascertainable that there will 
    be a substantial saving, whether or not any specific amount of 
    saving is indicated. However, in the instant case we have the 
    peculiarly ad

[[Page 5323]]

    vantageous position of being able to certify to the exact amount in 
    dollars and cents that will be saved, namely, $51,600. Therefore, I 
    submit to the Chair this comes clearly within the Holman rule. I 
    direct the Chair's attention to the fact that we have complied 
    scrupulously with the Ramseyer rule, and he will find set forth on 
    page 47 of our report the text of existing legislation and the text 
    of the legislation we propose in place of it. Having done this, we 
    have only to comply with the Holman rule to make the provision 
    invulnerable to a point of order, and this we have done. I ask for 
    the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana 
    states there will be a saving of $51,000. If the Chair will refer 
    to page 18 of the report he will see that new positions involving a 
    total of $51,600 will be created in the same department so the 
    saving is just $600. Therefore, any claim that there will be a 
    saving of $51,000 is just not so. The report shows new positions 
    are being created in the same department.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the gentleman will 
    yield, may I say that this particular proviso takes powers away 
    from one branch of a department and confers them on another, which 
    clearly is legislation.
        Mr. Ludlow: Of course, the one has no connection, relation, or 
    relevancy to the other. All that is necessary for us to say is that 
    in this transaction by abolishing certain positions we make a 
    saving of $51,600. If we appropriate a similar amount of money to 
    another branch for some other purpose, what connection does that 
    have with this?
        Mr. Fitzpatrick: The money is to be appropriated to the same 
    department for men to perform the same duties as the comptrollers 
    whose positions you are abolishing.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fitzpatrick] makes the point 
    of order against the proviso on page 16 on the grounds that it 
    embraces legislation in an appropriation bill. The gentleman from 
    Indiana contends that although it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill it comes within the Holman rule and is therefore 
    in order. The Holman rule may be found in the second sentence of 
    clause 2 of rule XXI, and is as follows:

            Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
        germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
        expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
        officers of the United States by the reduction of the 
        compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the 
        United States, or by the reduction of amounts of money covered 
        by the bill.

        In order to justify language in an appropriation bill under the 
    Holman rule three things must concur: First, it must be germane; 
    second, it must retrench expenditures in one of the ways enumerated 
    in the rule; and, third, the language embodied in the provision 
    must be confined solely to the purpose of retrenching expenditures.
        The Chair has carefully examined the proviso to which the point 
    of order is directed and is of the opinion that the language is 
    germane and that on its face it definitely shows a reduction of the 
    officers of the United States and a retrenchment of expenditures in 
    the amount of $51,600.

[[Page 5324]]

        It is also apparent to the Chair that all the legislation to be 
    found in the paragraph is necessary to accomplish the purpose of 
    retrenching expenditures. The Chair has been fortified in his 
    opinion on this proposition by a decision made by Chairman Howard 
    on February 29, 1932, on a proposition almost identical with the 
    pending proviso. In that instance the Chair overruled the point of 
    order on the ground that the provision came clearly within the 
    Holman rule.
        For the reasons stated the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    language to which the point of order has been directed clearly 
    comes within the provisions of the Holman rule, and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In both of the decisions cited above, an 
argument might have been advanced that a permanent change in law (the 
abolishment of an office) rendered the amendment or provision not 
germane to a one-year appropriation bill. In another ruling, in 1966, 
an amendment providing that appropriations ``herein and heretofore 
made'' shall be reduced by $70 million through the reduction of federal 
employees as the President determines was held to be legislative and 
not germane to the bill, since it went to funds other than those 
carried therein, and was therefore not within the Holman rule 
exception.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 112 Cong. Rec. 27424, 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 
        1966. See also Sec. 5.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, one of the criteria frequently cited (2) as 
essential for application of the Holman rule was not met. Moreover, the 
Chair in the 1966 instance ruled that a reappropriation of unexpended 
balances, prohibited by Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6),(3) 
is not in order on a general appropriation bill under the guise of a 
Holman rule exception to Rule XXI clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See, in addition to the above 1939 ruling, Sec. 4.1, supra.
 3. See the discussion of this rule in Ch. 25, Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction in Number of Naval Officers

Sec. 4.3 An amendment reducing the number of naval officers and 
    providing the method by which the reduction should be accomplished 
    was allowed under the Holman rule.

    On Jan. 20, 1938, during consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole of the Navy Department appropriation bill (H.R. 8993), a 
provision was read as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 853, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pay of naval personnel: For pay and allowances prescribed by 
    law of officers on sea duty and other duty, and officers on waiting 
    orders, pay--$35,461,649 . . .; pay and allowances of the Nurse 
    Corps, including assistant

[[Page 5325]]

    superintendents, directors, and assistant directors--pay, $560,020; 
    rental allowance, $24,000; subsistence allowance, $23,871; pay, 
    retired list, $271,976; in all $879,867; rent of quarters for 
    members of the Nurse Corps; . . . reimbursement for losses of 
    property as provided in the act approved October 6, 1917 (34 U.S.C. 
    981, 982) . . . $10,000; . . . in all, $176,-845,282; and no part 
    of such sum shall be available to pay active-duty pay and 
    allowances to officers in excess of nine on the retired list, 
    except retired officers temporarily ordered to active duty as 
    members of retiring and selection boards as authorized by law: 
    Provided, That, except for the public quarters occupied by the 
    Chief of Office of Naval Operations . . . and messes temporarily 
    set up on shore for officers attached to seagoing vessels, to 
    aviation units based on seagoing vessels including officers' messes 
    at the fleet air bases, and to landing forces and expeditions . . . 
    no appropriation contained in this act shall be available for the 
    pay, allowances, or other expenses of any enlisted man or civil 
    employee performing service in the residence or quarters of an 
    officer or officers on shore as a cook, waiter, or other work of a 
    character performed by a household servant.

    An amendment was then offered, and a point of order made, as 
indicated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 854, 855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Byron N.] Scott [of California]: 
        Page 26, line 8, after the word ``Provided'', insert ``That 
        commissioned line officers of the active list of the line of 
        the Navy (Marine Corps) carried by law as additional numbers or 
        passed over, shall be counted within the authorized total 
        number of such commissioned officers of the active list of the 
        line of the Navy: Provided further.''

        Mr. [William B.] Umstead [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman. I am willing to reserve the point of order if the 
    gentleman would like to be heard.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Umstead: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it is contrary to 
    existing law, and that it does not and will not result in any 
    reduction in expenditures under this section.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Scott] 
    care to be heard?
        Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I expect the amendment will be held 
    germane under the exception known as the Holman rule.
        I call attention to the fact the act of July 22, 1933, fixes 
    the maximum commissioned line officers' strength of the Navy-- that 
    is, the number of line officers that we can have in the Navy at any 
    one time--at 6,531. This is exclusive of those officers who are 
    known as additional numbers in grade or additional numbers.
        On page 84 of the hearings had by the subcommittee of the 
    Appropriations Committee and in the second table thereon, it will 
    be seen that in

[[Page 5326]]

    cluding additional numbers the line officers' strength after the 
    commissioning of the class graduating from the Naval Academy in 
    June, 1938, would [be] 6,562 and after the commissioning of the 
    graduating class in June 1939, which is within the fiscal year for 
    which this bill makes appropriation, the number will be 6,824.
        The amendment does change existing law by providing that 
    officers in additional numbers category shall be included in the 
    authorized line-officer strength of the Regular Navy. At the 
    present time additional numbers are not counted as a part of the 
    authorized line-officer strength, which, as I have said, is 6,531. 
    If the amendment which I have offered is agreed to, the effect 
    would be--that is, if no counteracting legislation passes in the 
    meantime--to deny commissions to at least 293 midshipmen. It would 
    deny commissions to at least 293 midshipmen graduating in June 
    1939. This would make a difference between 6,824 and the 6,531 
    which is the line strength authorized by law.
        The table on page 91 of the hearings indicates there will be 
    591 graduates in June 1939. This would mean a reduction of 293 
    officers who otherwise would have to be appropriated for and would 
    retrench expenditures by reduction of the number and salary of the 
    officers of the United States as follows:
        For pay, subsistence, and transportation in the Navy, $44,975 
    in pay, including subsistence allowance, and $1,418 in 
    transportation, which is borne out by the figures on pages 236, 242 
    and 275, page 236 providing for pay, page 242 subsistence and 
    allowance, and page 275 for transportation. This would show the 
    exact amount that would be saved by denying commissions to 293 
    midshipmen graduating in June 1939.
        If the amendment is ruled in order I shall later offer 
    amendments carrying into effect the reduction of amounts that would 
    be caused if we commissioned the 293 graduates of the academy to 
    whom I expect to deny commissions. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule, unless the gentleman 
    from North Carolina would like to be heard further.
        In the opinion of the Chair, there is no question about the 
    germaneness of the amendment. It seems to resolve itself largely 
    into a question of facts and figures as to whether or not the 
    amendment comes within the Holman rule. The part of the Holman 
    rule, with which the members of the Committee are familiar, that is 
    relevant here, is subsection 2 of rule XXI, which reads as follows:

            Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
        germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
        expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
        officers of the United States by the reduction of the 
        compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the 
        United States, or by the reduction of amounts of money covered 
        by the bill.

        Section 1511 of volume VII of Cannon's Precedents of the House, 
    reads as follows:

            A proposition reducing the number of Army officers and 
        providing the method by which the reduction should be 
        accomplished was held to come within the exceptions under

[[Page 5327]]

        which legislation retrenching expenditure is in order on an 
        appropriation bill.

        A reading of the amendment, together with the facts stated by 
    the gentleman from California which, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    have not been successfully controverted, that the amendment will 
    actually reduce the number of officers as well as effect a 
    retrenchment of expenditures thereby brings the amendment within 
    the Holman rule cited by the Chair, and therefore the point of 
    order is overruled.

Ceiling on Employment

Sec. 4.4 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no part 
    of any appropriation therein shall be used to pay the compensation 
    of any incumbent appointed to any position which may become vacant 
    during the year, except when the agency involved has reduced its 
    number of personnel in a specified manner, was held to be in order 
    under the Holman rule as a reduction in the number and salary of 
    the officers of the United States.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(7) after an amendment had been offered 
to the independent offices appropriation bill (H.R. 7072), the 
following point of order was raised, and the decision of the Chair was 
as indicated above. The amendment was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 98 Cong. Rec. 2696, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: Page 64, after line 21, insert 
    a new section as follows:
        ``No part of any appropriation or authorization contained in 
    this act shall be used to pay the compensation of any incumbent 
    appointed to any civil office or position which may become vacant 
    during the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1952: Provided, That 
    this inhibition shall not apply--
        ``(a) to not to exceed 25 percent of all vacancies;
        ``(b) to positions filled from within a department, independent 
    executive bureau, board, commission, corporation, agency or office, 
    provided for in this act. . . . Provided further, That when any 
    department, independent executive bureau, board, commission, 
    corporation, agency or office, contained in this act shall, as the 
    result of the operation of this amendment reduce its personnel to a 
    number not exceeding 90 percent of the total number provided for in 
    this act, such amendment may cease to apply and said 90 percent 
    shall become a ceiling for employment during the fiscal year 1953, 
    and if exceeded at any time during fiscal year 1953 this amendment 
    shall again become operative.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and on the further ground that it places 
    extra burdens and duties on the various boards, agencies, and 
    bureaus.

[[Page 5328]]

        The Chairman: (8) Will the gentleman point out the 
    specific language in the amendment to which he refers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Yes, it is near the end:

            As the result of the operation of this amendment reduce its 
        personnel to a number not exceeding 90 percent of the total 
        number provided for in this act, such amendment may cease to 
        apply and said 90 percent shall become a ceiling for employment 
        during the fiscal year 1953, and if exceeded--

        There is an alternative there, as the Chair will see--
        at any time during fiscal year 1953 this amendment shall again 
        become operative.

        Somebody has got to make some decisions there; it places extra 
    duties in order to arrive at decisions; and on top of that it is 
    legislation.

        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from 
    Iowa briefly if he desires to be heard on the point of order.
         [Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, the best 
    evidence that this amendment is germane to the bill and is not 
    legislation is the fact that the amendment was adopted by the House 
    last year and was held to be germane by the Chair. Points of order 
    were raised against it at that time, as I recall.
         The amendment is not mandatory in the sense that the word 
    ``may'' is used where the additional burdens and responsibilities 
    might be placed on the agencies other than the 10 percent reduction 
    that must be made which is purely a limitation on an appropriation 
    bill and comes within the language and the intent of the Holman 
    rule.
        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa is legislation on an appropriation bill for the following 
    reasons: As stated in the next to the fourth line from the bottom, 
    upon the attainment of that condition under operation of the 
    amendment, thereupon the amendment affirmatively legislates in the 
    following language:

             Said 90 percent shall become a ceiling for employment 
        during the fiscal year 1953.

         That language, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, is 
    legislation, it is affirmatively fixing a legal ceiling upon the 
    employment upon the attainment of a condition in the amendment; 
    therefore I respectfully suggest it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Tennessee says that the 
    language contained in the amendment ``said 90 percent shall become 
    a ceiling for employment during the fiscal year 1953'' is 
    legislation.
         The Chair is of the opinion that even if that language is 
    legislation, it is clearly within the Holman rule, as suggested by 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Jensen). This, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, is a limitation within the meaning of the Holman rule by 
    limiting the number of employees within these agencies of 
    Government covered by this bill and the amount of money to be made 
    available under this bill.
         . . . The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is in 
    order and there

[[Page 5329]]

    fore overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas.

 Reduction of Total Appropriation

Sec. 4.5 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    total appropriations therein be reduced by a specified amount was 
    held in order (even though legislative in form) since it provided 
    for a retrenchment of expenditures and thus came within the Holman 
    rule.

     On Apr. 5, 1966, (9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 14215), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 7689, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
         The Clerk read as follows:

             Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 46, after line 21, 
        insert a new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 302. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
        reduced in the amount of $7,293,000.''

        Mr. [Winfield K.] Denton [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but will reserve the point of 
    order. . . .
         Mr. Chairman, there are numerous agencies covered by this 
    appropriation bill. While the executive branch has discretion not 
    to spend this money, the proposed amendment would force the 
    Executive to assign priorities to the various agencies. It would 
    place discretionary action with the President and, it is the 
    Congress who determines how funds shall be appropriated. The 
    amendment would take that authority from the Congress and give it 
    to the Executive.
        The Chairman: (10) I understand that the gentleman 
    from Indiana is insisting on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Denton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment 
    would reduce the appropriations in this bill in the amount of 
    $7,293,000. The so-called Holman rule provides:

             Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
        germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
        expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
        officers of the United States, by the reduction of the 
        compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the 
        United States, or by the reduction of amounts of money covered 
        by the bill.

         Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

 Reducing Funds, Prohibiting Particular Use

Sec. 4.6 An amendment reducing an amount in a general appropriation 
    bill for the Postal Service and providing that no funds therein be 
    used to

[[Page 5330]]

    implement special bulk third-class rates for political committees 
    was held in order either as a negative limitation not specifically 
    requiring new determinations or as a retrenchment of expenditures 
    under the ``Holman Rule'' even assuming its legislative effect, 
    since the reduction of the amount in the bill would directly 
    accomplish the legislative result.

     On July 13, 1979,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4393 (Treasury Department, Postal 
Service and general government appropriation bill) a point of order 
against an amendment was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 18453-55, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             For payment to the Postal Service Fund for public service 
        costs and for revenue foregone on free and reduced rate mail, 
        pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2401 (b) and (c), and for meeting the 
        liabilities of the former Post Office Department to the 
        Employees' Compensation Fund and to postal employees for earned 
        and unused annual leave as of June 30, 1971, pursuant to 39 
        U.S.C. 2004, $1,697,558,000.

        [Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
         The Clerk read as follows:

             Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: On page 9, line 3, 
        delete ``$1,697,558,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,672,810,000: Provided, That no funds appropriated herein 
        shall be available for implementing special bulk third-class 
        rates for `qualified political committees' authorized by Public 
        Law 95-593.''. . .

        [Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: My point of order is that 
    the amendment places a burden on the Postal Department which would 
    not exist but for this amendment. . . . [I]f the amendment is 
    passed, it does not merely withhold funds, but it requires the 
    Postal Department to adjust the rates of the Postal Department in 
    order to comply with the limitation contained in this amendment. 
    Therefore, this is not a mere limitation on an appropriation but it 
    is a limitation which requires the Postal Department, as the 
    gentleman has stated in his letter, to adjust all rates, determine 
    which rates need adjustments, which ones qualify or would not 
    qualify under the provision, and, thus, reduce those rates to the 
    figures that would permit the reduction in revenue. Therefore, it 
    seems clear to me that this affords an extremely heavy burden on 
    the Postal Department which would not otherwise exist but for the 
    passage of the amendment. If this were not true, the situation 
    would create an anomalous condition which I had pointed out in my 
    initial question to the gentleman in the well and the author of the 
    amendment. It would create a situation in which the benefits 
    provided under section 3626 of title 39 would still be enjoyed by 
    qualifying political committees, and yet the Postal Department 
    would not

[[Page 5331]]

    be able to receive the adjustment due to the additional costs. It 
    seems to me that in effect if the gentleman is correct and if 
    adjustments are made in the rate, there is another change in 
    substantive law occasioned by the adjustment in rates. That is, the 
    adjustment in rates substantively changes Public Law 95-593 so as 
    to deprive qualified political committees, including the Democratic 
    Committee and the Republican Committee, and all others that 
    qualify, of the benefits that we have enacted in another piece of 
    legislation, not one that deals with the Postal Department but 
    deals generally with the rates of political parties with respect to 
    the use of the mails.
        Mr. Glickman: . . . The amendment is strictly one of 
    limitation. It reduces funding by $25 million and limits the use of 
    that funding with respect to the charging of postal rates. I would 
    state for the gentleman and for the Chair that section 3627 of 
    title 39, United States Code is discretionary authority to adjust 
    rates if the appropriation fails and is not mandatory authority 
    and, therefore, I do believe that the amendment is merely a 
    limitation and is germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
         In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment constitutes a 
    negative limitation on how funds in the bill are spent rather than 
    being legislation on an appropriations bill. No new determinations 
    are required. Even if the amendment should be considered as 
    constituting legislation, it constitutes a retrenchment because it 
    cuts the amounts in the bills and the legislative effect directly 
    contributes to that reduction.
         The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

 Exception From a Retrenchment

Sec. 4.7 To an amendment in order under the Holman rule containing 
    legislation but retrenching expenditures by a formula reduction for 
    every agency funded by the bill, an amendment exempting from that 
    reduction several specific programs does not add further 
    legislation and is in order.

     On July 30, 1980, (13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7591), a point of order against an amendment was not 
sustained, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 20503, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. (Herbert E.) Harris (of Virginia): Strike (out the) 
        period and add: ``, except that this limitation shall not apply 
        to emergency or disaster programs of the Farmers Home 
        Administration and the Agricultural Stabilization and 
        Conservation Service and programs for the control of infectious 
        or contagious diseases of hu

[[Page 5332]]

        mans and animals carried out by the Food and Drug 
        Administration and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
        Service.''.

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order 
    on that amendment. . . .
         I feel the amendment is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and does in fact do violence to my amendment. . 
    . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, section 
    9.7 (states):

             An exception to a valid limitation in a general 
        appropriation bill is in order, providing the exception does 
        not add language legislative in effect.

         I do not consider that this adds legislative language to the 
    amendment. It is an exception to the limiting provision as offered. 
    I respectfully submit that it is in order and should be considered.

        The Chairman: (14)  The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         An exception to a limitation or a retrenchment which does not 
    add legislation is clearly in order under the precedents, and the 
    point of order is not sustained.

 Exception From a Limited Use

Sec. 4.8 To an amendment retrenching expenditures in a general 
    appropriation bill by reducing amounts therein and prohibiting 
    their availability to particular recipients, an amendment lessening 
    the amount of the reduction and also providing an exception from 
    the limitation may be in order as a perfection of the retrenchment 
    if funds contained in the bill remain reduced thereby.

     On July 13, 1979,(15) it was held that, to an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill limiting the use of funds for the 
Postal Service to implement special mail rates for qualified political 
committees as authorized by law, an amendment lessening the amount of 
the reduction of funds in the original amendment and also excepting 
from the limitation certain congressional political committees as 
defined in law was in order either as an exception from a valid 
limitation which did not add legislation (since the determinations as 
to which political committees fit those descriptions were already 
required by law of the Postal Service) or as perfecting a retrenchment 
amendment while still reducing funds in the bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 18456, 18457, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the amendment 
        offered

[[Page 5333]]

        by Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: On page 9, line 3, delete 
        ``$1,697,558,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,676,810,000'' and strike the period after ``Public Law 95-
        593'' and insert the following: ``, other than the national, 
        state or congressional committee of a major or minor party as 
        defined in Public Law 92-178, as amended.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the Ford 
    amendment, is, indeed legislation on an appropriations act, because 
    by limiting the amount available under the bill, the Postal Service 
    will be required to establish two different rates; one for major 
    and minor political parties entitled under the bill and another 
    rate for political parties which do not qualify.
         Unlike the discretionary authority under section 3627, this 
    adjustment would be mandatory.
        I would like to point out that the reference in the bill is to 
    Public Law 92-178, which in its title VII deals with certain tax 
    incentives for contributions to candidates for public office and 
    which sets out certain definitions with respect to national 
    committees of national political parties and State committees of a 
    national political party as designated by the national committee of 
    such party. . . .
         Now, there are definitions here and those definitions must be 
    addressed by another body besides the Post Office Department; but 
    here the Post Office Department is going to have to determine 
    whether a committee is a State committee of a national political 
    party as designated by the national committee of such party and 
    must apply the definitions as the result of additional duties 
    attributed and ascribed to the Postal Department that are not 
    previously attributable to that Department; so there is, indeed, an 
    additional burden with respect to defining or establishing and 
    applying the definition of a major or minor party as defined under 
    this law and also with respect to establishing two separate rates 
    in order to accomplish the objective sought here. . . .
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: . . . First, I believe that the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) confuses the addition of duties to the 
    executive branch that require the exercise of discretion and the 
    imposition of an obligation to make determinations that would not 
    otherwise have to be made.
         What our amendment does is it simply refers them to a clearly 
    defined interpretation, consistent with virtually everything else 
    that is contained in the postal code, with respect to qualifying 
    and nonqualifying people. . . .
         The second point is that I would refer to the gentleman's 
    argument against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    (Mr. Glickman) on this point of order in which he pointed out that 
    the effect of not adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) would be that the law would not be 
    changed, and that the Post Office Department would have a 
    continuing duty to determine whether a political party was a 
    political party for the purpose of giving them a subsidy, even 
    without the Glickman amendment. I suggest that the effect of 
    knocking out my amendment will be to leave the duty of the Postal 
    Service to make that determination much broader and much more 
    complex then it would with the narrowing effect of our amendment 
    which requires that they need only

[[Page 5334]]

    pick up the telephone and call the Federal Election Commission and 
    ask, ``Who, if anyone, qualifies for this class of mail? We have 
    got some people who are applying for a permit. Shall we grant them 
    the permit?''
         The way this discretion is exercised is not that you mail a 
    letter and wait to see if the Post Office catches you; you go down 
    to the Post Office first and you say, ``I am representing the 
    Democratic''--or the Republican--``National Committee. We wish to 
    have a permit with a number assigned to us so that our mail is 
    clearly identified and to entitle us to mail as a nonprofit 
    organization third class bulk mail.''
         At that point the Postal Service makes a determination as to 
    whether or not you qualify. They do not make a determination as to 
    whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party qualifies; 
    they simply pick up the phone and call the FEC and find out. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Exceptions to limitations or retrenchments permitted to remain 
    in the bill are permitted if not constituting additional 
    legislation. In the opinion of the Chair, the law already imposes a 
    duty on the Postal Service, under Public Law 95-593, to determine 
    whether any political committee is a National, State, or 
    congressional committee of a political party.
         Public Law 95-593 provides definitions of what constitutes 
    political parties. Since these standards exist in the law, it is 
    the opinion of the Chair that no additional burden is imposed by 
    the amendment, or, in any event, the amendment remains a 
    retrenchment, and the point of order is overruled.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 5. Provisions Not Within the Halman Rule

Certainty of Reduction Must Appear

Sec. 5.1 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, proposing 
    legislation which may result in a future deficiency appropriation 
    and therefore does not patently reduce expenditures, though 
    providing for a reduction in the figures of an appropriation, is 
    not in order under the Holman rule.

    On June 3, 1959,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7454), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 9714, 9715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 12, strike out ``$3,233,063,000'' and insert 
    ``$3,233,000,000, to be disbursed in such manner that the military 
    personnel, Regular Army, shall be maintained at not less than 
    900,000 during fiscal year 1960.''

[[Page 5335]]

        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. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have just offered, 
    instead of raising the bill and adding money, reduces the amount of 
    the appropriation and is in the nature of a retrenchment. I take 
    the position that it is, first, germane to the bill, obviously. 
    And, secondly, it is obviously a retrenchment because it reduces 
    the amount of the appropriation instead of adding to it, and it 
    directs that the funds be used for the purpose of keeping the Army 
    strength or making the Army strength at 900,000. The only question 
    that would be in debate on the point of order made by my friend, 
    the gentleman from Texas, would be as to the latter provision. 
    Certainly, this amendment is germane. Secondly, I submit it is a 
    retrenchment. . . .
        . . . I submit to you, sir, in the bill itself there is a 
    provision under the general provisions thereof stating that the 
    funds in this bill cannot be used for any other purpose than those 
    declared in the bill, and no other funds can be used for that 
    purpose.
        I submit, sir, that this is a flat, and intended by me to be a 
    flat, limitation upon the Department of Defense. It permits no 
    discretion to be utilized so it can be abused. It is a flat 
    limitation upon the expenditure of funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, all limitations on the size of military personnel 
    have been suspended by Public Law 86-4, section 2, until 1963. 
    Therefore there are no limitations--ceilings or floors--in effect 
    during fiscal year 1960.
        The amendment proposed would have the effect of establishing a 
    floor as to the size of military force.
        This amendment imposes additional duties on the executive 
    branch since it would require them to maintain a specific number of 
    troops, a requirement which does not exist at the present time. The 
    amendment therefore is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This does make a reduction of $63,000 in the amount carried in 
    the bill but funds would have to be disbursed on the deficiency 
    basis which will require the appropriation of additional funds for 
    this same purpose during fiscal year 1960 which is the period 
    covered by this bill. Therefore, this is not a retrenchment as 
    provided by the Holman rule. The language itself does not show 
    retrenchment on its face. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, what I say will be a complete 
    rebuttal. The only element the gentleman brings in is the question 
    of the use of the funds. Certainly this affects the use of 
    additional funds unless the Department of Defense came in for 
    supplemental appropriations which would have to be by act of the 
    President as an affirmative act.
        The amendment is a limitation on the expenditure of funds in 
    their discretion.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        While in the opinion of the Chair this amendment does in effect 
    seek to

[[Page 5336]]

    retrench expenditures, it does by the language added impose upon 
    the executive branch a mandatory duty of maintaining personnel at a 
    figure greater than provided in the pending bill; and in the 
    opinion of the Chair constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Reduction Must Be Certain, Not Speculative

Sec. 5.2 To come within the purview of the Holman rule, it must 
    affirmatively appear that a proposition, if adopted, will retrench 
    expenditures as a definite result, not as a probable or possible 
    contingency.

    On Mar. 7, 1940,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8745), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and after argument, the Chair ruled that the provision was 
not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 2512-14, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    Bituminous Coal Division in carrying out the purposes of the 
    Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72) 
    . . . $2,187,800: Provided, That the first paragraph of subsection 
    ``(e)'' of part II of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 
    72), is amended by inserting at the end of such paragraph and 
    before the period the following: ``: Provided further, That the 
    provisions of this act shall not apply to a sale of bituminous coal 
    for the exclusive use of the United States or of any State or 
    Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or any 
    political subdivision of any of them.''
        Mr. [Andrew] Edmiston [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edmiston: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    proviso on page 8, beginning in line 7 and ending in line 14. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    believe this amendment comes under the Holman rule. Eight percent 
    of all the coal handled by this Commission will be used by the 
    Federal, State, and city governments throughout the country. About 
    35,000,000 tons of coal will be used, and it will cost the Federal, 
    State, and city governments approximately $3,850,000. It will cost 
    the Federal Government alone $1,100,000.
        The appropriation in this bill is $2,187,800 for the 
    administration of the act. It will not be necessary for the 
    Commission to handle about 8 percent of all the coal coming under 
    the Bituminous Coal Act if this amendment is agreed to. It is hard 
    to say whether or not it will save $187,000, which would be about 8 
    percent of the total amount allowed in the bill for administering 
    the act. In my opinion it will certainly save from $20,000 to 
    $100,000. If that is so, it surely is germane to the act,

[[Page 5337]]

    and it will save the different cities, States, and the Federal 
    Government over $3,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that this item is 
    legislation is specifically set out in the language between lines 7 
    and 10 on page 8 in that it proposes to add a paragraph to 
    subsection (e) of part 2 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. . . .
        The language carried here does none of those things which are 
    covered by the Holman rule. It is not in any way in order, nor does 
    it appear that the language in any way effects a saving to the 
    Treasury of the United States. Under these circumstances it is not 
    legislation in line with the Holman rule, but quite the contrary, 
    and the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The gentlemen speaking in opposition to the point of order have 
    endeavored to justify the provision appearing in the bill to which 
    reference has been made on the ground that it comes within the 
    provisions of the so-called Holman rule. . . .
        The Chair . . . invites attention to page 56 of Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives, and quotes as follows: . 
    . .

            It must affirmatively appear upon the face of the bill that 
        the proposition, if enacted, will retrench expenditures.
            A retrenchment of expenditure relied upon to bring a 
        proposition within the exception to the rule prohibiting 
        legislation on an appropriation bill must be apparent from its 
        terms, and a retrenchment conjectural or speculative in its 
        application, or requiring further legislation to effectuate, is 
        not admissible.

        The Chair also invites attention to another precedent directly 
    in point to a proper consideration of the question here presented, 
    section 1530, volume VII of Cannon's Precedents, quoting:

            The reduction of expenditure relied upon to bring a 
        proposition within the exception to the rule prohibiting 
        legislation on an appropriation bill must appear as a certain 
        and necessary result and not as a probable or possible 
        contingency.

        The language of the proviso to which the point of order is made 
    is as follows:

            Provided, That the first paragraph of subsection '(e)' of 
        part II of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 72), is 
        amended by inserting at the end of such paragraph and before 
        the period the following: ``Provided further, That the 
        provisions of this act shall not apply to a sale of bituminous 
        coal for the exclusive use of the United States or of any State 
        or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, 
        or any political subdivision of any of them.''

        It seems to the Chair that this language is legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill. The very language itself clearly shows 
    that the purpose sought to be accomplished is the amendment of 
    existing law. Therefore, as it appears so clearly that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, under the provision of the 
    rule to which the Chair has referred and based upon the previous 
    decisions and precedents here cited, the Chair feels that this 
    provision does not properly come within that provision of clause 2 
    of rule XXI, known as the Holman rule.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia as to the proviso.

[[Page 5338]]

Reduction Cannot Be Contingent on Event

Sec. 5.3 To a paragraph appropriating money for the National Bituminous 
    Coal Commission, an amendment providing that if the act 
    appropriated for is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 
    none of the money provided in the bill shall thereafter be spent 
    was held not to be in order under the Holman rule [the reduction of 
    funds not being certain] but was viewed as a limitation.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 994, 996, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses, National Bituminous Coal Commission: For 
    all necessary expenditures of the National Bituminous Coal 
    Commission in performing the duties imposed upon said Commission by 
    the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, including personal 
    services and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, contract stenographic reporting services, 
    stationery and office supplies and equipment, printing and binding, 
    and not to exceed $2,500 for newspapers, reference books, and 
    periodicals, fiscal year 1936, $400,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for obligations incurred on and 
    after September 21, 1935, including reimbursement to other 
    appropriations of the Department of the Interior for obligations 
    incurred on account of said Commission. . . .
         Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bacon: Page 22, line 11, after the 
        word ``Commission'', insert ``Provided, That if the Bituminous 
        Coal Conservation Act of 1935 is declared to be 
        unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, no 
        money herein provided shall thereafter be spent, and all money 
        herein appropriated and unexpended shall be immediately covered 
        back into the Treasury.''

         Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum: This seems to me to be legislation undertaking to 
    effect a limitation. If, of course, the Supreme Court declares the 
    act unconstitutional, expenditures under it will cease and no money 
    may thereafter be expended under the act.
        Mr. Bacon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is an amendment 
    that comes within the Holman rule, that it is a limitation saving 
    money for the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Woodrum: But it is made contingent on something that may or 
    may not happen.

[[Page 5339]]

        Mr. Bacon: Yes; it is made contingent on something happening.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, is the gentleman suggesting that the Congress 
    should hint the unconstitutionality of a law before it is passed on 
    by the Supreme Court?
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the Holman rule 
    does not necessarily apply. The Chair is of the opinion, however, 
    that the amendment is a limitation. The purport of the amendment 
    taken as a whole impresses the Chair as being a limitation.
        Mr. Woodrum: May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact 
    that the amendment means hereafter, any time in the future, any 
    appropriation that hereafter may be made, and that it is not 
    confined to the appropriation in this bill?
        The Chairman: Yes; that is the very point on which the Chair's 
    decision turns. The Chair interprets the words used in the 
    amendment to mean that it refers to the appropriation provided in 
    this bill. It would, therefore, be a limitation on the 
    appropriation here provided. The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The distinction was made in Sec. 4, supra, 
between (1) provisions which, although legislative in nature, are 
nevertheless in order under the Holman rule, and (2) provisions which 
are not legislative in nature but are, rather, in order as proper 
``limitations.'' Limitations are discussed in Sec. Sec. 64-79, infra. 
As an example of those instances in which the Holman rule is cited in 
support of an amendment but found inapplicable, the Chair relying 
instead on language of limitation, see Sec. 64.27, infra, discussing 
the ruling of July 16, 1979. At issue on that occasion was an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to 
carry out any ruling of the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that 
taxpayers are not entitled to certain charitable deductions. The Chair 
first indicated that the Holman rule was inapplicable, since the 
certainty of a reduction in expenditures did not appear. But the 
amendment was held in order as a limitation, since the amendment was 
merely descriptive of an existing ruling already promulgated by that 
agency and did not require new determinations as to the applicability 
of the limitation to other categories of taxpayers.

Reduction Cannot Be Conjectural

Sec. 5.4 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that ``in 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, not to exceed $3 
    per diem in lieu of subsistence may be allowed to Indians actually 
    traveling away from their

[[Page 5340]]

    place of residence when assisting in organization work'' was held 
    to be legislation and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On May 14, 1937,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 4592, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of organizing Indian chartered corporations, 
        or other tribal organizations, in accordance with the 
        provisions of the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 986), 
        including personal services, purchase of equipment and 
        supplies, not to exceed $3,000 for printing and binding, and 
        other necessary expenses, $100,000, of which not to exceed 
        $25,000 may be used for personal services in the District of 
        Columbia: Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, not to exceed $3 per diem in lieu of subsistence 
        may be allowed to Indians actually traveling away from their 
        place of residence when assisting in organization work.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it contains 
    legislation and changes existing law, that the provision appearing 
    on page 16, from lines 16 to 20, is legislation not authorized by 
    law, and I make the point of order against the entire paragraph. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is clearly 
    within the Holman rule. This retrenches expenditures. The Pay and 
    Subsistence Act authorizes $5 a day. This simply reduces the per 
    diem to $3 a day. Therefore I feel confident that this is within 
    the Holman rule.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any 
    authority in law for the payment of any money for Indians for 
    traveling away from their place of residence in connection with 
    this work. In any event the proviso imposes new duties upon the 
    Secretary of the Interior to determine in his discretion when funds 
    may be allowed to Indians. The chairman of the committee has not 
    cited us to any authority providing for any funds being allotted to 
    Indians for such travel. The imposition of these additional duties 
    upon the Secretary of the Interior make it clearly subject to the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair thinks that the first part of the paragraph down to the 
    proviso in line 16 on page 16 is authorized under section 9 of the 
    statute approved June 18, 1934, and, therefore, is in order. The 
    Chair thinks, however, so far as the proviso, line 16 down to the 
    word ``work'' on line 20, is concerned, that it does not appear on 
    the face of this proviso that it necessarily is a saving, and 
    therefore does not come within the Holman rule and appears to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order as to the proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lister Hill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language Must Show Unqualified and Certain Reduction

Sec. 5.5 Legislation proposed on an appropriation bill must

[[Page 5341]]

     indicate by its terms an unqualified reduction of expenditures, if 
    it is to be in order under the Holman rule; accordingly, a 
    paragraph in an appropriation bill proposing the continuance of a 
    temporary law which eliminated bonus payments for re-enlistment in 
    the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, was held not to be in order under 
    the Holman rule on the ground that the language did not 
    specifically and definitely show a retrenchment of expenditures.

    On Feb. 18, 1937,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriations bill (H.R. 4720), the Chairman made the following 
ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 1388, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . (A) point of order is made against this proviso appearing 
    on page 27, at line 10:

            Provided further, That section 18 of the Treasury-Post 
        Office Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1934, is hereby continued 
        in full force and effect during the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1938, and for the purpose of making such section applicable to 
        such latter fiscal year the figures ``1934'' shall be read as 
        ``1938.''

        This section clearly continues a provision of the so-called 
    Economy Act of the Seventy-third Congress enacted in 1933, which 
    eliminated bonus payments for reenlistment in certain departments 
    of the Government. This provision expired by operation of law. This 
    section provides for its reenactment or its continuance, and is, 
    therefore, legislation. The suggestion has been made that the point 
    of order should be overruled because there is a retrenchment under 
    the Holman rule.
        The Chair reads from Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, section 
    1538:

            Unless an amendment proposes legislation which will 
        retrench an expenditure with definite certainty, it is not in 
        order under the Holman rule.

        And, again, section 1542 of the same volume, which is a little 
    more clearly applicable to this particular point of order:

            In construing the Holman rule the Chair may not speculate 
        or surmise as to whether a particular provision might or might 
        not operate to retrench an expenditure. Legislation proposed on 
        an appropriation bill must indicate by its terms an unqualified 
        reduction of expenditure to fall within the exception of the 
        rule.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the showing made is not 
    definite enough to be an unqualified reduction of expenditure, 
    because it is entirely speculative as to whether there would be 
    reenlistments. The Chair, therefore, does not believe the proviso 
    comes within the provisions of the Holman rule. It is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a provision attempts reductions,

[[Page 5342]]

 qualifying words in the provision may operate to make the reductions 
uncertain. See, for example, Sec. 52.6, infra, in which an amendment 
made specified reductions in a defense appropriation bill, but added 
the qualification that the reductions were to be made ``without 
impairing national defense.'' Such a qualification makes the Holman 
rule inapplicable.

Reduction Based on Budget Estimates; Speculative and Uncertain

Sec. 5.6 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing for percentage 
    reductions in accounts carried in the bill, to be computed by 
    applying percentages to the corresponding estimates in the 
    President's budget was held to be legislation and not in order 
    under the Holman rule inasmuch as no reduction was shown on its 
    face and any reduction thereunder would be speculative.

    On May 17, 1951,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised and sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 5477, 5478, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: On 
        page 58, line 5, add a new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 410 (a) Except as hereinafter provided, reductions 
        in each appropriation . . . contained in this act are hereby 
        made in the total amount resulting from the application of the 
        percentages indicated herein to the amounts of obligations for 
        the fiscal year 1952, if any, included in the President's 
        budget estimates on which each such appropriation . . . is 
        based, for the following objects:
            ``Travel, 20 percent.
            ``Transportation of things, 10 percent. . . .''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It requires the exercise of additional 
    duties not required by any other law. Further, it is not protected 
    by the Holman rule because any retrenchment of expenditures by the 
    amendment is purely speculative, for any cuts are to be made on the 
    basis of the figures in the President's budget. You cannot look at 
    the bill and at the amendment and tell whether the amendment would 
    reduce expenditures. . . . I respectfully submit that while there 
    may be retrenchment under the Holman rule, it has to be entirely 
    apparent on the face of the amendment, rather than speculative. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not saved by that rule. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The reductions are absolutely 
    specific

[[Page 5343]]

    in every instance, and the amount to which the reduction would 
    apply is absolutely specific. Therefore, it is not speculative in 
    the slightest degree. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After very serious study on this amendment, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that this is legislation on an appropriation bill, and the 
    question then arises as to whether it is protected by the Holman 
    rule. That rule requires the legislation to make a retrenchment of 
    expenditures beyond doubt. Since this amendment operates against 
    the budget estimates rather than the amounts in the bill, the 
    question of retrenchment is speculative.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Curtis) is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Conjectural or Speculative Reduction Not Sufficient

Sec. 5.7 Language in a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    powers of the selection boards for the Navy was held to be 
    legislation and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On Aug. 17, 1937,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the third deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
8245), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 9172, 9173, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Sutphin [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sutphin: Page 22, after line 10, 
        insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``That the powers and duties conferred by law or regulation 
        upon selection boards for the Navy now established or which may 
        be established during the remainder of the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1938, shall not be exercised after the date of the 
        enactment of this act and prior to July 1, 1938, and no 
        recommendation or action of any such board shall be effective 
        during the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and changes existing law. . . .
        Mr. Sutphin: Mr. Chairman, I admit the amendment is 
    legislation, but respectfully submit that it is in order under 
    clause 2 of rule XXI, the so-called Holman rule.
        That rule requires that a legislative proposition in the first 
    place must be germane to the subject matter of the bill, and, if 
    germane, that it shall retrench expenditures by the reduction of 
    the number and salary of the officers of the United States, by the 
    reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the 
    Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of amounts of 
    money covered by the bill.

[[Page 5344]]

        The first requisite is that the legislation must be germane to 
    the subject matter of the bill. This is a bill, according to its 
    title, making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for 
    prior fiscal years, to provide urgent supplemental appropriations 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other purposes. 
    The truth of the matter is, the bill is very largely a bill making 
    supplemental or additional appropriations for the fiscal year 
    1938--the current fiscal year.
        Among other subdivisions is one pertaining to the Navy 
    Department. Whether there be a Navy Department subdivision or not, 
    however, or whether there be any provision under the Navy 
    Department section dealing with personnel or not, I submit that the 
    bill adds to appropriations already made by Congress for the fiscal 
    year 1938 for various governmental agencies, and provides, besides, 
    additional appropriations for such fiscal year, and that is an 
    amendment would be in order adding to an appropriation already made 
    for a purpose authorized by law (the question of germaneness would 
    not lie against such an amendment), it would be just as logical to 
    hold in order an amendment the effect of which would be to reduce 
    an appropriation already made, to wit, the appropriation ``Pay of 
    the Navy, 1938.'' The Chair is acquainted with the ruling holding 
    in order on an appropriation bill a provision repealing an 
    appropriation already made. The amendment proposed in effect 
    repeals in part an appropriation already made.
        Now, as to the expenditure-retrenchment phase, I should like to 
    point out, so as to remove any doubt, how the amendment would bring 
    about a ``reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of 
    the Treasury of the United States.''
        Section 2 of the act of July 22, 1935 (49 Stat. 487), provides 
    that except in time of war there shall not be in the line of the 
    Navy on the active list, exclusive of officers carried as 
    additional numbers, more than 58 rear admirals, 240 captains, and 
    515 commanders. Therefore it is self-evident that in order for a 
    commander to be advanced to the grade of captain there must be a 
    fewer number than 240 captains; and likewise, in order for a 
    captain to be advanced, there must be a fewer number than 58 rear 
    admirals.
        Advancement of officers of the Navy above the grade of ensign 
    is contingent upon selection for promotion by a board of naval 
    officers. There are a number of laws on the subject, but it should 
    suffice here merely to cite section 291 of title 34 of the United 
    States Code.
        On page 859 of the hearings on the naval appropriation bill for 
    the fiscal year 1938, a table appears--inserted by the Chief of the 
    Bureau of Navigation, the Personnel Bureau of the Navy Department--
    giving by fiscal years actual and estimated retirements of officers 
    owing to nonselection for promotion over the period 1934 to 1944, 
    both inclusive. As to that portion which is an estimate, I might 
    say that the appropriation for pay of the Navy for the fiscal year 
    1938 or any fiscal year is based upon estimates of the personnel 
    situation prepared by the Bureau responsible for the table to which 
    I have invited the Chair's attention.

[[Page 5345]]

        According to that table, 16 captains will be retired during the 
    fiscal year 1938 owing to nonselection. The table shows other 
    retirements, but I shall not go further in the interest of brevity 
    and clarity. The enforced elimination of those 16 captains will 
    admit of the advancement of 16 selected-for-promotion commanders, 
    which, in turn, would admit of the advancement of a like number of 
    selected lieutenant commanders.
        Those advancements, besides bestowing additional rank, will 
    occasion added expense. Under the Joint Services Pay Act of 1922 
    (sec. 1, title 37, U.S.C.), the lieutenant commanders of normal 
    service tenure would move into a higher pay period and would become 
    entitled to a higher rental allowance, while the advanced 
    commanders of normal service tenure also would move into a higher 
    pay period, but would receive a lesser subsistence allowance, 
    considerably more than offset, however, by the increase of pay.
        I might go further and say that increased rank necessitates a 
    change of station, which entails travel expense from the old to the 
    new station, including the expense of moving dependents, where 
    there are dependents. That is not conjectural in any sense. The 
    amount of the expense necessarily would be, however, because we 
    have no way of knowing either the present or new duty stations.
        So, Mr. Chairman, as to the retrenchment phase, there can be no 
    manner of doubt that the amendment will effect a substantial 
    saving. I only have cited advancements from two grades in the 
    interest of brevity and clarity. The rule does not deal with the 
    degree of saving.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Chairman, the amendment on its face does not 
    show any saving or retrenchment and it is purely speculative 
    whether or not there would be any saving. As a matter of actual 
    experience we know that if put into operation there would not be a 
    saving, and the amendment in order to be in order must show 
    positively that there is to be a saving to the United States 
    Treasury. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) the Chair is prepared to rule. 
    This amendment takes away the powers of the board now appointed for 
    promotion in the Navy. Therefore, clearly it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Furthermore, it is not shown on the face of the 
    amendment that there is any retrenchment of expenditures, and in 
    order to come within the province of the Holman rule, such 
    retrenchment must be certain and not conjectural or speculative. 
    The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sutphin) in arguing his point of 
    order has emphasized that speculative feature of his amendment, if 
    it should be adopted. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifying Construction Materials; Not Definite Reduction

Sec. 5.8 During consideration of an appropriation for continuing the 
    construction of annex buildings for the Government Printing Office, 
    a provision that the exterior construction material for one annex 
    building should be as

[[Page 5346]]

    contemplated in the original cost estimates for the project was 
    held to be legislation, and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On Jan. 17, 1938,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8947, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 652, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Government Printing Office, annex buildings, Washington, D.C.: 
    For continuation of construction of annex buildings for the 
    Government Printing Office, $2,500,000; and the limit of cost for 
    this project is hereby increased from $5,885,000, as authorized in 
    the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, approved 
    August 12, 1935, to $7,000,000: Provided, That the character of the 
    exterior construction material for annex building No. 3 shall be 
    that contemplated in the original cost estimates for such project.
        Mr. [Eugene B.] Crowe [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso on page 47, beginning with the 
    word 'Provided', in line 14, and extending to the end of line 17, 
    that it clearly is legislation on an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, this proviso 
    merely seeks to reduce the expenditure and is in reality, 
    therefore, a limitation on an appropriation bill and falls within 
    the rule.
        Mr. Crowe: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will permit an 
    interruption, there is nothing about the language, as I see it, 
    that limits or reduces expenditures.
        Mr. O'Neal of Kentucky. It is a limitation.
        The Chairman: (12) the Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Arthur H. Greenwood, (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]his proviso is legislation and to be in order it would 
    be necessary to show that it would effect an economy or a 
    retrenchment. This not being shown, the Chair is therefore of the 
    opinion that the proviso is subject to the point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Reappropriation of Old Funds Not Necessarily Retrenchment; Retrenchment 
    Language Must Be Germane

Sec. 5.9 The payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum which 
    would otherwise be charged against the Treasury is not a 
    retrenchment of expenditures falling within the Holman rule 
    exception to Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
18381), a point

[[Page 5347]]

of order was raised and later sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 16 after line 3 add a 
        new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision, 
        appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall, 
        not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, be reduced in the aggregate by not less than 
        $1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer 
        of funds previously appropriated for governmental activities 
        that the President, within the aforementioned 120 days, shall 
        have determined to be excess to the necessities of the services 
        and objects for which appropriated.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the amendment goes far 
    beyond the scope of this bill and applies to funds made available 
    by other laws for which appropriations are not provided in the 
    pending measure. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Bow: Yes, I do wish to be heard, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I believe we have changed the Holman rule today by making it 
    relate to this bill. The previous precedents of the House have been 
    it must not necessarily apply to this particular bill when there is 
    a retrenchment, so we are making new precedents today.
        This is a general appropriation bill affecting various 
    agencies. Since the amendment also deals with and affects various 
    appropriations of various agencies, it is germane.
        Again, there can be no speculation as to its retrenching 
    Federal expenditures because it reduces appropriations in this 
    bill--in this bill by $1.5 billion and requires the President to 
    fund activities in this bill from previously appropriated funds 
    that are excess to the necessities of the services and objects for 
    which appropriated.
        I point out again that the Holman rule does not go along with 
    the decision suggested by the distinguished chairman of the 
    committee that additional duties are involved.
        Under the Holman rule it is a question of retrenchment of 
    expenditures.
        The legislation in this amendment is not unrelated to the 
    retrenchment of expenditures. Instead, it is directly instrumental 
    in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures. Thus, the proposed 
    retrenchment and the legislation are inseparable and must be 
    considered together.
        ``Cannon's Precedents,'' in volume VII, 1550 and 1551, holds 
    that an amendment may include such legislation as is directly 
    instrumental in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures 
    proposed. That is the precise situation with respect to this 
    pending amendment.
        Again I cite ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VII, 1511, which 
    holds that language admitted under the Holman

[[Page 5348]]

    rule is not restricted in its application to the pending bill, and 
    to the June 1, 1892, decision, to which I referred before, of the 
    Committee of the Whole and its Chairman, that an amendment was in 
    order under the Holman rule even though it changed existing law. 
    [Note: See comment concerning the 1892 decision in the introduction 
    to Sec. 4, supra.]
        I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if this is held to be out of 
    order we will be changing the precedents and the rules of the 
    House, and we will be destroying the Holman rule.
        I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio specifies that 
    appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall be 
    reduced in the aggregate by not less than $1.5 billion. This 
    reduction would be achieved by authorizing and directing the 
    President to utilize previously appropriated funds for the 
    activities carried in this bill.
        The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. It 
    places additional determinations and duties on the President and 
    involves funds other than those carried in this bill.
        Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have 
    to qualify, as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the 
    Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is 
    inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
        First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum 
    which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held 
    not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule.
        Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruled to the same effect when a 
    proposition involving the Holman rule was before the House on 
    January 26, 1921.
        Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] authorizes the reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
        Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in 
    this bill and is not germane.
        With respect to the latter point and the citation that has been 
    given by the gentleman from Ohio, which is found in the precedents 
    of the House, volume VII, 1511, the Chair will note that the 
    proposition reduced the number of Army officers and provided the 
    method by which the reduction should be accomplished. It was an 
    amendment, as it appears in the citation, to a War Department 
    appropriation bill and was therefore germane in spite of whatever 
    the general proposition in the heading may have stated.
        For the reasons given, the Chair will sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Texas.

Reimbursement to Treasury From Receipts

Sec. 5.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that all 
    moneys hereafter received by the United States in connection with 
    any irri

[[Page 5349]]

    gation project constructed by the federal government shall be 
    covered into the general fund until such fund has been reimbursed 
    for allocations to the project, was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not to come within the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.

    On Nov. 29, 1945,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the first deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
4805), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 11192, 11193, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Total, general fund, construction, $42,765,000: Provided, That 
    all moneys hereafter received by the United States in connection 
    with any irrigation project . . . shall be covered into the general 
    fund until the general fund has been reimbursed in full for 
    allocations and appropriations made to such project from the 
    general fund. . . .
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the proviso commencing on page 30, line 15, and 
    continuing on page 31 down to the end of line 6 that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee concedes the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard on the point of order. It is manifest that this item requires 
    that funds received shall be covered into the general fund of the 
    Treasury until the general fund has been fully reimbursed for the 
    amount that it has expended. In my opinion that is an order under 
    the Holman rule. It saves money to the Treasury on the face of the 
    document.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair thinks it is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and so holds. The point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs Shifted From Government to Private Party

Sec. 5.11 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that in regard to the building of an underpass at Dupont 
    Circle, the cost of changing or removing street-railway tracks by 
    the street-railway company shall be borne by such company and 
    providing further that the company shall install other equipment at 
    its own expense, was held not to come within the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9181), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and pro

[[Page 5350]]

ceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1379, 1380, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the construction of an underpass at Dupont Circle . . . 
    $480,000: Provided, That the cost of the necessary changes, 
    removal, construction, and reconstruction of the street-railway 
    tracks and appurtenances, to be performed by the street-railway 
    company, including paving within the streetcar track area, shall be 
    borne by the street-railway company owning or operating over the 
    existing tracks: Provided further, That the funds herein 
    appropriated shall be available for construction, at time of 
    roadway paving, of suitable streetcar-loading platforms, and the 
    street-railway company shall, at its own expense, furnish and 
    install approved lighting equipment, signs, and so forth, in 
    accordance with plans to be approved by the Public Utilities 
    Commission and shall, at its own expense, operate and maintain such 
    equipment.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the proviso on page 76, line 7, down to and 
    including the word ``equipment'' in line 20. It is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I hope 
    the gentleman will reserve the point of order so that I can ask him 
    a question.
        Mr. Palmisano: I reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, the provision to which the gentleman 
    makes the point of order imposes upon the street-railway company a 
    part of the expense of carrying on this work, and with the 
    elimination of the language that the gentleman seeks to eliminate 
    it means that the cost of the whole work will be imposed upon the 
    District of Columbia. I am certain that the gentleman does not want 
    to do that, because the streetcar company will be benefited by this 
    underpass. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair has examined carefully the language of 
    the bill to which the point of order is directed. The Holman rule 
    could not possibly apply in this case because the language does not 
    retrench expenditures in one of the methods set forth in the rule, 
    but is legislative in character and, therefore, prohibited in an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authority to Terminate Employment

Sec. 5.12 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of State may, in his discretion, terminate the employment 
    of any employee of the Department of State or of the Foreign 
    Service whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or 
    advisable in the interests of the United States, was held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not to be within the 
    provisions of the Holman rule.

[[Page 5351]]

    On Apr. 20, 1950,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 5480, 5481, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 104. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of any officer or employee of the Department of 
        State or of the Foreign Service of the United States whenever 
        he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the 
        interests of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The language of section 104 gives to the Secretary of 
    State--and I quote from the section--``in his absolute discretion'' 
    power to terminate the employment of any employee. I do not believe 
    we have ever had legislation in the entire history of this Nation 
    which contained this language ``absolute discretion.'' . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion 
    this will result in a saving. It is in accordance with the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. When the power authorized in this 
    language is exercised and the Secretary terminates the employment 
    of any officer or employee in his absolute discretion that will 
    result in a saving. That will save money and is in order.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] has made a point of order against the language 
    appearing in section 104 on page 46 of the bill on the ground that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has examined 
    the language. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    language does confer definite authority and requires certain acts 
    on the part of the Secretary of State. In response to the argument 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] as to the 
    application of the Holman rule it is clearly shown by the 
    precedents and decisions of the House that the saving must be 
    apparent and definite on its face in the language of the bill in 
    order for the Holman rule to apply. Certainly an examination of the 
    language in question clearly shows that any saving would be 
    speculative. In view of the long line of precedents and decisions 
    dealing with the question of legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    which is clearly prohibited under the rules of the House, the Chair 
    has no alternative other than to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction in Existing Contract Authorization

Sec. 5.13 Language in an appropriation bill seeking to change a 
    contract authorization contained in a previous appropriation bill 
    passed by another Congress was held to be legislation and not a 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5352]]

Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation bill for fiscal 
year 1948 (H.R. 3123), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve the point of order first in order that I may get some 
    information before I make the point of order finally, and that is 
    with respect to the language which appears at the bottom of page 
    51, which reads as follows:

            Provided further, That the contract authorization of 
        $15,000,000 contained in the Interior Department Appropriation 
        Act, fiscal year 1946, is hereby reduced to $9,750,000.

        My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that that is legislation 
    amending a previous act and not within the purview of this bill 
    making appropriations for fiscal 1948. It constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill for it destroys existing legislation.
        Before I make the point of order, may I ask the chairman of the 
    committee what the reason is for carrying that language? I feel 
    that the development of the synthetic liquid fuel program is very 
    essential to national defense and is probably the cheapest money we 
    can spend in that direction.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: The purpose of this language is 
    to limit the amount to be expended further on this project to the 
    authorization provided in the basic act. In other words, the amount 
    remaining after this appropriation will be the amount of 
    $9,750,000, and will tie the entire appropriation to the basic 
    authorization.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: What was the reason, then, for the 
    increase of the authorization to $15,000,000 in the act of 1946 and 
    establishment of contract authority?
        Mr. Jones of Ohio: That was to tie the appropriations to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, having introduced a 
    bill which seeks to accomplish about that very thing, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order and do make the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Ohio 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the only purpose of the 
    language is to limit the amount appropriated over all to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization. It seems to me it is merely a 
    restatement of the basic law and clearly in order under the Holman 
    rule because on its face it saves money.
        The Chairman: This language changes a contract authorization 
    contained in a previous appropriation bill passed by another 
    Congress. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Use of Total Appropriation; Language Precluding Future Supplemental 
    Funding

Sec. 5.14 A provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that the appropriation for public assistance shall be so 
    administered as to constitute the total amount that will be 
    utilized during such fiscal year

[[Page 5353]]

    for such purposes was held to place additional duties upon the 
    commissioners and therefore legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Public Assistance

        For the purpose of affording relief to residents of the 
    District of Columbia who are unemployed or otherwise in distress 
    because of the existing emergency, to be expended by the Board of 
    Public Welfare of the District of Columbia by employment and direct 
    relief, in the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and under 
    rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board and without 
    regard to the provisions of any other law, payable from the 
    revenues of the District of Columbia, $900,000, and not to exceed 7 
    1/2 percent of this appropriation and of Federal grants reimbursed 
    under this appropriation shall be expended for personal services: 
    Provided, That all auditing, disbursing, and accounting for funds 
    administered through the Public Assistance Division of the Board of 
    Public Welfare, including all employees engaged in such work and 
    records relating thereto, shall be under the supervision and 
    control of the Auditor of the District of Columbia: Provided 
    further, That this appropriation shall be so apportioned and 
    distributed by the Commissioners over the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1939, and shall be so administered, during such fiscal year, as 
    to constitute the total amount that will be utilized during such 
    fiscal year for such purposes: Provided further, That not more than 
    $75 per month shall be paid therefrom to any one family.
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso appearing on page 58, line 2, 
    after the word ``Columbia' and ending on line 7 with the word 
    ``purposes.''
        I make the point of order that this proviso is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language about which the gentleman complains reads as follows:

            Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so 
        apportioned and distributed by the Commissioners over the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered 
        during such fiscal year as to constitute the total amount that 
        will be utilized during such fiscal year for such purposes.

        Unquestionably that is a limitation upon an appropriation and 
    therefore comes within the rules of the House. The object is to 
    save money, and the provision shows on its face that it will save 
    money. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair has examined the 
    language employed very carefully, and if I am correct in my 
    construction of that language, it seeks to impose an additional 
    burden upon

[[Page 5354]]

    the Commissioners who are charged with the duty of administering 
    the fund sought to be appropriated. In addition to that, there is 
    nothing apparent in the language of the section that will result in 
    a saving. The inference that we have from the statement of the 
    chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations is not sufficient to 
    bring it within the rule that a saving will be effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the point of order 
    is well taken and so rules.

Nongermane Amendment; Unrelated to Funding in Bill

Sec. 5.15 To a bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies, an 
    amendment proposing to change existing law by repealing that part 
    of a retirement act relating to the President, Vice President, and 
    Members of Congress, was held not germane and not in order under 
    the Holman rule.

    On Feb. 9, 1942,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6548), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 1157, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. For a discussion of the 
        germaneness rule generally, see Ch. 28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: 
    Page 49, after line 2, add a new section, as follows:

        ``Sec. 303. Public Law No. 411, Seventy-seventh Congress, 
    chapter 16, second session, be, and is hereby, amended by adding at 
    the end thereof the following: `Provided, That nothing in this act 
    shall be construed to include within its provisions of the Civil 
    Service Retirement Act the President, Vice President, members of 
    the Senate, and the House of Representatives.' ''
        And on page 49, line 3, strike out ``303'' and insert ``304.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and is out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. McLean: I was laying the foundation for my argument.
        If the Chair will refer to page 8 of this bill, he will there 
    find the section to which I have referred suspending a provision of 
    the Selective Service Act. That is clearly legislation on this 
    appropriation bill and comparable to my amendment. There are 
    exceptions to the rule that an appropriation bill cannot carry 
    legislation, and I call the Chair's attention to the Holman rule. 
    That rule provides that if the legislation would result in the 
    saving of expenditures it is not subject to a point of order. In 
    the Fifty-second Congress it was decided--

            An amendment to the pension appropriation bill tending to 
        increase the class of persons prohibited from the benefit of 
        the pension laws is in order because its effect would be to 
        reduce expenditures.

        The amendment which I have introduced would reduce 
    expenditures. It

[[Page 5355]]

    excludes from the benefits of the Civil Service Retirement Act the 
    President, the Vice President, the Senators, and Members of the 
    House of Representatives.
        This is the first opportunity we have had to correct our 
    blunder, and we ought to take advantage of it.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is 
    clearly not germane to the bill under consideration. If it were 
    germane it would be legislation on an appropriation bill. It does 
    not in any way retrench expenditures under this bill. For two very 
    good reasons, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Denial of Status to Aliens Not Holman Retrenchment

Sec. 5.16 Language in an appropriation bill providing ``that no alien 
    employed on the Canal Zone may secure United States civil-service 
    status,'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not within the exception of the Holman rule.

    On July 2, 1947,(7) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the War Department civil functions 
appropriations, a point of order was raised against a provision, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 8171, 8172, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 18, 
    subdivision (7), ``that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may 
    secure United States civil-service status,'' is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it clearly changes existing law.
        The existing law, Mr. Chairman, is found in the treaty which 
    was signed between the Republic of Panama and the Government of the 
    United States. The treaty was ratified by the Senate of the United 
    States in 1939. . . .
        In February of this year an Executive order was issued by the 
    President modifying the civil-service rules. One portion of that 
    Executive order distinctly permits Panamanians to take civil 
    service examinations and be enrolled in the United States Civil 
    Service. Consequently, this language against which I have raised a 
    point of order forbids Panamanian citizens from securing civil-
    service status. Thus, it changes the law as set forth in the treaty 
    and changes the law as set out in the Executive order. It is 
    clearly legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, if I may 
    be heard on the point of order, the first part of that section 
    reads as follows:

            No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be 
        used directly or indirectly, except for temporary employment in 
        case of emergency, for the payment of any civilian for services 
        rendered by him on the Canal Zone while occupying a skilled, 
        technical, clerical, administrative, executive, or supervisory 
        position unless such person is a citizen of the United States 
        of America or of the Republic of Panama: Provided, however--

        Then going to subdivision (7)--

[[Page 5356]]

        that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may secure United 
        States civil-service status.

        Under the Holman rule, even legislation on an appropriation 
    bill is permitted if it succeeds in the reduction of an 
    expenditure. If aliens are to be given United States civil-service 
    status, it will increase the liability of the United States for the 
    payment of civil-service retirement and other provisions of that 
    sort. Consequently, it seems to me that in that sense the inclusion 
    of this language is a protection of the Treasury of the United 
    States and may be permissible under the Holman rule. Clause 7, of 
    course, is directly related to the ``provided, however,'' and the 
    language of limitation in the first part of the section.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that an act of 
    Congress takes precedent over a treaty or even an Executive order 
    in the form of a treaty. So this language is clearly in order. 
    Congress has the right to enact this legislation.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. So far 
    as the remark just made by the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    concerned, as the Chair remembers, it is in the last analysis an 
    act of Congress, whether it be a treaty or whether it be a law. 
    Therefore, that remark is not germane to the question now before 
    the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As far as the statement of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. 
    Case] is concerned, regarding the Holman rule, at most, this 
    suggests that there might be a saving; there is the possibility of 
    a saving. The Holman rule is very clear that legislation must in 
    its language show an absolute saving. Therefore, that point would 
    not be of any value in sustaining the position which the gentleman 
    takes.
        Section 7 provides that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may 
    secure United States civil-service status. So far as the Chair has 
    been advised, there is no law anywhere providing for that very 
    thing, excepting this legislation found in an appropriation bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Holman Exception Distinguished From Limitation

Sec. 5.17 The Holman rule is applicable only where language in a 
    general appropriation bill ``changes existing law'' and also has 
    the direct effect of retrenching the amount of funds in the bill; 
    it is not applicable where the language does not constitute 
    legislation but is merely a negative limitation citing, without 
    changing, the applicability of existing law.

    On June 18, 1980,(9) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill denying availability of funds therein to pay certain 
benefits to persons simultaneously entitled by law to other benefits, 
or in

[[Page 5357]]

amounts in excess of those other entitlement levels, was held in order 
as a limitation, since existing law already required executive 
officials to determine whether and to what extent recipients of funds 
contained in the bill were also receiving those other entitlement 
benefits. In the course of its ruling, the Chair stated that the Holman 
rule was not applicable to the provision in question. The proceedings 
are discussed in Sec. 52.36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 15354-56, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetical ``Net'' Saving

Sec. 5.18 Where existing law directed a federal official to provide for 
    the sale of certain government property to private organizations in 
    ``necessary'' amounts, but did not require that all such property 
    shall be distributed by sale, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill providing that no such property shall be 
    withheld from distribution from qualifying purchasers was ruled out 
    as legislation requiring disposal of all property and restricting 
    discretionary authority to determine ``necessary'' amounts and not 
    constituting (as required by the Holman rule) a certain 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 13635), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 24707, 24708, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: On 
        page 8, after line 10, add the following new section:
            None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
        in this Act shall be obligated or expended for salaries or 
        expenses during the current fiscal year in connection with the 
        demilitarization of any arms as advertised by the Department of 
        Defense, Defense Logistics Agency sale number 31-8118 issued 
        January 24, 1978, and listed as ``no longer needed by the 
        Federal Government'' and that such arms shall not be withheld 
        from distribution to purchasers who qualify for purchase of 
        said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 
        4308. . . .

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the amendment on the ground that I believe that 
    it is legislation within a general appropriation bill and, 
    therefore, violates the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. John T. Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple limitation 
    amendment. It merely limits the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    continue to carry out existing law. It does not provide any new 
    law. It simply says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry 
    out the prevailing, existing law. . . .

[[Page 5358]]

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, rule 21, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House (House Rules and Manual pages 426-427) 
    specifies that an amendment to an appropriation bill is in order if 
    it meets certain tests, such as:
        First. It must be germane;
        Second. It must be negative in nature;
        Third. It must show retrenchment on its face;
        Fourth. It must impose no additional or affirmative duties or 
    amend existing law.
        First. (The amendment) is germane. As the amendment applies to 
    the distribution of arms by the Defense Logistics Agency, it is not 
    exclusively an Army of civilian marksmanship amendment, so should 
    not be placed elsewhere in the bill. . . .
        Second. It is negative in nature. It limits expenditure of 
    funds by the Defense Department by prohibiting the destruction and 
    scrapping of arms which qualify for sale through the civilian 
    marksmanship program, which is a division of the executive created 
    by statute.
        Third. It shows retrenchment on its face. Retrenchment is 
    demonstrated in that the Department of Defense is prohibited from 
    expending funds to destroy surplus military arms, and that the arms 
    previously earmarked for destruction will be made available in 
    accordance with existing statute. . . . The House, in adding this 
    amendment, will secure additional funds for the Treasury which the 
    General Accounting Office has determined is adequate to pay costs 
    of handling the arms. For example, the M-1 rifles are to be sold at 
    a cost of $110 each. These are the arms most utilized by the 
    civilian marksmanship program. The Defense Department will not be 
    required to spend additional funds to process the sale of 
    additional arms. . . .
        Fourth. [The amendment] does not impose additional or 
    affirmative duties or amend existing law. . . .
        Regulations issued . . . AR 725-1 and AR 920-20 provide for the 
    issuance of arms by application and qualification through the 
    Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The DCM shall then submit sale 
    orders for the Armament Readiness Military Command (ARCOM) to fill 
    the requests of these qualified civilians. Thus, the amendment 
    simply requires the performance of duties already imposed by the 
    Army's own regulation. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I particularly call attention of the 
    Chair to the second half of the amendment, which imposes an 
    affirmative duty on the Secretary, saying that such arms shall not 
    be withheld from distribution to purchasers who qualify for 
    purchase of said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, 
    section 4308.
        Under the general existing law, there are all kinds of 
    discretions that are allowed to the Secretary to decide whether or 
    not such arms shall be distributed. Under this amendment, the 
    existing law is to be changed and those arms may not be withheld. 
    The practical purpose is to turn lose 400,000 to 500,000 rifles 
    into the body politic.
        But the parliamentary effect is clearly to change the existing 
    law under which the Secretary can exercise all kinds of discretion 
    in deciding whether or not those arms will be distributed.

[[Page 5359]]

    Under this amendment it not only limits the fact that the funds may 
    be obligated but it specifically goes on to affirmatively direct 
    the Secretary to distribute such arms under title X, which is an 
    affirmative obligation, which is exactly the kind of obligation the 
    rules prohibit, and I renew my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the section to which the gentleman refers, 
    title 10, United States Code, section 4308, and is of the opinion 
    that it does not require that all firearms be distributed to 
    qualified purchasers. The Chair further feels that while the first 
    part of the amendment is a limitation, the last part of the 
    amendment is a curtailment of Executive discretion, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 6. Amendments Between the Houses

    A rule of the House (12) prohibits its conferees from 
agreeing to certain Senate amendments to general appropriation bills 
absent specific authority conferred by the House. The rule provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1973). For 
        further discussion of issues arising between the House and 
        Senate with respect to appropriation bills generally, and 
        appropriations on legislative bills, see Ch. 25 Sec. 13, supra. 
        See also Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra; Ch. 33, House-
        Senate Conferences, infra. And, see Ch. 13, Powers and 
        Prerogatives of the House, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill 
    which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI, (13) if said amendment had originated in the House, 
    nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon 
    any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed 
    to by the managers on the part of the House unless specific 
    authority to agree to such amendment shall be first given by the 
    House by a separate vote on every such amendment. (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 1, supra, for discussion of Rule XXI clause 2.
14. Managers may be authorized to agree to an appropriation by a 
        resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. See 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents 
        Sec. 1577.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Senate Amendment

Sec. 6.1 When the House was considering a Senate amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill proposing an expenditure not authorized by law, 
    it was held to be in order in the House to amend such Senate 
    amendment by germane amendments that were legislative in nature.

    On Feb. 8, 1937, (15) the House was considering a Senate 
amend

[[Page 5360]]

ment in disagreement on H.R. 3587, a deficiency appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senate amendment no. 9: Strike out, after the word 
    ``appropriation'', the following language ``or of the appropriation 
    in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1936 shall be used 
    hereafter to pay the compensation of any person, not taken from 
    relief rolls, detailed or loaned for service in connection with any 
    investigation or inquiry undertaken by any committee of either 
    House . . .'' and insert ``or of any appropriation for any 
    executive department or independent executive agency shall be used 
    hereafter to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned 
    for service in connection with any investigation or inquiry 
    undertaken by any committee of either house of Congress . . . 
    unless the . . . agency . . . from whose staff such person is 
    detailed or loaned shall render to the Secretary of the Senate or 
    the Clerk of the House of Representatives . . . a statement on or 
    before the 10th day of each month of number, grade, or status . . . 
    of the persons so detailed or loaned from the staff of such . . . 
    agency . . . during the preceding calendar month.''
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, hich I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Woodrum moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment no. 9 and agree to the same 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted 
        by said amendment insert the following: ``or of any 
        appropriation or other funds of any executive department or 
        independent executive agency shall be used after June 30, 1937, 
        to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned for 
        service in connection with any investigation or inquiry 
        undertaken by any committee of either house of Congress under 
        special resolution thereof.''

        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ellenbogen moves that the House recede and concur in 
        Senate amendment no. 9. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentleman from 
    Virginia demands a division of the question. The question is, Shall 
    the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the motion to recede was agreed to.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Woodrum moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        inserted by said amendment insert the following: ``or of any 
        appropriation or other funds of any executive department or 
        independent executive agency shall be used after June 30, 1937, 
        to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned for 
        service in connection

[[Page 5361]]

        with any investigation or inquiry undertaken by any committee 
        of either House of Congress under special resolution thereof.''

        Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    motion of the gentleman from Virginia violates the rules of the 
    House in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Senate 
    amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because 
    it contains legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Instance of Consideration of Senate Amendments in Committee of the 
    Whole

Sec. 6.2 Where an appropriation bill was amended by the Senate and a 
    conference requested by the Senate, and the Senate amendments then 
    referred by the Speaker to the House Committee on Appropriations, 
    that committee reported out an alternative bill on the same 
    subject; upon the Senate's refusal to consider the second bill, the 
    House committee then reported back the Senate amendments to the 
    first bill, which were considered and amended in Committee of the 
    Whole and then sent to conference.

    On June 1, 1945, the House Committee on Appropriations reported out 
H.R. 3368, the National War Agencies appropriation, 1946. 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 5450, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 1945, (18) the Committee on Rules reported a 
resolution (H. Res. 289), subsequently adopted, waiving points of order 
against legislative provisions in the bill. The House then resolved 
itself into the Committee of the Whole (19) or consideration 
of the bill. During such consideration, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, offered an mendment to provide appropriations for continuance of 
the Fair Employment Practice Committee, a measure with considerable 
support in the House. A point of order having been raised against the 
amendment, Chairman John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, sustained the point 
of order, ruling that the amendment was out of order as legislation on 
an appropriation bill. (1) The bill subsequently passed the 
House. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 5795-99.
19. Id. at p. 5799.
 1. Id. at p. 5831.
 2. Id. at pp. 5832, 5833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 1945, H.R. 3368 was reported in the Senate. 
(3) Fol

[[Page 5362]]

lowing the report, Senator Dennis Chavez, of New Mexico, submitted a 
written notice, at the direction of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, that it was his intention to move to suspend the rules 
for the purpose of proposing an amendment to H.R. 3368 to insert 
provisions for the appropriation for the Committee on Fair Employment 
Practice. (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 6322
 4. Id. at pp. 6322, 6323.
            Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate rules sought to be 
        suspended were Rule XVI clauses 1 and 4, relating to amendments 
        to appropriation bills. Written notice of intention to move for 
        suspension of the rules under certain circumstances was 
        required by Senate Rule XL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 1945, the Senate considered and adopted the amendment 
proposing such appropriation, and subsequently passed the bill and 
requested a conference. (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 7068, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 1945, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, pursuant to his 
discretionary authority under Rule XXIV clause 2, referred H.R. 3368 
with Senate amendments to the Committee on Appropriations. 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 7142.
            Parliamentarian's Note: Before this reference was made, a 
        unanimous-consent request and an effort to obtain a resolution 
        from the Committee on Rules of the House making it in order to 
        take H.R. 3368 as amended from the Speaker's table, disagree 
        with the amendments, and agree to a conference both failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 1945, the Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 
3649,(7)) which was similar in effect to H.R. 3368 and 
included some of the measures added by the Senate, but which did not 
include the appropriation for the Committee on Fair Employment 
Practice. Points of order were reserved by Members against the bill. An 
effort was made to obtain a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
waiving points of order against the legislative provisions contained in 
H.R. 3649, but requests therefore were denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7189, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 1945,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of H.R. 3649. General debate 
had been waived. But numerous points of order were raised against 
provisions of H.R. 3649 that appropriated for war 
agencies.(9) the basis of these points of order, many 
provisions of the bill were deleted before the bill was passed and sent 
to the Senate. After it became apparent that the Senate

[[Page 5363]]

would not consider H.R. 3649, the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, on July 11, 1945, reported out H.R. 3368 with the Senate 
amendments.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 7226.
 9. Id. at pp. 7226-36.
10. Id. at p. 7404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 12, 1945, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole; dispensed with general debate; considered Senate amendments 
to H.R. 3368 under the five-minute rule and concurred with an amendment 
to the Senate amendment containing the appropriation for the Fair 
Employment Practice Committee; and, after disagreeing with other Senate 
amendments, agreed to the conference requested by the 
Senate.(11) Thereafter, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment relating to the Committee on Fair 
Employment Practice, (12) and on July 13, 1945, the 
conference report on H.R. 3368 was agreed to by both Houses. 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 7474-94.
12. Id. at p. 7464.
13. Id. at pp. 7510, 7534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent; House Conferees Authorized To Agree to Senate 
    Amendments Notwithstanding Rule XX Clause 2

Sec. 6.3 Form of a unanimous-consent request to send an appropriation 
    bill to conference and authorize the House conferees to agree to 
    Senate legislative amendments notwithstanding the restrictions 
    contained in Rule XX clause 2.

    On June 3, 1936,(14) Member addressed Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 
    12624, the first deficiency appropriation bill, together with the 
    Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
    agree to the conference requested by the Senate; also that the 
    managers on the part of the House, notwithstanding the provisions 
    of clause 2, rule XX, be authorized to agree to any Senate 
    amendment with or without amendment, except the Senate amendment 
    having to do with the Florida ship canal and the Senate amendment 
    providing $300,000,000 for public-works projects.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chair appointed the following conferees: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
    Taylor of Colorado, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Woodrum, Mr. Boylan, Mr. Cannon 
    of Missouri, Mr. Taber, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Thurston.

[[Page 5364]]

Sec. 6.4 Form of a unanimous-consent request to take from the Speaker's 
    table an appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto; 
    disagree to the Senate amendments; agree to the conference asked by 
    the Senate; and to give the managers on the part of the House 
    authority to agree to the amendments of the Senate with amendments, 
    notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XX clause 2 and to consider 
    the conference report any time after filed.

    On July 2, 1947,(15) Member addressed Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 8131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4031) 
    making appropriations to meet emergencies for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to 
    the conference asked by the Senate; and that the managers on the 
    part of the House have authority to agree to the amendments of the 
    Senate with amendments, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 
    of rule XX, and that the conference report may be considered at any 
    time.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York? (After a pause.) The Chair hears none and appoints 
    the following conferees: Messrs. Taber, Wigglesworth, Engel of 
    Michigan, Stefan, Case of South Dakota, Keefe, Kerr, and Mahon.

Point of Order Against Senate Amendment Reported in Disagreement

Sec. 6.5 When an amendment is adopted by the Senate which, had it been 
    offered in the House, might have been subject to a point of order 
    as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and the conferees report such 
    amendment in disagreement, the House may consider the amendment.

    On Oct. 6, 1949, (16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 14028, 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 3838) making appropriations for 
    the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1950, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to 
    make a point of order against a provision of this bill.

[[Page 5365]]

        The Speaker: (17)) The gentleman can reserve the 
    right to make that point of order later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

    After adoption of the conference report, the House considered the 
amendments reported in disagreement.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
    disagreement.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 132: Page 56, line 7, insert the 
        following: ``: Provided further, That no part of this or prior 
        appropriations shall be used for construction, nor for further 
        commitments to construction of Moorhead Dam and Reservoir, 
        Mont., or any feature thereof until a definite plan report 
        thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Wyoming 
        and Montana, and approved by the Congress.''

        Mr. D'Ewart: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. D'Ewart: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    provision. . . .
        I make this point of order under rule 21, as it is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; (1) because it is an 
    affirmative direction and (2) it restricts executive discretion to 
    a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy. I call the 
    Speaker's attention to page 422, section 844 of the House Rules and 
    Manual, which reads, in part, as follows:

            A provision proposing to construe existing law is in itself 
        a proposition of legislation and therefore not in order.

        On page 423 in the same section, I quote further:

            A paragraph which proposes legislation being permitted to 
        remain may be perfected by a germane amendment, but this does 
        not permit an amendment which adds additional legislation. And 
        where a Senate amendment proposes legislation, the same 
        principle holds true.

        I would call further the Speaker's attention to section 845, 
    which reads, in part, as follows: . . .

            In construing a proposed limitation, if the Chair finds the 
        purpose to be legislative, in that the intent is to restrict 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail, 
        he should sustain the point of order.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment to the appropriation 
    bill is an affirmative direction and restricts executive discretion 
    to a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that if an amendment of 
    this sort had been proposed in the House of Representatives when 
    this bill was under consideration in all probability it would have 
    been subject to a point of order. The Chair does not feel that in 
    this case it is a violation of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple 
    reason that it has been held as early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker 
    Gillette that when an amendment that might have been subject to a 
    point of order in the House if offered here was adopted by the 
    Senate, and

[[Page 5366]]

    the conferees reported such an amendment in disagreement the House 
    may consider the amendment.
        Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Montana.
        Mr. Kirwan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment.

Conferees' Authority Where Rule Waived Against House Provision

Sec. 6.6 Where an appropriation bill is considered in the House under a 
    rule waiving points of order against a provision therein which is 
    unauthorized by law, and the Senate then amends the unauthorized 
    provision, reducing the sum of money involved and striking out a 
    portion of the language, House conferees may (without violating the 
    provisions of Rule XX clause 2) agree to a sum between the two 
    versions and restore the House language.

    On Dec. 20, 1969, (18) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 15149) the following point of order was raised, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against that portion of the conference report which 
    provides funds for the purchase of planes for the Republic of China 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation that is not authorized by 
    law.
        I read from the conference report on the authorization bill 
    which appears in the Congressional Record of December 18 on page 
    39841 relating to the military assistance, section 504 of the act.
        The House bill authorized a total of $454,500,000 for military 
    assistance of which $350,000,000 was for worldwide allocation; 
    $50,000,000 for Korea; $54,500,000 for the Republic of China.
        The Senate amendment authorized a total of $325,000,000 without 
    any allocation to specified countries.
        The managers on the part of the House agreed to the 
    authorization of $350,000,000 without specifying any country 
    allocation. They found it impossible to obtain agreement to a 
    larger total for military assistance and believe that any specific 
    additional allocation for Korea or for the Republic of China would 
    result in a drastic curtailment of the worldwide authorization 
    which would be detrimental to our national security.
        So in the basic law, in the authorization law there is no 
    allocation specifically of funds for any country and I suggest that 
    the appropriation of funds in a specific amount for military 
    assistance to a particular country is without authorization of law. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (19) [T]he Chair recalls that when this 
    appropriation bill passed the House, it was considered under a rule 
    waiving points of order.

[[Page 5367]]

    The House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of 
    $454,500,000. The Senate reduced this figure to $325 million. The 
    conferees have reached an agreement between these two amounts, as 
    they had the authority to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
    authority and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Such an amendment, had it been offered in 
the House to merely change the unauthorized amount in the House bill 
against which points of order had been waived, would have been 
protected by the waiver and thus not subject to a point of order under 
Rule XXI clause 2.

Senate Amendment, Within Conference Agreement, Held Authorized

Sec. 6.7 A point of order against a conference report, based on the 
    contention that managers on the part of the House had agreed to a 
    Senate amendment which provided for an appropriation not authorized 
    by law, was overruled.

    On Sept. 27, 1961,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 21521, 21522, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the conference report,(1) and I refer 
    especially to the paragraph on page 30, under the title of 
    ``Preservation of Ancient Nubian Monuments--Special Foreign 
    Currency Program'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. On H.R. 9169, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I 
        of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized 
        by section 104(k) of that Act, $4,000,000 to remain available 
        until expended.

        Mr. Speaker, to my mind that appropriation is not covered by 
    the statute on which it is based. When we went over there--to the 
    conference--and marked it up, I understood it was to be brought 
    back for a separate vote. I did not hear anything else or any talk 
    except that they were going to knock off a couple of words: ``to 
    remain available until expended.''
        Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should read section 104(k) which is 
    referred to in the amendment:

            To collect, collate, translate, abstract, and disseminate 
        scientific and technological information and to conduct and 
        support scientific activities overseas including programs and 
        projects of scientific cooperation between the United States 
        and other countries such as coordinated research against 
        diseases common to all mankind or unique to individual regions 
        of the globe. No foreign currency shall be used for the purpose 
        of this section unless specific appropriations be made therfor.

        To my mind, this authorization was not covered by the language 
    of section 104(k). In my opinion, it does not include the sort of 
    operation that is men

[[Page 5368]]

    tioned here. It does not have proper authority for an appropriation 
    of this character. It does not authorize purchase of currency.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I would like the 
    privilege of addressing the Speaker on this item.
        . . . Let me first call the attention of the Speaker to the 
    exact language on page 30 of the bill:

            For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I 
        of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized 
        by section 104(k) of that act $4 million to remain available 
        until expended.

        Let us see what 104(k) says:

            To collect, collate, translate, abstract, and disseminate 
        scientific and technological information--

        That is exactly what you are doing here.
         conduct and support scientific activities overseas--

        Mr. Speaker, how much more definite could that be?
        cooperation between the United States and other countries such 
        as coordinated research--

        And so forth.
        Mr. Speaker, that language is very definite and it certainly 
    covers this like a blanket.
        I cannot see any escape from it.
        Is that all, now, Mr. Speaker? May I read to the Chair section 
    502(c) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended:
        It is the sense of the Congress that prompt and careful 
    consideration should be given to participation by the United States 
    in an internationally financed program which would utilize--
        What?
        foreign currencies available to the United States--

        To do what?
        to preserve the great cultural monuments of the Upper Nile.

        Can it be any more specific than that?
        Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that our able and 
    distinguished friend's point of order should be overruled.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair will permit, the point on 
    which this question is to be determined is the authority in section 
    104(k). There is nothing there that authorizes an appropriation for 
    the purchase of Egyptian pounds. That is what this appropriation is 
    made for.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]t is the opinion of the Chair that section 104(k) 
    justifies the language contained in the conference report and the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Discussion of Senate Rule Concerning Legislation on Appropriation Bills

Sec. 6.8 Where a general appropriation bill passed by the House 
    contained legislation, it was held in the Senate that such 
    legislative provisions permitted the consideration of legislative 
    amendments.

[[Page 5369]]

    On May 29, 1936,(3) the Senate was considering H.R. 
12624, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 8308-10, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Presiding Officer: (4) The Senator from Missouri 
    made the point of order that the committee amendment amounted to 
    general legislation. The Chair overruled the point of order made by 
    the Senator from Missouri because title II of the bill as it came 
    from the House of Representatives contained many matters of general 
    legislation, and in such a case the rule laid down by Vice 
    President Marshall is stated thus:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl A. Hatch (N.M.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Notwithstanding the rule of the Senate to the effect that 
        general legislation may not be attached to an appropriation 
        bill, still when the House of Representatives opens the door 
        and proceeds to enter upon a field of general legislation which 
        has to do with a subject of this character, the Chair is going 
        to rule--but, of course, the Senate can reverse the ruling of 
        the Chair--that the House having opened the door the Senate of 
        the United States can walk in through the door and pursue the 
        field.

        In view of that ruling, the Chair announced that the point of 
    order made by the Senator from Missouri was overruled. From the 
    ruling of the Chair the Senator from Missouri has appealed to the 
    Senate.
        Mr. [Joel Bennett] Clark [of Missouri]: Mr. President, I desire 
    very briefly to discuss the appeal. . . .
        The Chair holds, and holds properly, that title II of the bill 
    does contain some legislation. Many appropriation bills come over 
    here from the House that contain some item of legislation; but from 
    the present ruling of the Chair it would follow that if any general 
    appropriation bill contained any item of legislation, therefore any 
    other item of legislation would be in order in the Senate on a 
    general appropriation bill.
        I do not believe that is sound. In other words, it seems to me 
    the necessary application of the ruling of Vice President Marshall, 
    which the Chair has just read, would be to the particular provision 
    which it was sought to amend, and that from the ordinary artifice 
    of dividing a bill into titles, it does not follow that if a 
    particular title happened to contain matter of legislation it would 
    open up the whole title to any other item of legislation. In other 
    words, the question should be whether or not the provision sought 
    to be stricken out by the pending Senate amendment is legislation, 
    and whether that should be opened up by the Senate amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Alva B.] Adams [of Colorado]: I am thoroughly in accord 
    with the decision of the Chair, but I beg to differ with the 
    reasoning. My understanding of the terms ``new legislation'' and 
    ``general legislation'' is that they should be construed to mean 
    something alien to an appropriation bill. In other words, title II 
    does not contain within it that which I think can be correctly 
    defined as new or general legislation. Every part of an 
    appropriation bill is legislation. An appropriation bill is 
    legislation. What the rule seeks to forbid is attaching to an 
    appropriation bill legislation upon other subjects which are new, 
    and which are matters

[[Page 5370]]

    of general legislation, rather than the regulation, the control, 
    and the direction of the particular appropriation. In that sense I 
    do not believe that a limitation, however inaptly framed, which is 
    directed exclusively to the appropriation made by the bill, is 
    either to be termed ``new'' or ``general'' legislation. Therefore, 
    it has seemed to me that the premise upon which the Senator from 
    Arkansas argues is unsound.
         I should be willing to concede that if this be legislation 
    opening the gates, it would open them to germane legislation, and 
    to germane legislation only. I cannot see that proposed legislation 
    providing for the appointment of a commission, that commission to 
    go out and engage in scientific undertakings, scientific 
    investigations, to determine the commercial feasibility of a 
    project, is germane to an appropriation bill.
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair has not ruled on the question 
    as to whether or not it must be germane. The only question on which 
    the Chair ruled was the point of order made by the Senator from 
    Missouri.
        Mr. Adams: I wanted it made clear that my original point of 
    order was submitted on the ground that the amendment of the Senator 
    from Arkansas was general legislation and that it was not germane 
    to the bill.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is, Shall the decision of 
    the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? . . .

        Mr. Clark: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        The Presiding Officer: The question raised by the point of 
    order made by the Senator from Missouri goes only to the committee 
    amendment. The Chair overruled the point of order made by the 
    Senator from Missouri, holding that, while the amendment did amount 
    to general legislation, nevertheless title II of the bill itself 
    contained many items of general legislation, and under the ruling 
    of Vice President Marshall, the Chair, having been advised that 
    that ruling has been uniformly followed, held that the House of 
    Representatives having opened the door, the Senate could go in. 
    Those were the words of Vice President Marshall. A vote to sustain 
    the ruling of the Chair should be in the affirmative; a vote 
    against the ruling of the Chair should be in the negative. . . .
        [The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 19.]
        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

    On the question of the germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. 
Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, to the committee amendment discussed 
above, the following statement was made:

        The Vice President (John N. Garner, of Texas): Let the Chair 
    once more state his understanding of the parliamentary situation. 
    The present occupant regrets he was not in the chair at the time 
    the original point of order was made. The Senate by a vote of 53 to 
    19 has determined that the committee amendment to the appropriation 
    bill is in order. Therefore, any amendment that is germane to the 
    legislation is in order. The question of germaneness of the 
    amendment offered by the Senator

[[Page 5371]]

    from Arkansas is the question now before the Senate.
        Apparently, as the Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian, 
    whoever drew the rules of the Senate was not willing to trust the 
    presiding officer to determine the germaneness of an amendment of 
    this kind, as, under the rules, the Chair does not have the right 
    to determine the germaneness of an amendment to legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, submits to the Senate the 
    question, Is the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas germane to 
    the amendment of the committee?
        [On a yea and nay vote, the Senate decided Mr. Robinson's 
    amendment to be germane to the amendment reported by the 
    committee--yeas 53, nays 21.]

Germane Amendment to Senate Legislative Amendment Reported in 
    Disagreement

Sec. 6.9 A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from 
    conference in disagreement may be amended by a germane amendment 
    even though the proposed amendment is also legislative.

     On Aug. 1, 1979,(5) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 4388 (energy and water development appropriation bill), a 
motion was held in order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 22007, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate 
        No. 37 and concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu 
        of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building'' $52,583,400 toward finishing such building and to 
        remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount of 
        $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on the total cost for 
        construction of the Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building.
            It is further provided, That such building and office space 
        therein upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel 
        presently supplied by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the 
        Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Hill Apartments and such buildings 
        shall be vacated.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. . . .
        [T]his amendment offered at this time would not have been in 
    order had it been offered to the bill as originally before the 
    House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a 
    change of the report language that is in the appropriation bill and 
    it is germane and it is a part of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. The Chair would like to state that the only requirement of 
    the amendment in the

[[Page 5372]]

    motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama is that it be germane 
    to the Senate amendment. The language is quite clearly germane to 
    the Senate amendment No. 37 and, therefore, the motion is in order 
    and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 7. In General


    The rule (7) prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and 
legislation on general appropriation bills is applicable only to 
general appropriation bills. In addition to the precedents in this 
chapter, extensive discussion of bills considered to be or not to be 
``general'' appropriation bills is found in the preceding chapter on 
appropriation bills.(8) Further discussion of the general 
requirement that appropriations be authorized is also to be found in 
that chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXI clause 2. See Sec. 1, supra, for text and discussion of 
        the rule.
 8. Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the law authorizes appropriations only out of a special fund, 
appropriations from the general fund are deemed 
unauthorized.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 35.1, 35.2, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingent Upon Enactment of Authorization

Sec. 7.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for projects 
    not yet authorized by law is legislation and not in order.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9033), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 18179, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Title V--Peace Corps

                      Funds appropriated to the President

                                  Peace Corps

            For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
        the provisions of the Peace Corps Act, including purchase of 
        not to exceed sixteen passenger motor vehicles for $20,000,000: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 2000 or H.R. 7500, Eighty-seventh 
        Congress, or similar legislation to provide for a Peace Corps.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Title V, which has just been read, has not yet 
    been au

[[Page 5373]]

    thorized and therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order and the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hiestand).

Sec. 7.2 In a general appropriation bill, a paragraph making an 
    appropriation contingent upon the subsequent enactment of 
    authorizing language is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 3, 1967,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9481), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 11589, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Chapter VIII

                             Military Construction

                                 Family Housing

                      homeowners assistance fund, defense

            For the Homeowners Assistance Fund, established pursuant to 
        section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
        Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754, approved November 
        3, 1966), $5,500,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 1216, Ninetieth Congress, or similar 
        legislation.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point of order asking 
    the Chair to strike chapter 8 of the second supplemental 
    appropriation bill, to be found on page 17, lines 6 through 16 
    thereof, for the reason there has been no authorization of this 
    appropriation and that it is contrary to rule XXI (2) of this body. 
    Consideration of S. 1216 is now before this body's Committee on 
    Rules, it is controversial, it has mixed jurisdictional parentage, 
    and it came out of the Committee on Armed Services with eight or 
    more opposing votes. It can be defeated on the floor.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Florida seek to be heard 
    on this point of order?
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, as the bill states and as the report states, 
    there is a requirement for the enactment of authorizing 
    legislation. The bill which is before the House clearly requires 
    that appropriations for the acquisition of properties must be 
    authorized by a military construction authorization act, and that 
    no moneys in the fund may be used except as may be provided in an 
    appropriation act, and it would clearly protect the Congress and 
    fulfill the requirements of the law.

[[Page 5374]]

        What we are seeking to do is to put into operation an immediate 
    program. If we do not provide funds now for people who need money 
    for losses in their property as a result of base closures, it is 
    going to be some months before it can be done, probably, in the 
    regular appropriation bill.
        Of course, the language is subject to a point of order. We 
    concede that. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, that 
    is the story, but the homeowners will be the ones who suffer 
    unnecessarily.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As the gentleman 
    from Florida has conceded, the language objected to by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is subject to a point of order in that no 
    authorization has been enacted into law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 7.3 An item of appropriation providing for an expenditure not 
    previously authorized by law is not in order; and delaying the 
    availability of the appropriation pending enactment of an 
    authorization does not protect the item of appropriation against a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14582), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Federal Railroad Administration

               grants to national railroad passenger corporation

            To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as authorized by 
        section 601 of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, as 
        amended, $170,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall be available only upon 
        the enactment into law of authorizing legislation by the 
        Ninety-second Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the $170 million appropriation for Amtrak.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, the authorization has not yet been 
    made. The fact that the authorization passed the House of 
    Representatives would not make the appropriation valid. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the House has 
    passed the authorization bill. It has not been enacted into law. I 
    think the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Mahon: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that the chairman of the 
    committee concedes the point of order. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

[[Page 5375]]

Authorization Revoked by Law Requiring Subsequent Authorization

Sec. 7.4 An act providing that, notwithstanding any other law, ``no 
    appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
    Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
    hereafter enacted by the Congress,'' was construed to have voided 
    all previous authorizations for appropriations to that agency, so 
    that an appropriation for ``research and development'' was held not 
    authorized by law.

    On June 29, 1959,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. During the 
reading of the bill for amendment, the Clerk read the following 
paragraph against which a point of order was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 105 Cong. Rec. 12130, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        29, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Research and Development

        For an additional amount for ``Research and development'', 
    fiscal year 1959, $18,675,000, to remain available until expended.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, on the ground that there is 
    no authorization in basic law for this appropriation to be made.
        In connection with that, I send a copy of Public Law 86-45 of 
    the 86th Congress to the Chair. I make the point of order on the 
    ground that there is no authorization in basic law for this 
    appropriation to be made. The authorization for this appropriation 
    did exist at one time, but it was repealed by the act of June 15, 
    1959, Public Law 86-45, section 4. . . .

            Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no 
        appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
        hereafter enacted by the Congress.

        This law, Mr. Chairman, was approved on June 15, 1959. This 
    language clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that appropriations can 
    be made for items authorized by legislation which is hereafter 
    enacted, meaning after June 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly states that 
    appropriations can be made only for items authorized after June 15, 
    1959, hence all previous authorizations are voided. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa has made a point of order 
    against that portion of the bill appearing in lines 2, 3, and 4, 
    page 4, and has called the attention of the Chair to section 4 of 
    Public Law 86-45. In view of the language cited, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

[[Page 5376]]

 Waiver of Points of Order Against Items ``Not Yet Authorized''

Sec. 7.5 Where the Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a 
    waiver of points of order against unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill but not against legislative language therein, 
    the Member calling up the resolution offered an amendment to 
    reflect that intention.

    On July 21, 1970,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order against said bill for failure to comply with 
        the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a 
    resolution waiving points of order against certain provisions of 
    H.R. 18515, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
    Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1971. . . .
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule--so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to.

Executive Order Not Sufficient Authorization

Sec. 7.6 A Presidential order creating a War Relocation Authority was 
    held not an authorization in law for an appropriation for expenses 
    incurred incident to the establishment, maintenance, and operation 
    of the emergency refugee shelter at Fort Ontario, New York.

[[Page 5377]]

    On Mar. 2, 1945,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. During the 
reading of the bill for amendment, a point of order was raised against 
the bracketed language below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 1682, 1683, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          War Relocation Authority

        Salaries and expenses: The limitation in the appropriation for 
    salaries and expenses, War Relocation Authority, in the National 
    War Agency Appropriation Act, 1945, on the amount which may be 
    expended for travel is hereby increased from $375,000 to $475,000; 
    [and of said appropriation not to exceed $280,477 is made available 
    for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1945 incident to the 
    establishment, maintenance, and operation of the emergency refugee 
    shelter at Fort Ontario, N.Y., provided for in the President's 
    message of June 12, 1944, to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).]
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against that part of the section following the 
    semicolon in line 20 and ending on page 14, line 2, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; furthermore, that there is no 
    specific authority in existing statutes for the operation of this 
    particular program. The Executive order of the President which 
    created the War Relocation Authority does not encompass the 
    activities for which these funds would be used.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the item is 
    not subject to a point of order. As the committee will recall, the 
    action of the military authorities in moving from the West Coast 
    for supervised segregation all persons of Japanese ancestry, was 
    one of the most mooted questions in the early days of the war. It 
    was done under Executive authority by virtue of Executive Order No. 
    9102, establishing the War Relocation Authority in the Executive 
    office of the President and defining its functions and duties. It 
    was financed as many of the early war activities were financed out 
    of the President's special fund. It is therefore authorized by law. 
    This is tantamount to a reappropriation of funds, and is admissible 
    under the rules. There are no grounds upon which a point of order 
    can be sustained.
        Mr. Dworshak: The gentleman has been referring to the Executive 
    order which created the War Relocation Authority; but this refugee 
    activity ostensibly would be conducted under the Executive order 
    which created the War Refugee Board. I submit that there has been 
    no legislation enacted by Congress which authorizes the 
    appropriation of funds for this specific program.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: As I understand, the gentleman's point 
    of order goes to the item in line 21 on page 13 appropriating 
    $280,477. That is in effect a reappropriation for the War 
    Relocation Authority and is therefore in order.
        Mr. Dworshak: No provision has been made for funds for the 
    operation of the War Refugee Board. I am not questioning the 
    Authority for the appropriation for the War Relocation Authority, 
    but there is no existing authority for the other activity.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: This is really a function of the War 
    Relocation

[[Page 5378]]

    Authority, and we are merely making a reappropriation.

        Mr. Dworshak: There has never been any appropriation made, so 
    it cannot be a reappropriation for the War Refugee Board.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: This is a reappropriation of funds 
    formerly supplied by the President's fund.
        Mr. Dworshak: There has never been any appropriation for that 
    activity.
        The Chairman: (20) May the Chair ask the chairman of 
    the committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], if it is 
    his contention that the Executive order by the President would be 
    law within the meaning of the rule requiring appropriations to be 
    authorized by law?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: In the Federal Register of Friday, 
    March 20, 1942, appears a copy of the Executive order. Its 
    functions are fully outlined there. One of its duties would be the 
    establishment of such a refugee shelter as is provided here in the 
    bill. Money has been provided for the support of the activities of 
    this Authority out of the President's fund. This activity was 
    initiated under competent authority and under authority of law and 
    is work in progress. It is therefore in order under the rules of 
    the House.
        Mr. Dworshak: Mr. Chairman, may I add this point: The chairman 
    of the committee persists in referring to Executive Order No. 9102, 
    which created the War Relocation Authority, while I also direct 
    attention to another Executive order which was issued on January 
    22, 1944, under which the War Refugee Board was created and under 
    which this particular activity has been maintained. There has never 
    been any specific authority in law or any appropriation made 
    heretofore, so it cannot be a reappropriation of funds.
        Section 213 of Public Law 358, making appropriations for the 
    executive offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, 
    requires any agency established by Executive order, having been in 
    existence for more than 1 year, to come to Congress for a regular 
    appropriation. As the War Refugee Board had been created under 
    Executive Order No. 9417 and had utilized money provided by the 
    President from his emergency war fund, it is obvious that no 
    specific authorization has heretofore been considered by Congress 
    for this activity.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes the point of 
    order against the language beginning in the concluding part of line 
    20 on page 13 and extending through the balance of the paragraph, 
    that this appropriation is not authorized by law.
        Under the rules of the House, no appropriation shall be 
    reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an 
    amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by 
    law.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that an Executive order does not 
    meet the requirement stated in that rule. Therefore, not being 
    authorized by law enacted by Congress, the appropriation would not 
    be in order. The mere fact that it may be a reappropriation would 
    not make it in order if the original appropriation was not 
    authorized by law.

[[Page 5379]]

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Idaho.

Sec. 7.7 An Executive order does not constitute sufficient 
    authorization ``by law'' absent proof of its derivation from a 
    statute enacted by Congress authorizing the appropriation; and an 
    appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, established by 
    Executive order, was stricken from a general appropriation bill 
    when the Committee on Appropriations failed to cite statutory 
    authority, other than for funds for personnel, in support of that 
    item.

    On June 15, 1973,(1) the following item in the 
agricultural, environmental and consumer protection appropriations for 
1974 (2) was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
    established by Executive Order 11583 of February 24, 1971, as 
    amended, $1,140,000, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
    3109.

    A point of order was then raised:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language to be found on page 43, 
    beginning with line 11 and running through line 15.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order only because I do not 
    believe the Executive orders should be substituted for 
    authorizations by law.
        The Chairman [James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas]: Does the 
    gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    notwithstanding an earlier ruling, I should like to point out 
    something with respect to the Executive order:

            Amending Executive Order 11583, establishing Office of 
        Consumer Affairs. By virtue of the authority vested in me as 
        President of the United States, Executive Order 11583, page 24, 
        is amended by substituting for section 1 thereof the following:

        If the President of the United States has authority to issue 
    it, the point of order should be overruled. If he does not, it 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As cited earlier, it is required that any activity for which an 
    appropriation is contained in a general appropriation bill shall be 
    an activity authorized by law. The Chair observes that in the 
    stated provision two authorities are cited.
        One is the Executive Order 11583; the other one is 5 U.S.C. 
    3109. Apparently the authorization cited, 5 U.S.C. 3109, is only 
    for personnel.
        Therefore, the Chair must conclude that the authority cited is 
    Executive Order 11583.
        The Chair, of course, is not knowledgeable as to the authority 
    or lack of

[[Page 5380]]

    authority inherent in the President to issue such an Executive 
    order, but the Chair believes the burden should be upon the 
    committee to cite statutory authorization rather than Executive 
    order, which under the rules does not qualify within the meaning of 
    the word, ``law.''
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for my own information and 
    future study, does that mean that the legislature must come before 
    the Congress and it does not have the presumption of right, and 
    only those who attack it can prove otherwise? Now, if the Chair 
    proves to be right, it means that everything has to be proven verse 
    by verse and chapter by chapter. I would presume from my own study 
    of law and my own interpretation that that which comes here in the 
    regular way would be in order unless proven otherwise. I think the 
    Chair has shifted the burden onto the legislative body, as between 
    the three branches of government, as it relates to that branch 
    which claims the right, and I think as long as that is claimed and 
    exercised, the burden would be on the antagonist or the gentleman 
    who raised the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] may 
    be entirely right in his assumption that the President, in issuing 
    Executive Order 11583, was doing so pursuant to congressional 
    enactment.
        The Chair, lacking knowledge of the source of that authority, 
    believes that the history of rulings from this Chair is that it has 
    been consistently held that law, within the meaning of rule XXI, 
    embraces statutory law enacted by Congress and does not cover 
    Executive orders issued by the executive branch of Government.
        For example, the Chair refers to a ruling made by Chairman 
    Sparkman on July 5, 1945, in which the Chair declared:

            An Executive order does not meet the requirement that 
        appropriations must be authorized by law.

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I have gone far afield in my 
    discussion with my friend, the gentleman in the Chair, but do I 
    understand that whatever commission may exist for various other 
    actions taken by the executive branch, this cannot be advanced by 
    the Committee on Appropriations, and is that ruling a complete 
    ruling to exclude from the appropriation process anything that is 
    created by Executive order?
        Mr. Chairman, I have some other bills coming up. I have never 
    before heard of such an action.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot and would not rule on that 
    question, because it involves a hypothetical situation in the 
    future; nor can the Chair predict with certainty what some future 
    occupant of the Chair might rule.
        The Chair simply declares that under precedents heretofore 
    cited, executive orders do not meet the test of law, as required in 
    the rules, for the citation of an authorization for an 
    appropriation, and for that reason the Chair sustains the point of 
    order in the present case.

Sec. 7.8 Pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2, and 36 USC Sec. 673, 
    commissions and councils must have been established by law--and not 
    merely by Executive order--prior to the

[[Page 5381]]

    expenditure of federal funds therefor. A lump sum amount for the 
    Civil Service Commission contained in a general appropriation bill 
    was conceded to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, where it was 
    shown that a portion of that amount was intended to fund the 
    President's Commission on Personnel Interchange--a commission 
    established solely by Executive order and not created by law.

    On June 25, 1974,(3) during consideration of the 
Departments of the Treasury, Postal Service, and Executive Office 
appropriations for fiscal 1975,(4) a point of order was made 
against the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 21036, 21037, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 15544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses, including services as authorized by 5 
    U.S.C. 3109; medical examinations performed for veterans by private 
    physicians on a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the 
    District of Columbia; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to 
    exceed $2,500 [for official reception and representation expenses;] 
    and advances or reimbursements to applicable funds of the 
    Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for expenses 
    incurred under Executive Order 10422 of January 9, 1953, as 
    amended; ($90,000,000 together with not to exceed $18,698,000 for 
    current fiscal year administrative expenses for the retirement and 
    insurance programs to be transferred from the appropriate trust 
    funds of the Commission in amounts determined by the Commission 
    without regard to other statutes: Provided, That the provisions of 
    this appropriation shall not affect the authority to use applicable 
    trust funds for administrative expenses of effecting statutory 
    annuity adjustments.) No part of the appropriation herein made to 
    the Civil Service Commission shall be available for the salaries 
    and expenses of the Legal Examining Unit of the Commission, 
    established pursuant to Executive Order 9358 of July 1, 1943, or 
    any successor unit of like purpose.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the language beginning at line 12 on page 12 of this 
    bill with the figures ``$90,000,000'' through line 20 ending in the 
    word ``adjustments.'' . . . Mr. Chairman, the basis for this point 
    of order is the requirement of House rule XXI clause 2, which 
    provides that:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        an expenditure not previously authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is in fact no 
    authorization for the President's Commission on Personnel 
    Interchange for which $353,000 is herein requested. It was created 
    solely by Executive Order 11451 on January 19, 1969.
        This House rule is supported in this regard by title 36 of the 
    United States

[[Page 5382]]

    Code, section 673, which also indicates that no funds should be 
    expended by this body without authorization. The full section of 
    the law reads as follows:

                             Title 36, Section 673

            No part of the public monies, or of any appropriation made 
        by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or 
        expenses of any commission, council or other similar body, or 
        any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any 
        work or the results of any work or action of commission, 
        council, board, or similar body, unless the creation of the 
        same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall 
        there be employed any detail hereafter or heretofore made or 
        otherwise personal services from any Executive Department or 
        other Government establishment in connection with any such 
        commission, council, board, or similar body.

        Mr. Chairman, I have a particular concern in regard to a 
    program whose appropriation is contained within the language of 
    lines 12 through 20 of page 12 of this bill. The program is the 
    President's Commission on Personnel Interchange, created solely by 
    Executive Order 11451. There has never been an authorization 
    hearing concerning its operation, since its creation at the 
    beginning of 1969.
        A preliminary examination during the past several months by my 
    office and the GAO has revealed a series of potential conflicts of 
    interest. These problems are so serious that the GAO has already 
    referred two cases involving Presidential interchange personnel to 
    the Justice Department for potential criminal conflicts-of-interest 
    violations.
        Mr. Chairman, this point of order does not necessarily mean the 
    end of this program. The Congress may and should consider it 
    through the regular authorization process. By following normal 
    procedures, the Congress may be able to write in safeguards 
    preventing future conflict-of-interest problems.

        In addition, one must remember that the program's cost of 
    $353,000 as outlined in one brief sentence in the House 
    subcommittee hearing, is only one-tenth of the actual cost of this 
    program since all salaries, travel, moving expenses, and other 
    incidental costs are paid fully by the agency which hires for 1 
    year an interchange candidate.
        I have grave reservations concerning the continuation of this 
    program at all, since I believe that agencies which regulate 
    certain industries will surely have problems with conflict of 
    interest when they hire key industry personnel from the very 
    industries which they are supposed to regulate. I object to 
    personnel from oil companies being hired by FEO and predecessor 
    agencies. I object when a person from the pesticides division from 
    a major company ends up at the pesticide control division of EPA; I 
    object when an auditor from a large accounting firm works for the 
    chief auditor of the SEC--and the SEC has filed allegation of fraud 
    against the firm from which the interchange candidate works for.
        The list of obvious potential conflicts of interest is endless. 
    Who among us knows how many real conflicts have existed because of 
    the manner in which this program has proceeded. It seems to me that 
    the Congress must be very alert to prevent potential conflicts of 
    interest. We must not participate in the institutionalization of 
    potential

[[Page 5383]]

    conflict-of-interest situations because of programs just like the 
    Presidential interchange program.
        As the GAO recently said in its report to me on conflicts of 
    interest in this program:

            In our view, the more important question raised by FEO's 
        use of presidential executive interchange program personnel 
        with oil and related industry backgrounds concerns the judgment 
        exercised in placing executives on a year's leave of absence 
        from private industry in positions in an agency exercising a 
        regulatory-type responsibility over the activities of the very 
        company to which the individual involved will return at the 
        completion of his year's assignment. It was this action which 
        created potential conflict of interest situations. At your 
        request, we now are making a broad review of the Presidential 
        Executive Interchange program.

        It took us years to begin to root out this very kind of 
    conflict system at the Department of Defense and here we are, a 
    party to its institutionalization.
        In any event, I feel strongly that the appropriation of funds 
    for this program would be contrary to both the statute and House 
    rule I have cited.
        I ask the Chair to rule.
        The Chairman [B. F. Sisk, of California]: Does the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Reorganization Plan as Authorization

Sec. 7.9 While an Executive order creating a federal office cannot, 
    standing alone, be considered authority in law for appropriations 
    for that office, a reorganization plan from which that office 
    derives may be cited by the Committee on Appropriations to support 
    such an appropriation. A reorganization plan submitted by the 
    President pursuant to 5 USC Sec. 906 has the status of statutory 
    law when it becomes effective and is sufficient authority to 
    support an appropriation under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 21, 1974,(5) the agricultural, environmental and 
consumer affairs appropriations for fiscal 1975(6) were 
under consideration. A point of order was made against an item in the 
bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 20596, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. 6. H.R. 15472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
    including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,365,000.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of

[[Page 5384]]

    order pertaining to title IV on page 45, lines 9 through 14, under 
    the title ``Consumer Programs, Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare, Office of Consumer Affairs'' on the ground that it 
    violates rule XXI, clause 2, in that there is no existing statutory 
    authority for this office, and I cite as authority the fact that 
    last year this same point of order was made and the Chair ruled 
    that there was no existing authority.
        The Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations raised this 
    question during their hearing, and a memorandum was submitted from 
    the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which in effect 
    cited several different statutes, none of which pertained to an 
    Office of Consumer Affairs. I, therefore, insist upon this point of 
    order and ask that this language be stricken.
        The Chairman [Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida]: Does the gentleman 
    from Mississippi wish to be heard?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do 
    wish to be heard. It is pointed out on page 967 of the hearings 
    that we had submitted the report from the Department of HEW, dated 
    March 21, 1974, in which they cite:

            Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 provides in pertinent 
        part: ``In the interest of economy and efficiency the Secretary 
        may from time to time establish central . . . services and 
        activities common to the several agencies of the Department . . 
        .'' [section 7].

        Later this report says:

            The Office of Consumer Affairs, they include policy 
        guidance responsibility respecting the relationship of all of 
        the statutes of the Department to the consumer interest.

        So this agency is in line with the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
    1953 which was approved and authorized by the Congress, and for 
    that reason it is within the authorization of the law.
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Mississippi give us the 
    statutory citation for this office?
        Mr. Whitten: It is Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard in connection with the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the 
    Appropriations Committee only has authority, and I would say my 
    good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, is one of the most 
    wise and able Members of this body and he is well aware of the fact 
    that the reorganization plans are not statutory in effect and do 
    not confer the authority on the executive branch to procure and 
    expend appropriated funds. They do not constitute an authorization 
    and, therefore, even though there is a reorganization plan in being 
    it does not constitute the basis upon which the committee may 
    predicate appropriations.
        The Chairman: Last year when this same point was raised, the 
    authority that was cited was an Executive order. The Chair will 
    state that a reorganization plan-which was not cited as authority 
    on June 15, 1973 - once it has become effective, has the effect of 
    law and of statute and, therefore, the point of order would have to 
    be overruled.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will permit me further, 
    the gen

[[Page 5385]]

    tleman does not cite the Reorganization Act. He recites a 
    reorganization plan which is very different from a Reorganization 
    Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that if the reorganization 
    plan has become effective, if it was not rejected by the Congress 
    within the time provided, it has the effect of a statute.
        Mr. Dingell: It does not constitute statutory authority.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair 
    has examined the law and is citing from title V, United States 
    Code, section 906, which prescribes the procedure by which a 
    reorganization plan does become effective. It is clear to the Chair 
    that Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 has the effect of law, and 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: The legal position of the Office of Consumer 
    Affairs has not been the subject, as I understand it, or any change 
    in status so far as an Executive order issued in the interim since 
    the last ruling of the Chair in June 1973, and no statutory 
    authority has occurred to authorize its existence; so how can this 
    office now be authorized?
        The Chairman: The point is that last year the burden was on the 
    Committee on Appropriations. No statutory provision was cited. This 
    year they have cited authority other than an Executive order.
        The Chair has examined the pertinent statutes and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, let me say 
    that I handled the Reorganization Act on the floor that puts the 
    different agencies that were related to environmental duties 
    together into the Environmental Protection Agency. We did not 
    change the statutes that created the different programs, nor did we 
    change committee jurisdictions over the different programs. We left 
    them exactly like they were and are and, therefore, the Chair in my 
    opinion has ruled rightly that the statutes that pertain to the 
    different programs from the Government committees, still exist. 
    Therefore, they have the right to continue to authorize those 
    programs and, of course, the Committee on Appropriations can group 
    their work on appropriations in any way they wish, as was proved by 
    their concentration of authorized energy programs into their 
    centralized consideration. So I think the Chair has ruled rightly.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ruling referred to by Mr. Bauman 
occurred on June 15, 1973.(7) In that instance, the Chair 
(8) held that an Executive order does not constitute 
sufficient authorization ``by law'' in the absence of proof of its 
derivation from a statute enacted by Congress authorizing the 
appropriation. In accordance with the principle that the burden of 
proving that an item contained in

[[Page 5386]]

a general appropriation bill is authorized by law is upon the Committee 
on Appropriations, which must cite statutory authority for the 
appropriation, an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
established by Executive order, was stricken from a general 
appropriation bill when the Appropriations Committee failed to cite 
statutory authority, other than for funds for personnel, in support of 
that item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lump-sum Appropriation Only for Authorized Purposes

Sec. 7.10 To a bill providing a lump-sum appropriation for expenses 
    necessary for collection and study of information pertaining to 
    river and harbor projects, a substitute amendment increasing the 
    lump-sum appropriation in order to provide funds for an additional 
    survey was held to be in order.

    On June 18, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. When the paragraph dealing with ``general 
investigations'' was read, an amendment and a substitute therefor were 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           General Investigations

        For expenses necessary for the collection and study of basic 
    information pertaining to river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects, and when authorized by law, 
    preliminary examinations, surveys and studies (including 
    cooperative beach erosion studies as authorized in Public Law No. 
    520, 71st Cong., approved July 3, 1930, as amended and 
    supplemented), of projects prior to authorization for construction, 
    to remain available until expended, $8,473,500: Provided, That, no 
    part of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for the survey 
    of Carter Lake, Iowa, until it is authorized.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon. On page 3, line 19, strike 
        out ``$8,473,500'' and insert ``$8,613,500.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this language 
    which indicates which projects it is for or whether or not they are 
    authorized by law. It seems to me we ought to have that before the 
    item is reached for a vote so a point of order should be made, if 
    they are not authorized.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri has been recognized 
    and it is presumed that the gentleman will make his explanation in 
    support of his amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .

[[Page 5387]]

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is doubtless aware, 
    this is an item from a supplemental budget just received from the 
    Bureau of the Budget. It puts into the bill $140,000 under Public 
    Law 303. That was approved, as you will recall, last September. It 
    gives the title to certain land to the Territory of Alaska, and 
    provides that the Territory may dispose of it; the Territory cannot 
    dispose of the land until certain matters have been established as 
    to the seaward limit of the land. This merely permits the 
    Government engineers to establish the seaward limit of the lands, 
    and thereby makes it possible for the Territory of Alaska to go 
    ahead with the transfer of these tracts.
        With respect to the money in this paragraph it is all for 
    authorized surveys with the single exception of this Carter Lake in 
    Iowa. Of course, if the gentleman wants to insist on the point of 
    order, we can let it go out and offer it later without that 
    provision.
        Mr. Taber: It is subject to a point of order?
        Mr. Cannon: Only the language, ``to remain available until 
    expended.'' Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Taber: No; not for that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York withdraw his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hale as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Cannon: On page 3, line 19, strike out 
        ``$8,473,500'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,498,400.''

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hale] is recognized 
    on his amendment.
        Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for the purpose 
    of including in the bill $25,000 for a study of the situation in 
    Portland Harbor. The purpose of the study would be to determine the 
    advisability of deepening the harbor channel and anchorage to 45 
    feet to allow the accommodation of deep-draft tankers. The study 
    has been approved by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the 
    House Public Works Committee. It was authorized too late, however, 
    to be included in the fiscal 1959 budget.
        I would like to remind you that the Committee on Appropriations 
    has added 26 similar unbudgeted surveys to the 1959 public works 
    appropriation bill. One of them, I am informed, has not yet been 
    authorized. I do not know the criteria used by the committee in 
    selecting these 26 particular unbudgeted surveys. I am sure the 
    studies are completely justified. But I do not understand why the 
    authorized Portland Harbor study was not also included. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment because it provides for items that are not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maine is recognized to respond 
    to the point of order that the gentleman from New York has made.
        Mr. Hale: My understanding is that the study was approved by 
    the Corps

[[Page 5388]]

    of Engineers and authorized by the House Committee on Public Works.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman cite the statute which 
    authorizes the appropriation?
        Mr. Hale: I cannot do that at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to argue the point of order, if the Chair would withhold his 
    ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair will withhold his ruling.
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, the general provisions 
    contained in this appropriation bill have to do with projects that 
    are to be surveyed by the Corps of Engineers. Under the Flood 
    Control Acts of 1928 and 1944 there is general authority for the 
    Corps of Engineers to carry out studies of flood control, 
    navigation, and other water related projects for which there is 
    authority under existing law. Now, the gentleman from Maine offers 
    an amendment to the amendment that authorizes the increase of 
    $8,475,000 by some $25,000. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maine only identifies the project for which there is an 
    increased authorization. Now, I submit to the Chair that there is 
    no need for identity of the project contained in the amendment. 
    Now, of the $8 million already contained in this bill, it 
    authorizes numerous works to be surveyed by the Corps of Engineers, 
    some of which are not authorized by law and the identity of which 
    would have to be brought forward by the Committee on 
    Appropriations. But, that is a principle that we do not recognize 
    nor have we insisted upon in the past.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit further, notwithstanding the fact that 
    the amendment goes to the identity of the project already contained 
    in law, as I have pointed out to the Chair, it is an authorized 
    project for survey heretofore enacted by the House Public Works 
    Committee.
        The Chairman: I wonder if the gentleman from Alabama could cite 
    the specific authorization for the funds that the gentleman from 
    Maine seeks to include?
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: I will say to the Chair that my chief 
    argument was made under general authorization which empowers the 
    Corps of Engineers to carry out surveys on general appropriations 
    for survey purposes. I did not rest my argument particularly upon 
    the amendment identifying the Portland Harbor project, because that 
    is in the inherent authority contained in existing law for the 
    Corps of Engineers to execute surveys of projects without those 
    projects being identified in an appropriation bill. If the point of 
    order is sustained, then a point of order would lie against the 
    entire amount, because it fails to identify the project to be 
    surveyed, as to whether or not those projects have been authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman from Maine has based his 
    argument, as the Chair understood it, on the bill which passed the 
    House today and which has not been acted upon by the other body or 
    signed by the President. . . .
        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order

[[Page 5389]]

    against the gentleman's amendment should not lie. Apparently the 
    gentleman from New York made his point of order on the basis that 
    his thought was that this survey was authorized in the bill which 
    the House passed an hour or so ago. That survey was not included in 
    that bill. The survey, as pointed out by the gentleman from Iowa 
    [Mr. Jensen] was authorized under a resolution approved by the 
    House Committee on Public Works something over a year ago. Under 
    the law, the approval by the Committee on Public Works of a study 
    previously authorized under the law some years before is fully 
    entitled to appropriation if the Congress decides to appropriate 
    the money.
        The Chairman: The reasoning of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Smith] impressed the Chair. The Chair was prepared to rule on 
    the basis of the statement made by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. 
    Hale] that he was relying upon the action taken by the House 
    earlier this afternoon, which obviously was not an authorization in 
    light of the fact that that is an action by this body, but the 
    other body has not acted and the President has not signed it. But 
    the argument advanced by the gentleman from Mississippi impresses 
    the Chair and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rulings in this section and the three 
sections immediately following should be distinguished from rulings, as 
in Sec. 47.4, infra, to the effect that an appropriation will not be 
permitted which is conditioned on a future authorization. The rulings 
in Sec. Sec. 7.11-7.13, infra, establish that, where lump sums are 
involved, language which limits use of an appropriation to projects 
``authorized by law'' or which permits expenditures ``within the limits 
of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated,'' is 
proper. The Chair in such cases is guided in his ruling by the express 
language of the bill, and not, for example, by indications in the 
committee report that certain unauthorized projects may be contemplated 
by the bill's provisions. The project, to be within the purview of the 
language in question, must have been authorized by law already enacted 
prior to the bill. Once the project itself has been authorized, 
Congress can change the limits of expenditure, thereby affecting 
subsequent expenditures pursuant to the provisions of the 
appropriation. It should be noted that this result is not an extension 
of the rule permitting appropriations, without authorization, for 
``works in progress,'' because the language under consideration in Sec. 
7.11-7.13, infra, relates specifically to expenditures ``authorized in 
law.''

Sec. 7.11 A point of order was held not to lie against an amendment 
    proposing to increase a lump-sum appro

[[Page 5390]]

    priation for river and harbor projects where language in the bill 
    limited use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects authorized 
    by law.''

    On June 19, 1958,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 11766, 11767, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
            See the note in Sec. 7.10, supra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: On 
    page 4, line 8, after ``expended'', strike out '$577,085,500' and 
    insert ``$578,455,500.''. . .
        Mr. (John) Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It appears to be for three 
    projects which have not been authorized by law although a bill did 
    pass the House. Frankly, I do not like the situation where I am 
    obliged to make this point of order, but I feel that I would not be 
    conscientious in the performance of my duty if I did not do so.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Becker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding in trying to 
    evaluate the various points of order in the last 2 days is that it 
    is possible to increase the sum, that is, it is possible to 
    increase the total sum of the appropriation if I do not include any 
    specific authorization. I have not offered any authorization here 
    or legislation on this bill. I am merely increasing the amount and 
    the total sum of the appropriation in order that there will be a 
    sum of money and in order that these three projects can be 
    initiated. I hope the Chairman will overrule the point of order. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Becker] offers 
    an amendment, on page 4, line 8, to which the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber] raises a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    to review the ruling of the Chair on yesterday with respect to the 
    language in the bill to which these figures on line 8, page 4, 
    apply. The Chair will point out, as did the Chair on yesterday, 
    that the language to which these figures apply is very specific in 
    that the moneys are to be spent on projects authorized by law. So 
    it would appear to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Becker] raising the amount of the 
    appropriation would be in order.

        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec.  7.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds 
    appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by

[[Page 5391]]

    law ``or which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be 
    appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the 
    amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to 
    limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order 
    against the language as legislation was overruled.

    On May 24, 1960,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12326. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law; detailed 
    studies, and plans and specifications, of projects (including those 
    for development with participation or under consideration for 
    participation by States, local governments, or private groups) 
    authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such studies 
    shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
    construction); and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer to the 
    Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife as 
    authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available until 
    expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by 
    a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line 
    18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a law limiting 
    the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may be within the 
    limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be 
    appropriated.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    make the further point of order that this is authorizing 
    appropriations for projects not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958,(15) by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber]. It also happens that the 
    present occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The 
    Chair ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no 
    question about its referring to the controlling phrase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the ruling at Sec. 7.10, supra. For further discussion, see the 
        Parliamentarian's Note in Sec. 7.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

Sec. 7.13 Where a lump-sum appropriation is prefaced by

[[Page 5392]]

    language limiting expenditure thereof to projects ``authorized by 
    or pursuant to law,'' a point of order against the total figure, 
    based on a general allegation that a portion thereof may be 
    unauthorized, will not lie.

    On May 21, 1969,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal 
1969 (H.R. 11400), Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order 
against a provision in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        discussion, see the Parliamentarian's Note at Sec. 7.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          House of Representatives

                          compensation of members

        Compensation of Members, $1,975,- 000;

                     salaries, officers, and employees

        ``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015; . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the ground that, as 
    admitted by the committee, this contains moneys to be appropriated 
    that have not been authorized by Congress. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, 
    I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the 
    Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is, I believe, only 
    referring to the pay increase for the Speaker and other Members--
    the item on line 12.
        Mr. Gross: Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line 
    items contains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much 
    as I can to be sure I get the funds covered. If the gentleman will 
    tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with 
    the permission of the Chair.
        Mr. Mahon: The funds which have not been authorized are 
    included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.
        Mr. Gross: Those are the only funds that have not been 
    authorized?
        Mr. Mahon: Yes; that is the figure involved. A small portion of 
    that has not been authorized.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Texas yield for a 
    clarifying question on the part of the Chair? As the Chair reads 
    this language it says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or 
    pursuant to law.'' If the Chair understands language, this refers 
    to a cost already authorized by and pursuant to law that is now in 
    existence. Is that true?
        Mr. Mahon: The Chair is correct. . . .
        The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That 
    is correct.
        Mr. Gross: You mean the $1,975,000?
        Mr. Mahon: No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But it cannot 
    be paid unless it is authorized. Otherwise, it would revert unused 
    to the Treasury.
        The Chairman: The Chair again is confused. The Chair sees no 
    reference

[[Page 5393]]

    to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language referred to 
    here.
        Mr. Mahon: It is part of the figure of $1,975,000.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas state to the Chair 
    that of the amount of $1,975,000 there is $19,835 that is not 
    authorized?
        Mr. Mahon: $19,835.
        The Chairman: The Chair is still in a quandary because the 
    language in line 7 says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or 
    pursuant to law.''
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, all compensation due by law to Members 
    of Congress is authorized. If it is not authorized, it cannot be 
    paid.
        The Chairman: Yes. . . .
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the gentleman's point of 
    order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot 
    be used for any other purpose than increased pay costs authorized 
    by or pursuant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is 
    overruled.

Appropriations Not Exceeding Authorized Limit

Sec. 7.14 Where a statute authorizes the acquisition of land and 
    construction of buildings within a lump-sum limitation on cost, 
    subsequent appropriations for the construction of buildings under 
    such authorization may not cumulatively exceed the limit of cost 
    fixed in the authorizing act.

    On Jan. 20 and 23, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 2868, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 592, 592, 641-643, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Treasury Department

                procurement division, public building branch

        Bureau of the Census Building, Department of Commerce, 
    Washington, D.C.: For the acquisition of the necessary land and the 
    construction of a building for the Bureau of the Census of the 
    Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Public Buildings 
    Act approved May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 630), as amended, including the 
    extension of steam and water mains, removal or diversion of such 
    sewers and utilities as may be necessary, and for administrative 
    expenses in connection therewith, $3,500,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph just read on the ground it is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When this point of order was raised on Friday last, the Chair 
    was in some doubt as to whether the appropriation in the pending 
    paragraph was authorized under existing law. The citation to the 
    act of May 25, 1926, contained in the paragraph, seemed to place a 
    limitation upon the amount of money that could be appropriated for 
    the construc

[[Page 5394]]

    tion of buildings within the District of Columbia. Since last 
    Friday the Chair has had an opportunity of looking into the laws 
    authorizing construction within the District of Columbia. The Chair 
    has found that the act of May 25, 1926, has been amended on two 
    specific occasions--first by the act of January 13, 1928 (45 Stat. 
    52), and, second, by the act of March 31, 1930 (46 Stat. 136). 
    These amendatory acts have increased the authorization for the 
    District of Columbia to $150,000,000 for the construction of 
    buildings and $40,000,000 for the acquisition of lands for such 
    buildings.
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] has submitted for the 
    inspection of the Chair a letter addressed to him over the 
    signature of the Director of Procurement of the Treasury 
    Department. The Chair finds in that communication--and of course, 
    the Chair must rely upon the statement of an officer of the 
    Government over his signature--that of the $150,000,000 authorized 
    by construction in the District of Columbia $142,773,092.08 has 
    already been authorized, thus leaving of the original authorization 
    a sum of $7,226,908 for future appropriations. Of the $40,000,000 
    authorized for the acquisition of land there remains unallocated 
    and unappropriated the sum of $11,320,000. It is manifest, 
    therefore, that under the acts heretofore referred to by the Chair 
    there is sufficient authorization within the limit of cost set in 
    those acts for an appropriation of $3,500,000 for the construction 
    of a Census Building. The Chair desires also to point out that the 
    Director of Procurement in his letter to Mr. Woodrum specifically 
    states that the erection of the new Census Building is within the 
    area defined in the authorization acts.
        The question has also been raised as to whether the 
    construction of public buildings in the District of Columbia under 
    allotments by the Public Works Administration should be chargeable 
    against a limitation of $150,000,000 set by the Public Buildings 
    Act of 1926, as amended. The Chair has examined carefully title 2 
    of the National Industrial Recovery Act, section 12 of the 
    Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, and section 201 of the 
    Public Works Administration Extension Act of 1937. These acts 
    contained no reference to the Public Buildings Act of May 25, 1926, 
    as amended, and did not otherwise limit the amount expendable for 
    projects in the District of Columbia as authorized by the Public 
    Buildings Act. It seems to the Chair, therefore, that the moneys 
    used under the Public Works Administration for the construction of 
    buildings in the District of Columbia should not be chargeable to 
    the total amount authorized for projects in the District of 
    Columbia under the Public Buildings Act, as amended. The Chair is 
    fortified in this opinion by the fact that the Director of 
    Procurement of the Treasury Department has placed a like 
    construction upon this proposition.

        For these reasons the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    appropriation herein provided is within the authorization set by 
    Congress, and, therefore, conforms with the rules of the House. The 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Incidental Expenses to Authorized Functions of Government

Sec. 7.15 An amendment proposing appropriations for in

[[Page 5395]]

    cidental expenses which contribute to the main purpose of carrying 
    out the functions of the department for which funds are being 
    provided in the bill is generally held to be authorized by law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Page 
    72, beginning with line 12, insert the following:
        ``Administrative provisions and limitations: For all 
    expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts 
    amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the 
    reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures from 
    said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 for 
    personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the office of 
    the chief engineer, $20,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other 
    communication service, $5,000 for photographing and making 
    photographic prints, $41,250 for personal services, and $7,500 for 
    other expenses in the field legal offices; examination of estimates 
    for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and 
    deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for 
    lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding; purchase of ice; 
    purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees; maintenance 
    and operation of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger 
    vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for purchase and exchange of horse-
    drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; packing, 
    crating, and transportation (including drayage) of personal effects 
    of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to 
    be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; payment of damages 
    caused to the owners of lands or other private property of any kind 
    by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or 
    employees, in the survey, construction, operation, or maintenance 
    of irrigation works, payment for officials telephone service in the 
    field hereafter incurred in case of official telephones installed 
    in private houses when authorized under regulations established by 
    the Secretary of the Interior; not to exceed $1,000 for expenses, 
    except membership fees, of attendance, when authorized by the 
    Secretary, upon meetings of technical and professional societies 
    required in connection with official work of the Bureau; payment of 
    rewards, when specifically authorized by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, for information leading to the apprehension and 
    conviction of persons found guilty of the theft, damage, or 
    destruction of public property. . . .''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not 
    authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic 
    prints, not authorized by law in line 20

[[Page 5396]]

    and in line 22, provision for examination of estimates for 
    appropriations in the field, which is not authorized by law; 
    $15,000 for lithographing and engraving, not authorized by law; the 
    purchase of ice, the purchase of rubber boots for official use by 
    employees, not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    amendment provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of 
    June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary 
    thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all other acts under 
    which expenditures from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The 
    Chair thinks that the items to which the gentleman from New York 
    objects specifically are incidental to the main purpose of carrying 
    out the reclamation law. These incidental items it seems to the 
    Chair are necessary to carry out the major purposes of the 
    reclamation law, and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language of Limitation as Constituting New Authority

Sec. 7.16 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``not to 
    exceed $2,500 of the funds available . . . for salaries and 
    expenses . . . shall be available for . . . entertainment when 
    authorized by the Secretary,'' was held to be legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 5040, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 208. Not to exceed $2,500 of the funds available to 
        the Department for salaries and expenses and not otherwise 
        available for entertainment of officials of other countries or 
        officials of international organizations shall be available for 
        such entertainment when authorized by the Secretary.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman makes his point of 
    order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Section 208, lines 5 to 9, inclusive.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to 
    comment on this point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I must 
    concede the point of order. The purpose of this paragraph is to 
    entertain some of these foreign doctors and scientists who come 
    over here, to reciprocate the entertainment that our people receive 
    when they go over there. If the gentleman wants to strike it out, 
    that is his privilege.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5397]]


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 8. Works in Progress

    Rule XXI clause 2(a),(4) in part prohibits, in general 
appropriation bills, appropriations for expenditures not previously 
authorized by law, except to continue appropriations for public works 
and objects which are already in progress. The phrase refers to 
tangible works and objects like buildings and roads; it does not 
contemplate continuance of an indefinite or intangible 
work.(5) This exception should be compared with the similar 
exception contained in clause (5) (now 6) Rule XXI discussed in Chapter 
25, Sec. 3.16, supra, wherein reappropriations of unexpended balances 
of appropriations have been prohibited on general appropriation bills 
since 1946 except in connection with public works (not objects) on 
which work has commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1985). For discussion of the 
        distinction between appropriations allowed without 
        authorization for ``works in progress,'' and those 
        appropriations which are expressly limited to use for such 
        projects as are authorized by law, see the Parliamentarian's 
        Note at Sec. 7.10, supra, and see, generally, Sec. 7.10-7.13, 
        supra.
 5. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3714, 
        3715.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work Already Commenced

Sec. 8.1 When the construction of a building for a public purpose has 
    been commenced and there is no limit of cost, further unauthorized 
    appropriations may be made under the exception for works in 
    progress.

    On Apr. 27, 1945,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3024, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 3911, 3912, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         general fund, construction

        For continuation of construction of the following projects in 
    not to exceed the following amounts to be immediately available, 
    and to be reimbursable under the reclamation law.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . . I make a point of order against the entire paragraph 
    because it is in violation of title 33 (sic), section 414, of the 
    code. . . .
        I refer to the paragraph beginning on line 9 and concluding 
    with line 13, on page 59.
        Mr. Chairman, the language of the statute (43 USC Sec. 414) 
    reads as follows:

            Expenditures shall not be made for carrying out the 
        purposes of the reclamation law except out of appropriations 
        made annually therefor and there shall annually in the Budget 
        be submitted to Congress estimates of the amount of money 
        necessary to be expended for carrying

[[Page 5398]]

        out any or all the purposes authorized by the reclamation law, 
        including the extension and completion of existing projects and 
        units thereof and the construction of new projects.

        The portion (of the law) to which I call particular attention 
    is:

            Annual appropriations made hereunder by Congress for such 
        purposes shall be paid out of the reclamation funds provided 
        for by the reclamation law.

        This paragraph is legislation because it changes the positive 
    terms of the statute which I have just quoted.
        Referring back to the beginning of the bill, it says:

         Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for 
          the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes

            Be it enacted, etc., That the following sums are 
        appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1946, namely.

        This paragraph indicates and shows conclusively that the money 
    will come out of the funds of the Treasury as provided under the 
    terms of the bill. It is in violation of the positive terms of the 
    last sentence of section 414 and, therefore, is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, on page 21 of Cannon's Precedents it is stated:

            In testing the applicability of the rule to a provision 
        under consideration it is necessary to determine, first: Is it 
        a general appropriation bill?

        That question shall be asked. Then, if so, ``Is the expenditure 
    authorized by law?''
        In this case there is legal authority for expending funds on 
    projects generally out of the general fund of the Treasury, and 
    therefore if the language objected to goes one iota beyond the 
    positive terms of section 414, it is legislation and should be 
    stricken out as such.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    be heard on the point of order, if the Chair will permit. . . .
        I desire to call attention to the language in lines 12 and 13, 
    page 59, where it says these amounts are to be reimbursable under 
    the reclamation law. I think it clearly set forth that this 
    category of improvement is under the Reclamation Act, and therefore 
    the point of order should not be sustained.
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The gentleman from Ohio 
    invited the attention of the Chair to a certain provision of 
    Cannon's Procedure which was cited by him. The Chair would invite 
    the gentleman's attention to the fact that he stopped reading just 
    one line too soon, in that the next line following the citation 
    presented by the gentleman states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If not authorized by law is it for a continuation of work 
        in progress?

        The Chair is assured by the gentleman from Oklahoma, the 
    chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the bill under 
    consideration, that the items sought to be stricken by the point of 
    order constitute work in progress.
        The Chair would invite attention to the fact that it just 
    happens that the present occupant of the chair was presiding over 
    the Committee of the

[[Page 5399]]

    Whole House on the state of the Union during the consideration of 
    the Interior Department appropriation bill on May 17, 1937, and was 
    called upon to rule upon a point of order to the same effect as the 
    point of order here presented. The Chair would invite attention to 
    the decision made on that date. It is to be remembered that if 
    construction for public purposes has been commenced, even though 
    original appropriation therefor was made without authorization of 
    law, yet the work being in actual progress, further appropriations 
    may be made under the principle of works in progress. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that the paragraph to which 
    objection is here made really comes under the theory of works in 
    progress and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Project Originally Unauthorized by Law

Sec. 8.2 If the construction of a project for public purposes has been 
    commenced, further appropriations therefor may be made under the 
    exception for works in progress, even though the original 
    appropriation for the project was unauthorized.

    On May 17, 1937, an appropriation for the continuance of the 
construction of the Central Valley project was held to be in order as a 
``work in progress.'' The proceedings, which took place during 
consideration of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill, 
were as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4688, 4689, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: In line 20, page 81, insert 
    a new paragraph as follows:
        Central Valley project, California, $12,500,000, together with 
    the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this project 
    contained in the First Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1936.''
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. This is legislation on an appropriation bill, and there is 
    no authority for the appropriation.
        May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that there 
    has been no showing by the committee that there is any authority 
    for the appropriation in this paragraph. The conclusive proof of 
    that is that the proviso just stricken out on a point of order was 
    stricken out because it provided that there may be no authority for 
    this appropriation, and I insist that the paragraph that was 
    stricken out leaves the committee without any authority shown to 
    the Chair under the law for this appropriation.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would be pleased to hear 
    the gentleman from California on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank H.] Buck [of California]: Mr. Chairman, we have had 
    considerable discussion of various similar points of order. The 
    Chair has ruled several times on clause 2 of rule XXI of the House 
    rules. I invite the Chair's attention again to the language of the 
    clause:

[[Page 5400]]

            No appropriation shall be reported . . . for any 
        expenditure not previously authorized by law unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress.

        I invite the Chair's attention to the fact that Central Valley 
    project was established as a public-works project by the President 
    under authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, 
    and I send to the desk for the attention of the Chair the order 
    establishing this as a public-works project. I call the Chair's 
    attention further to the fact that on the 2d day of December 1935 
    the President of the United States approved the feasibility order 
    which had been prepared and sent to him by the Secretary of the 
    Interior as required by law to establish this as a reclamation 
    project.
        I call attention to the further fact that in the first 
    deficiency bill of 1936 there appeared a paragraph, ``Central 
    Valley project, California, for continuation, $6,900,000'', and so 
    forth; and this I send to the desk for the attention of the Chair.
        In view of the ruling Friday on the Gila project, I also call 
    the Chair's attention to a letter received from Commissioner of 
    Reclamation Page, dated May 17, 1937, addressed to me. . . .

            My Dear Mr. Buck: In reply to your request regarding the 
        status of work on the Central Valley project, I am providing 
        the following information concerning construction on this 
        project as of May 1, 1937. . . .
            Of the $11,400,000 available for construction on May 1, 
        1937, a total of $1,069,069.48 actually had been expended in 
        construction and engineering work, and a total of $1,179,600 
        had been obligated or encumbered. Encumbrances placed since May 
        1, due to award of additional contracts, have increased the 
        total obligated funds by several hundred thousand dollars.
            The construction work now is fully under way, with 
        virtually all the preliminary engineering completed. I feel 
        that the construction is being prosecuted vigorously and that 
        good progress has been and is being made.
            Very truly yours,
                                               John C. Page,
                                                 Commissioner.

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that under the rulings of the Chair 
    during the consideration of this bill, and those of previous 
    Chairmen, and under the precedents of the House, that this 
    certainly establishes that this is a public work in progress 
    regardless of the previous authorization contained in the 
    deficiency bill of last year or the authorization under the 
    Emergency Relief Act. Therefore this appropriation is in order, and 
    the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, on this point I desire to call the 
    attention of the Chair to the hearings which were held on the 30th 
    day of March, pages 281 and 289, the latter reference especially. 
    It appears from page 281 that a large amount of money has been 
    spent upon the preliminary and exploratory work, but when you get 
    down to page 289 you get to the meat of this question. Down toward 
    the bottom of the page appears the following colloquy:

[[Page 5401]]

            Mr. Rich. What has the money been spent for?
            Mr. Page. The money has been spent for investigation and 
        preliminary work.

        That is as of the 30th day of March. There cannot be any 
    question but that is the situation, for that is the evidence before 
    us. This, of course, is not under the reclamation law. This is a 
    proposition where funds were appropriated directly out of the 
    Federal Treasury.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada on the ground that 
    the provisions sought to be included by the amendment seek to make 
    appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair desires again to 
    invite attention to clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The Chair further desires to invite attention to a precedent 
    appearing in section 1340 of Cannon's Precedents of the House, 
    volume 7, and read a part from that decision, as follows:

            If the construction of a building, for instance, for a 
        public purpose has been commenced, even though originally 
        subject to the point of order, yet the work having commenced 
        and there being no limit of cost, further appropriations may be 
        made.

        There has been presented to the Chair a letter from the 
    Commissioner of Reclamation, and the Chair desires to invite 
    attention to that letter in part as follows, the letter being under 
    date of May 17, 1937. In passing the Chair would comment that, as 
    shown by its date, the letter is subsequent to the date of the 
    hearings to which the gentleman from New York invited attention. 
    This letter is addressed to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Buck] and is as follows:

             In reply to your request regarding the status of work on 
        the Central Valley project I am providing the following 
        information concerning construction on this project as of May 
        1, 1937.
             On that date more than 8,000 feet of tunnels had been 
        excavated under contract and by Government forces, and more 
        than 18,000 feet of tunnel and calyx drill holes sunk under 
        contract and by Government forces on the Kennett (Sacramento 
        River Basin) and Friant (San Joaquin River Basin) divisions of 
        the project. The contracts under which this work was done were 
        still in force on May 1 and additional work now is in progress.
            On May 1, a large concrete, steel-frame warehouse was under 
        construction and nearing completion on the Friant division 
        which includes Friant Dam and the Friant-Kern and Madera 
        Canals. . . .
            The construction work now is fully under way, with 
        virtually all the preliminary engineering completed. . . .

        The Chair, therefore, feels that sufficient evidence has been 
    presented to bring this appropriation in the pending amendment 
    within the principle of work in progress as provided for in clause 
    2 of rule XXI.
        The point of order is overruled.

Reappropriation For Works in Progress

Sec. 8.3 Reappropriation of moneys allotted by the Public Works 
    Administration to several departments or agencies

[[Page 5402]]

    to continue works in progress was held in order.

     On May 13, 1941,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4590, an Interior Department 
appropriation, a point of order against language in the bill was 
overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 4011, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Works Administration allotments made available to 
    the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
    the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by 
    direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to 
    another department or agency, and the allocations made to the 
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the 
    appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act 
    of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, and the 
    Public Works Administration Appropriation Act of 1938, shall remain 
    available for the purposes for which allotted during the fiscal 
    year 1942.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, from line 14 to line 
    25, inclusive, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This is not an item for the 
    continuance of projects, nor is it limited to that, but it is an 
    extension of acts which have or will have expired. Some of them 
    were given an extension a year ago in the appropriation bill that 
    was carried then. A further extension is clearly not authorized by 
    law. There is nothing in the exception to the rule like 
    continuation of a project that would apply to this particular 
    paragraph. It does not do that.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language of this paragraph . . . 
    with sufficient care to determine that it appears to be exactly the 
    same language as is included in a paragraph of the Interior 
    Department appropriation bill which was considered on March 2, 
    1938. . . .
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that on page 705 
    of the hearings of the pending bill it is stated by the 
    Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation that the items here 
    covered constitute work in progress.
        Therefore the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While beginning in 1946 reappropriations of 
unexpended balances were prohibited in general appropriation bills, 
Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6) specifically permitted 
reappropriations of unexpended balances if in continuation of 
appropriations for public works on which work has commenced. (See 
Chapter 25, Sec. 3.16 supra for discussion of this issue.)

Reappropriation to Public Works Administration

Sec. 8.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing that

[[Page 5403]]

    certain prior allocations or allotments made available to the 
    Bureau of Reclamation, either directly or by transfer of allotments 
    (reappropriations) from other agencies, should remain available 
    during fiscal 1939 for those purposes for which allotted, was held 
    in order under the exception for ``works in progress.''

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. During 
consideration of the bill, a point of order was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Works Administration allotments made available to 
    the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
    the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by 
    direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to 
    another Department or agency, and the allocations made to the 
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the 
    appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act 
    of 1935 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, shall 
    remain available for the purposes for which allotted during the 
    fiscal year 1939.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    unexpended balances proposed to be appropriated by this paragraph 
    are lawful projects which have qualified as being in order under 
    the rules of the House for one or more of the following reasons:
        First. That they are for improvements of existing projects.
        Second. That the work on them is in progress.
        Third. That there has been a finding of feasibility by the 
    President, which automatically authorizes appropriations, as 
    provided by the reclamation law, title 43, sections 412, 413, and 
    414.

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Nevada states 
    that all of these projects are already under way and that this 
    paragraph simply reappropriates money already available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: These allotments have been made for all sorts of 
    projects not authorized by law, and yet the adoption of this 
    provision would authorize every project that has not yet been 
    authorized for which an allotment has been made.
        The Chairman: The gentleman states that these projects are 
    already under way.
        Mr. Taber: That would not authorize them.
        The Chairman: It authorizes reappropriation of appropriations 
    heretofore made if the work is in progress. The Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5404]]

Evidence Required to Show ``Works in Progress''

Sec. 8.5 In order to justify an appropriation for a construction 
    project under the exception for ``works in progress'' by 
    establishing that actual work has begun on the construction 
    project, the Chair may require some documentary evidence that 
    actual construction work has been begun.

    On May 14, 1937,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department 
appropriation, a point of order was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4607, 4608, 4610-12, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Gila project, Arizona, $1,250,000: Provided, That any right to 
    use of water from the Colorado River acquired for this project and 
    the use of the lands and structures for the diversion and storage 
    of the same shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado 
    River Compact, as provided in section 8 of the Boulder Canyon 
    Project Act, approved December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1062), and 
    section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 (49 
    Stat. 1040);
        Mr. [Laurence] Lewis [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on page 76, line 20, 
    down to the bottom of the page and continuing on down through and 
    including line 3, on page 77, on the ground that this item of 
    appropriation has not been authorized by law, and, further, that it 
    is contrary to law. No authorization has been enacted for this 
    item. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Permit the Chair to state to the 
    gentleman from Nevada that the Chair is familiar with the citation 
    to which the gentleman has called attention. The Chair is not 
    familiar with the actual situation existing with reference to this 
    project. What physical work has been started? What has been done? 
    This the Chair would like to know in order that the Chair may 
    determine whether the principle of work in progress applies to this 
    item. The Chair will appreciate the gentleman's addressing himself 
    to the Chair. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [After further discussion:] The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lewis) makes a point of order 
    against the paragraph beginning in line 20 on page 76 and extending 
    through the remainder of the paragraph, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and on the further ground that 
    it is not authorized by existing law; and he advances the position 
    that it does not come within the principle of ``work in progress.''
        The Chair invites attention to section 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The Chair is impressed with what appears to be the unmistakable 
    fact that there has been a general tendency to narrow the 
    application of the so-called principle of ``works in progress'' as 
    they relate to general appropriation bills. The Chair sought to 
    secure the

[[Page 5405]]

    best information available as to the actual situation existing with 
    reference to this appropriation, and, with all due deference, the 
    Chair feels that he has not been presented with a sufficient type 
    of documentary evidence to clearly show the Chair that actual, 
    physical construction on this particular project has been begun. To 
    say the least, the Chair entertains some doubt in his mind as to 
    the actual status of the work on this project. In the absence of 
    evidence of that type, the Chair feels that this doubt should have 
    some degree of control in making a decision on a matter of this 
    importance.
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the language 
    that was called to the attention of the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
    Scrugham] undoubtedly has some bearing upon the question as to 
    whether or not this is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    especially the language carried in the proviso, which was recently 
    discussed with the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman from Nevada 
    quite frankly replied to the inquiry of the Chair, that the purpose 
    of including this language was to force compliance with a certain 
    State compact.
        Therefore, the Chair feels there could be no doubt that the 
    effect of the inclusion of this language would be that of 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to hold that the proper 
    showing has not been made in the form of documentary evidence that 
    actual construction work has been begun on this particular project. 
    The Chair feels, under an interpretation of the rule and 
    application of the precedents, and especially in view of the 
    language appearing in the proviso, that the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Lewis] to this paragraph should be 
    sustained, and therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 8.6 The Chair, in determining whether an appropriation for a 
    project was permissible under the exception for public works in 
    progress, has accepted as documentary evidence a letter from an 
    executive officer charged with the duty of constructing such 
    project.

    The proceedings of May 17, 1937, which took place during 
consideration of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation, have 
been discussed in a previous section.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 8.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.7 News articles to the effect that soldiers were working on a 
    highway or on the way to construct a highway were held not to be 
    sufficient evidence that an appropriation was permissible under the 
    exception for ``works in progress.''

    On Mar. 10, 1942,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation

[[Page 5406]]

bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 2223, 2224, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On 
    page 4, after line 10, insert ``Alaskan Highway: For prosecuting 
    the construction of a connecting highway from the States to and 
    into Alaska, $5,000,000.''. . .
         Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: In the first place, I doubt that it 
    requires an authorization for the Corps of Engineers to carry on 
    this work. . . .
        Even if this project were one which required authorization by 
    law the rules of the House provide that where a project is under 
    construction and an appropriation is made for continuing 
    construction, the appropriation is in order and is not subject to a 
    point of order.
        I call the Chair's attention to an Associated Press dispatch 
    that appeared throughout the country in the papers on March 7, in 
    which this statement was made:

            An advance crew of American engineers is at Dawson Creek, 
        and dozens of freight cars carrying construction equipment are 
        expected to pass through Alberta in the next few weeks.

        I also call attention to a statement on page 4 of the Official 
    Information Digest issued by the Office of Government Reports on 
    March 5, in which it is stated that War Secretary Stimson announced 
    that Engineer Corps troops were already on their way to work on 
    roads for this Alaskan highway. In other words, construction has 
    already begun.
        The United Press this morning reported that 93 soldiers and 
    engineers had arrived from a fort at Cheyenne, Wyo., and were 
    already in Canada working on this highway. This highway is under 
    construction, and on this basis an amendment providing continuation 
    funds should be in order in this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The mere fact that press reports show that certain groups are 
    in Alaska does not constitute in the mind of the Chair that there 
    is really a working performance going on in this project at all.

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Did the Chair understand that I 
    quoted also from the Information Digest issued by the Office of 
    Government Reports?
        The Chairman: The mere information does not constitute an 
    authorization, or does not show the work has actually begun, and is 
    in course of construction.

``Addition'' to Building

Sec. 8.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the building of an addition to

[[Page 5407]]

    the Indian sanitorium at Shawnee, Okla., was held to be an 
    appropriation for a public work in progress.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. During 
consideration, a point of order against an amendment to the bill was 
overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 2650, 2651, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          construction and repair

        For the construction, repair, or rehabilitation of school, 
    agency, hospital, or other buildings and utilities, including the 
    purchase of land and the acquisition of easements or rights-of-way 
    when necessary, and including the purchase of furniture, 
    furnishings, and equipment, as follows:
        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boren: Page 65, line 3, after the 
        colon, add: ``Shawnee, Okla., addition to Indian Sanitorium, 
        $150,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. Is there any legislation 
    authorizing this expenditure?
        Mr. Boren: I am not familiar with any specific authorization.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order there is no 
    legislation authorizing this expenditure and therefore it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    have anything to say on the point of order, or can the gentleman 
    refer to any statute authorizing the expenditure?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boren: Not specifically. The foundation of this amendment 
    is based on the general law that permits extensions of these 
    hospitals and buildings.
        The Chairman: May the Chair ask the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    whether the institution for which he offers this addition is a 
    going institution at the present time?
        Mr. Boren: It is a going institution, and on page 55 of the 
    bill, Mr. Chairman, provision is made for operating the 
    institution.
        The Chairman: Is other provision made in this bill for the 
    institution?
        Mr. Boren: For the maintenance and operation; yes. This 
    amendment is for additional facilities.
        The Chairman: Are there some buildings there at the present 
    time?
        Mr. Boren: Yes; there are six or seven buildings there now and 
    the purpose of this amendment is to improve those buildings.
        The Chairman: Is this for the purpose of constructing a new 
    building or for repairing a building already there?
        Mr. Boren: It is an addition to the present building, providing 
    sleeping porches, sewer facilities, and so forth.
        The Chairman: The point the Chair would like to have specific 
    information about is whether there is a sanitorium there at the 
    present time or is this a completely new building?
        Mr. Boren: There is a sanitorium there at the present time, Mr. 
    Chair

[[Page 5408]]

    man, and the intent of the amendment is to provide, in addition to 
    the present sanitorium, sleeping porches and sewer facilities, and 
    so forth, for the existing building.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to have the gentleman state 
    specifically whether this is an addition to an existing 
    building.(1) If that is the fact, it would make a 
    difference in the ruling of the Chair on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3774, 3775, for further 
        discussion of additions to existing buildings as works in 
        progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boren: That is the fact, Mr. Chairman, and the word 
    ``building'' should be pluralized, because there are about seven 
    buildings there now.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Statutory Requirement that Repairs Be Authorized

Sec. 8.9 Where existing law (40 USC Sec. 606) specifically prohibits 
    the making of an appropriation to construct or alter any public 
    building involving more than $500,000 unless approved by 
    resolutions adopted by House and Senate Committees on Public Works, 
    an appropriation in a general appropriation bill for public 
    building construction or renovation not previously authorized by 
    both committees is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(a), 
    notwithstanding the ``work in progress'' exception stated in that 
    rule and readopted subsequent to enactment of 40 USC Sec. 606, 
    since the law specifically precludes the appropriation from being 
    made and the ``work in progress'' exception is only applicable 
    where there is no authorization in law.

    On June 8, 1983,(2) paragraph of a general appropriation 
bill containing funds for the General Services Administration for 
construction of new buildings at two sites and repair of two existing 
projects was conceded to be unauthorized and was ruled out on a point 
of order, since the construction and repair had not been authorized by 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation as required by statute 
for projects in excess of $500,000 (40 USC Sec. 606), and since the 
public works in progress exception for unauthorized construction and 
repair does not countervail a statute requiring specific authorization 
before an appropriation can be made. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point

[[Page 5409]]

    of order against four provisions found in title IV in which the 
    paragraph is entitled ``General Services Administration, Federal 
    Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of Revenue.''
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The portion of the bill to which the point of order related 
    was as follows:

            The revenues and collections deposited into the fund 
        pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
        490(f)), shall be available for necessary expenses of real 
        property management and related activities not otherwise 
        provided for, including operation, maintenance, and protection 
        of federally owned and leased buildings, rental of buildings in 
        the District of Columbia . . . repair and alteration of 
        federally owned buildings, including grounds, approaches and 
        appurtenances, care and safeguarding of sites, maintenance, 
        preservation, demolition, and equipment . . . preliminary 
        planning and design of projects by contract or otherwise; 
        construction of new buildings (including equipment for such 
        buildings); and payment of principal, interest, taxes, and any 
        other obligations for public buildings acquired by purchase 
        contract, in the aggregate amount of $2,023,143,000 of which 
        (1) not to exceed $132,510,000 shall remain available until 
        expended for construction of additional projects as authorized 
        by law at locations and at maximum construction improvement 
        costs (including funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
            New Construction: . . .
            Oregon: Portland, Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
        Building, $67,475,000.
            Tennessee: Knoxville, Federal Building, $14,990,000. . . .
            Provided further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund 
        for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be 
        limited to the amount by project as follows, except each 
        project may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 per 
        centum unless advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
        on Appropriations of the House and Senate for a greater amount: 
        . . .
            New York: New York, Federal Office Building, 252 Seventh 
        Avenue, $579,000. . . .
            Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, Post Office, $8,974,000. . . .]

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, specifically, on page 18, 
    lines 13 through 17 of the bill, H.R. 3191, under consideration, 
    there appears an appropriation in the amount of $67,475,000 for the 
    construction of the Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
    Building in Portland, Oreg., and $14,990,000 for the construction 
    of a Federal building in Knoxville, Tenn.
        In addition, on page 20, lines 18 and 19, there appears an 
    appropriation in the amount of $579,000 for renovation of the 
    Federal Office Building at 252 Seventh Avenue in New York, N.Y.; as 
    well as on page 20, lines 23 and 24, there appears an appropriation 
    in the amount of $8,974,000 for the repair and alteration of the 
    post office in Pittsburgh, Pa.
        These four appropriations appear to be in violation of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 
    as amended, 40 U.S.C. 606, states:

            In order to insure the equitable distribution of public 
        buildings

[[Page 5410]]

        throughout the United States with due regard for the 
        comparative urgency of need for such buildings, except as 
        provided in Section 4, no appropriation shall be made to 
        construct, alter, purchase, or to acquire any building to be 
        used as a public building which involves a total expenditure in 
        excess of $500,000 if such construction, alteration, purchase, 
        or acquisition has not been approved by resolutions adopted by 
        the Committee on Public Works of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives, respectively.

        Mr. Chairman, the law is clear that prior to the appropriation 
    of funds for the construction or alteration of a public building 
    which cost shall exceed $500,000, a resolution must be reported by 
    your House Committee on Public Works and Transportation approving 
    such authorization. This action has not occurred to date. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: . . . It is my 
    understanding that the prospectuses for the construction that is in 
    the bill have not been approved; is that correct?
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, they have not been 
    approved by our subcommittee nor by the full committee.
        Mr. Roybal: Since they have not been approved by any of the 
    committees, I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 9. Burden of Proof of Authorization

Burden on Proponent of Amendment

Sec. 9.1 The burden of proof is upon the proponent of an amendment to a 
    general appropriation to show that the appropriation therein is 
    authorized by law; and where the proponent was unable to cite a law 
    authorizing the appropriation, the Chair refused to look beyond the 
    absence of a statutory citation to determine whether a bill had 
    been unconstitutionally ``pocket vetoed''.

    The above principle is well established. Thus, on May 11, 
1971,(4) during consideration of H.R. 8190, a supplemental 
appropriation bill, the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 14471, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 
        7426, 7427, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 22, 1950; 81 Cong. Rec. 
        4684, 4685, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: On page 8, 
        after line 15 insert:

[[Page 5411]]

                        ``National Institutes of Health

                               ``health manpower

            ``For an additional amount for ``Health Manpower,' 
        $25,000,000 to carry out programs in the family practice of 
        medicine, as authorized by the Family Practice of Medicine Act 
        of 1970 (S. 3418, 91st Congress), of which sums of not less 
        than $25,000 each shall be made immediately available for the 
        planning and/or development of Departments of Family Practice 
        at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center of the Pennsylvania 
        State University, and at the University of North Carolina at 
        Chapel Hill, and at Harvard University and/or the Children's 
        Hospital Medical Center, and at such other eligible 
        institutions as may apply; funds appropriated by this provision 
        are directed to be expended and shall remain available for 
        obligation and expenditure until expended.''

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language of the gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, the language is out of order on the 
    grounds that we have no legislative authority whatsoever. There is 
    nothing in the code, nothing in the statutes, no legislative 
    authority whatsoever; and this is an appropriation bill. We cannot 
    be appropriating for anything that is not authorized, and therefore 
    it is clearly outside our realm of consideration here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I simply make a point of order against the 
    language. . . .
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: . . . I am sure all of us realize 
    what is involved in the amendment I have offered here today.
        The point of order has been made that it is out of order and 
    that it is not germane. My contention is that it is germane. On 
    December 1, in the 91st Congress, we passed this bill in the House. 
    . . .
        The bill was passed by the House on December 1 by a vote of 346 
    to 2. Two Members of Congress voted against the bill in the House. 
    The bill passed the Senate 64 to 1.
        On December 14, the bill was sent to the White House for the 
    signature of the President. Subsequently, in accordance with a 
    concurrent resolution, the Senate adjourned to a date certain from 
    the close of business on Tuesday, December 22, 1970, until Monday, 
    December 28, 1970.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I must insist that 
    the gentleman is not addressing himself to the point of order.
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: I am addressing myself to the point 
    of order.

        The Chairman: The Chair would suggest that the gentleman is 
    trying to address himself to the point of order. The Chair is ready 
    to rule, and wants the gentleman from Pennsylvania to be as brief 
    as possible.
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: Both bodies, the House and the 
    Senate, had given unanimous consent for designated officers to 
    receive messages from the President during the Christmas recess.
        The President took advantage of our Christmas recess to veto 
    this legislation by a pocket veto.
        Despite the fact that we were still in session, that we had 
    officers from the

[[Page 5412]]

    House and the Senate standing by ready to receive any veto message, 
    he failed and refused to send it over, and instead he pocket vetoed 
    this bill.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: I am glad to yield to the gentleman 
    from Ohio.
        Mr. Bow: Has the gentleman read the resolution of adjournment 
    of the House? There is nothing in there on the receiving of 
    messages or any papers from the President. It is a straight 
    adjournment.
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: I believe if the gentleman will 
    look at the record he will find out that both Houses had officers 
    standing by to receive any message from the President, and this is 
    my contention.
        Mr. Bow: The adjournment resolution does not contain any such 
    thing.
        Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania: It is my contention the President's 
    declaration of a pocket veto in this instance represented an 
    inappropriate use of such veto power.
        In this session of Congress we are going to have 10 recesses, 
    and the President can take advantage of the same pocket veto abuse 
    of this legislation.
        I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that this bill was enacted into law 
    on the 24th day of December, 1970.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rooney] has offered an 
    amendment providing $25 million to implement the provisions of the 
    Family Practice of Medicine Act of 1970.
        The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it provides for an expenditure 
    that is not authorized by law.
        When the question of authorization is raised against an item in 
    or an amendment to an appropriation bill, it is incumbent upon the 
    committee reporting the bill or the proponent of the amendment to 
    cite the law permitting the appropriation. The proponent of the 
    amendment in this case has referred the Chair to the bill passed by 
    the other body on September 14, 1970, and passed by the House on 
    December 1, 1970. He has also outlined other legislative history 
    concerning the bill, including the fact that the bill was sent to 
    the President who saw fit to ``pocket veto'' the measure during the 
    Christmas adjournment of the Congress last year.
        The Chair is not oblivious to the fact that certain questions 
    have been raised about the legal propriety of this veto. However, 
    the Chair cannot rule on this constitutional question. The Chair 
    may only refer to the statutes at large or the United States Code 
    to find the authorization required to support this appropriation. 
    Since no such statute can be cited, the Chair must sustain the 
    point of order.

Sec. 9.2 It is incumbent upon the proponent of an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill to cite authority in law for the proposed 
    appropriation when a point of order is made on the ground of lack 
    of such authority.

    On May 7, 1957,(6) the Committee of the Whole was consid

[[Page 5413]]

ering H.R. 7221, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 6430, 6431, 6446, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey: Page 4, line 5, strike out 
        ``$25,000'' and insert ``$50,000. Of this amount the sum of 
        $25,000 is to be used to make necessary investigations abroad 
        to determine the wage levels, costs of production and working 
        conditions on articles imported from abroad to assist the 
        Commission in processing claims for injury by domestic 
        producers under section 7 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements 
        Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground that there is 
    no authority for the Tariff Commission to make an investigation 
    abroad into the working conditions under which foreign commodities 
    are produced.
        The Chairman: (7) Will the gentleman from West 
    Virginia cite to the Chair the authority for the Commission to make 
    an investigation? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: I could not advise the Chairman to that effect. 
    But, I do not see why they should be limited to this country 
    because apparently nobody else is. If somebody wants some 
    information, they go abroad and get it. I think the Tariff 
    Commission should be afforded the same opportunity. Members of the 
    Congress, if you want to sit idly by and see the major part of your 
    small American industry, which is the backbone of our country, 
    driven out of business, you just ignore a proposition like this.
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that there is no authority 
    cited for the Commission to make the investigations contemplated in 
    the amendment, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After reading of the bill for amendment, 
but prior to the rising of the Committee of the Whole, the proponent of 
the amendment found authority in law for the proposed investigations 
and, by unanimous consent, the amendment was offered again and 
considered.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 6446, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 7, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Has Burden of Showing Authorization for Item in Bill

Sec. 9.3 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating $5 
    million for the emergency fund for the President was held 
    unauthorized by law, the Chair indicating that, in the absence of a 
    statement to the contrary, the statement that no legislative 
    authority existed for the proposed appropriation was dispositive of 
    the point of order.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5414]]

ering H.R. 5201, an independent offices appropriation. A point of order 
was raised against the paragraph which follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 355, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Emergency Fund for the President

        Emergency fund for the President: Not to exceed $5,000,000 of 
    the appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,'' contained 
    in the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1943, 
    as supplemented and amended, is hereby continued available until 
    June 30, 1947.
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the paragraph just read on the ground there 
    is no legislative authority for the appropriation proposed.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Idaho?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I will leave 
    that to the discretion of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes a 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that the 
    appropriation is not authorized by law. The Chair has stated to the 
    gentleman in charge of the bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Hendricks], that he would be glad to hear him. In the absence of 
    any statement to the contrary, the Chair is bound by the statement 
    of the gentleman from Idaho and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Burden on Managers of Bill

Sec. 9.4 The burden of proving the authorization for language carried 
    in an appropriation bill falls on the proponents and managers of 
    the bill; and where the lack of authorization is conceded in 
    response to a point of order that the language is legislation, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

    On May 28, 1968,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17522, a bill appropriating for the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce. At one point the Clerk read as follows, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 15357, 15358, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Salaries of Supporting Personnel

        For salaries of all officials and employees of the Federal 
    Judiciary, not otherwise specifically provided for, $43,500,000 . . 
    . Provided further, That without regard to the aforementioned 
    dollar limitations, each circuit judge may appoint an additional 
    law clerk at not to exceed grade (GS) 9.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 42, beginning on line 3, which 
    reads as follows:

            Provided further, That without regard to the aforementioned 
        dollar limitations, each circuit judge may appoint an 
        additional law clerk at not to exceed (GS) 9.

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this language on 
    the

[[Page 5415]]

    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) Before the Chair rules on the 
    point of order, can the gentleman from New York cite to the Chair 
    the authority the gentleman says is already existing? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wayne L. Hayes (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that if the additional clerk is authorized 
    somewhere in law, this would be a limitation upon the grade at 
    which the clerk would be appointed. What is sought to be found out 
    is whether there is existing legislation.
        Mr. Gross: I point out, Mr. Chairman, ``without regard to the 
    aforementioned dollar limitations,'' and so on and so forth. It is 
    not a limitation.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am sure 
    this is authorized. However, we will concede the point of order in 
    the interest of saving time and bringing it back to the House after 
    the conference. This does not affect the amount of money for these 
    law clerks.
        The Chairman: In view of that statement, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Burden on Committee on Appropriations

Sec. 9.5 The burden of proving that an item contained in a general 
    appropriation bill is authorized by law is on the Committee on 
    Appropriations, which must cite statutory authority for the 
    appropriation.

    On June 15, 1973,(13) an appropriation for the Office of 
Consumer Affairs, established by Executive order, was stricken from a 
general appropriation bill when the Committee on Appropriations failed 
to cite statutory authority in support of that item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 
        38845, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 30, 1973 (proceedings relating 
        to H.R. 11576, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Relies on Citations of Law Presented in Argument

Chair Reversed Ruling on Showing That Original Cited Authority Had Been 
    Superceded

Sec. 9.6 The Committee on Appropriations has the burden of proving the 
    authorization for an appropriation included in a general 
    appropriation bill, but the Chair may overrule a point of order 
    upon citation to an organic statute creating an agency, absent any 
    showing that such law has been amended or repealed to require 
    specific annual authorizations. The failure of Congress to enact 
    into law a specific authorization of appropriations for the Bureau 
    of the Mint for the fiscal year

[[Page 5416]]

    in question was initially held not to render an appropriation for 
    that agency subject to a point of order, upon citation to the 
    organic law creating that agency and delegating its functions, 
    where it was not brought to the Chair's attention that the organic 
    law had subsequently been amended with the expressed legislative 
    intent of requiring annual authorizations (a decision subsequently 
    reversed by the Chair on his own initiative upon information that 
    organic law had been amended).

    On June 8, 1983,(14) the Chair initially relied upon a 
citation to the organic law creating the Bureau of the Mint, in order 
to uphold an appropriation for that agency. Subsequently, reversing his 
own ruling that the appropriation was authorized by a general statute 
creating the office and delegating to it functions and 
responsibilities, the Chair ruled that the appropriation for the Bureau 
of the Mint was not authorized by law, where the organic statute 
creating the Mint and implicitly authorizing the appropriation of funds 
had been substantially amended and recodified with the stated 
legislative purpose of requiring annual authorizations for the Bureau 
of the Mint. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               Bureau of the Mint

                             salaries and expenses

            For necessary expenses of the Bureau of the Mint: 
        $49,558,000.

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the appropriations for the Bureau of the Mint, 
    salaries and expenses, contained in title I are not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: . . . The Bureau of the 
    Mint has been operating under one form or another since this 
    country was first founded. The Mint has been minting and issuing 
    coins pursuant to authority found in title 31 of the United States 
    Code. Section 251 of title 31 establishes the Bureau and I would 
    just like to read to the Chairman the first part of section 251. It 
    reads as follows:

            There shall be established in the Treasury Department a 
        Bureau of the Mint embracing as an organization and under its 
        control all mints for the manufacture of coin and all assay 
        offices for the stamping of bars which has been or which may be 
        authorized by law.

        Section 253 states:

            The Director of the Mint shall have the general supervision 
        of all mints and assay offices and shall make an annual report 
        to the Secretary of the Treasury of their operations at the 
        close of each fiscal year,

[[Page 5417]]

        and from time to time such additional reports setting forth the 
        operational conditions of such institutions as the Secretary 
        shall require, and shall lay before him the annual estimates 
        for their support; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
        appoint the number of clerks classified according to law 
        necessary to discharge the duties of said Bureau.

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in addition to the 
    sections I have just read, sections 261 through 463 of title 31 set 
    forth in detail the duties of the Bureau of the Mint, and those 
    sections are replete with requirements that the mint must 
    accomplish certain acts.
        I would like to cite Deschler's and Brown's Procedure of the 
    House, chapter 25, section 5.7, which states in part, as follows. 
    Section 5.7 reads as follows:

            The failure of Congress to enact into law separate 
        legislation specifically authorizing appropriations for 
        existing programs does not necessarily render appropriations 
        for those programs subject to a point of order, where more 
        general existing law authorizes appropriations for such 
        programs. Thus, a paragraph in a general appropriation bill 
        purportedly containing some funds not yet specifically 
        authorized by separate legislation was held not to violate Rule 
        XXI clause 2, where it was shown that all of the funds in the 
        paragraph were authorized by more general provisions of law 
        currently applicable to the programs in question. . . .

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order that there 
    is no authorization for the expenses contained in the line in 
    question.
        The gentleman from California cited an organic statute creating 
    the office in question, namely, the Bureau of the Mint.
        The Chair is aware of the bill, H.R. 2628, passed by the House 
    earlier this year, but not yet law. That bill, if and when it 
    becomes law, will authorize some Bureau of Mint appropriations for 
    fiscal 1984 and provide other permanent authorizations for salaries 
    and expenses. Absent citation to such a statute requiring annual 
    authorization, however, the Chair believes that the gentleman from 
    California may rely on an organic act creating the office and 
    authorizing it as a standing authorization in law for the purposes 
    of the Bureau and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
        [Subsequently, the following exchange occurred:]
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California requested the Chair 
    to entertain a return to a point of order earlier overruled.
        The Chair in rare circumstances may agree to such a request and 
    has recognized the gentleman to be heard. . . .
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Annunzio).
        Mr. Annunzio: . . . I am renewing my point of order that the 
    appropriation violates clause 2 of rule XXI, on page 5, line 14, of 
    the rules of the House, in that they appropriate funds without an 
    authorization.
        A misunderstanding concerning the point of order has occurred 
    because of a change in the law that took place in 1981, the Omnibus 
    Reconciliation Act.

[[Page 5418]]

    Prior to the passage of the act, the mint operated under a 
    permanent authorization and needed only to come before the 
    Appropriations Committee to obtain its funds.
        In 1981, however, the Congress changed that law so that the 
    mint had to first obtain a yearly authorization before obtaining an 
    appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to make a statement. The Chair 
    apologizes in advance to the Members for the length of the 
    statement.
        Earlier, during consideration of the bill in the Committee of 
    the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
    paragraph appropriating funds for the Bureau of the Mint, salaries 
    and expenses, on page 5, lines 14 through 17. In argument on the 
    point of order, the manager of the bill cited provisions of law 
    establishing and delegating functions to the Bureau of the Mint, as 
    sufficient authority to authorize appropriations for annual 
    expenses and salaries. The Chair has since become aware that those 
    provisions of law have been repealed, and that the statutes 
    relating to the mint have been amended, first by the Omnibus 
    Reconciliation Act of 1981, then by the Omnibus Reconciliation Act 
    of 1982, and then by a complete recodification of title 31 of the 
    United States Code. No specific authorization of appropriations for 
    fiscal year 1984 has yet been enacted, but one has passed the House 
    (H.R. 2628).
        The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, 
    provided in section 382 that the sentence in the Code (31 U.S.C. 
    369) which had been construed to provide a permanent authorization 
    of appropriations for the Bureau of the Mint be repealed, and 
    replaced that language with an authorization of appropriations for 
    fiscal year 1982 only. The report on that measure in the House 
    stated, on page 129, that by repealing the existing statutory 
    provision and by limiting the authorization to fiscal year 1982 
    only, it is the intent of the committee to repeal the permanent 
    authorization for the salaries and expenses of the Bureau of the 
    Mint. The joint explanatory statement of the conferees on the 
    Reconciliation Act reiterated that the House bill terminated the 
    permanent authorization for appropriations for salaries and 
    expenses of the Bureau of the Mint (page 717). The Omnibus 
    Reconciliation Act of 1982, Public Law 97-253, in section 202, 
    changed the 1982 authorization into a fiscal year 1983 
    authorization. Public Law 97-258 codified in its entirety title 31 
    of the United States Code, and carried the 1982 authorization in 
    section 5132 of title 31; all the old provisions of title 31 
    dealing with the mint, previously cited in argument on the point of 
    order, have been repealed. Public Law 97-452 modified the 
    codification to reflect the 1983 authorization carried in the 1982 
    Reconciliation Act. There remains no statutory language relating to 
    the mint which may be construed as a permanent authorization.
        The Chair recognizes that it is unusual for the Chair to 
    reverse a decision or ruling previously made, and it is the opinion 
    of the Chair that he should undertake such a course of action only 
    where new and substantial facts or circumstances, which were not 
    evident or stated in argument on a point of order, are subsequently 
    brought to his attention.

[[Page 5419]]

        In rare instances, the Chair has reversed a decision on his own 
    initiative; for example, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    in 1927, as cited in volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents section 3435, 
    held that a provision in a general appropriation bill constituted 
    legislation after reviewing a statute he was not previously aware 
    of when he had rendered a contrary decision.
        For the reasons stated, and in view of the unique and 
    compelling circumstances, the Chair holds that the language in the 
    bill on page 5, lines 14 through 17, appropriating funds for the 
    Bureau of the Mint, is unauthorized and, therefore, rules the 
    paragraph out of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
may in his discretion entertain (or initiate himself) a request for 
further argument on a point of order previously ruled upon, even where 
the paragraph has been passed unamended in the reading of the bill for 
amendment (and unanimous consent is not required),(16) where 
existing law not previously called to the Chair's attention would 
require the ruling to be reversed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by the Chair's reservations, such authority should be 
exercised in only the most compelling circumstances, such as where the 
state of the law has been completely altered and not made known to the 
Chair; it should not be exercised in order to further interpret laws 
already cited. Although the committee in the instant case had clearly 
met the burden of proof on the previous ruling, their position and 
statutory authority had not been communicated to the Parliamentarian or 
Chair before that ruling, and the Chair had been forced to rule without 
the full benefit of arguments on the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 10 Evidence of Authorization

Citation of Statute

Sec. 10.1 Language in a general appropriation bill permitting funds in 
    that paragraph to remain available until expended was held in order 
    upon citation by the Committee on Appropriations of statutory 
    authority therefor.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11576), a point of order was raised against the following provision and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 38845, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 5420]]

                            Territorial Affairs

                   trust territory of the pacific islands

        For an additional amount for ``Trust Territory of the Pacific 
    Islands'', $8,410,000, to remain available until expended.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order to the language at page 3, line 4, beginning with 
    the word ``to,'' and reading as follows: ``to remain available 
    until expended.''
        I cite as authority for this, Mr. Chairman, rule XXI, clause 2, 
    constituting legislation in an appropriation bill and exceeding the 
    authority of the Committee on Appropriations, essentially 
    appropriating for a period beyond 1 year. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the basic law 
    states that the Congress is authorized to make the funds available 
    as expended. This authorization is amply fortified in law. The 
    point of order is not valid, in the judgment of the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentlewoman from 
    Washington (Mrs. Hansen) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    have a copy of the authorization referred to that could be sent to 
    the desk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, we have the citation here. It is 68 
    Stat. 330. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the statute in question and finds that 
    it does indeed authorize appropriations providing funds for the 
    trust territories and specifies that they may remain available 
    until expended.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Letter From Executive Officer

Sec. 10.2 In ascertaining whether existing law has been complied with 
    by executive officials in order to justify an appropriation (a 
    condition stated in the law), the Chair has held that a letter 
    written by an executive officer charged with the duty of furthering 
    a certain program was sufficient documentary evidence of 
    authorization of an appropriation in the manner prescribed by law.

    On May 17, 1937,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 4680, 4681, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provo River project, Utah, $750,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this paragraph that the appropriation is not 
    authorized by law. No construction has been started and no law is 
    in force authorizing the

[[Page 5421]]

    project. I call the attention of the Chairman to the latter part of 
    page 245 of the record of the hearings and to the following words:

            Construction program through fiscal year 1937. The starting 
        of actual construction work has been delayed by the necessity 
        of organization and negotiating repayment and water-
        subscription contracts.
            It is expected that bids will be received for the 
        construction--

        And so forth. This means there has been no actual construction 
    on this job and that it has not been authorized by specific 
    legislation. Therefore, I make the point of order against it that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and has not been 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair invites attention to 
    the provision of the United States Code in title 43, section 413, 
    which reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Approval of projects by President. No irrigation project 
        shall be begun unless and until the same shall have been 
        recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by 
        direct order of the President of the United States.

        This is the act of June 25, 1910, commonly referred to as the 
    Reclamation Act.
        The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah, or 
    someone else in position to give the information, whether or not 
    this item against which a point of order has been made has been 
    recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by the 
    direct order of the President of the United States, and the Chair 
    would like to have some evidence on this point.
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand, 
    in answer to the statement of the Chair, a letter----
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, I offer such 
    documentary evidence.
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: I am submitting, Mr. Chairman, a letter 
    from Secretary Ickes, together with the approval of this project by 
    the President.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, if documentary 
    evidence is offered for the purpose of showing compliance with the 
    law, it seems to me it should be presented to the committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair has in mind referring to the document 
    in passing upon the question here presented.
        The Chair feels he has examined sufficient evidence to supply 
    the information requested. . . .
        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        There has been presented to the Chair a letter from the 
    Secretary of the Interior, under date of November 13, 1935, which 
    consists of three pages, and the Chair will only refer to the 
    pertinent part of the letter which applies to the particular item 
    under consideration. The letter is addressed to the President of 
    the United States by the Secretary of the Interior. Among other 
    things, it is stated in the letter:

            I recommend that the Provo River project, consisting of the 
        Deer Creek division and the Utah Lake division, be approved and 
        that authority be issued to this Department to proceed with the 
        work and to make contracts and to take any necessary action for 
        the construction of said projects or either division thereof.

[[Page 5422]]

            Sincerely yours,
                                            Harold L. Ickes,
                                        Secretary of the Interior.

        There appears on this letter, ``Approved November 16, 1935, 
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, President.''
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the evidence is 
    sufficient to meet the requirements in that this item in the 
    pending bill has been recommended by the Secretary of the Interior 
    and approved by the President of the United States, in accordance 
    with the provisions of existing law, as cited by the Chair, 
    appearing in section 413, title 43, of the United States Code. The 
    Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Letter from Official Given Authority in Law

Sec. 610.3 In deciding whether an appropriation for housing and 
    technical facilities at an Air Corps intermediate station in 
    Connellsville, Pennsylvania, was authorized by law, the Chair 
    accepted as evidence a letter from the Chief of Staff of the Army; 
    and the committee fulfilled its burden of showing authorization 
    where the Secretary's letter stated that the procedure for 
    authorization had been complied with.

    On Mar. 28, 1938,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9995, a military appropriation bill. A point of order 
was raised against the following paragraph in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 83 Cong. Rec. 4244, 4245, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For construction and installation of buildings . . . including 
    interior facilities . . . to remain available until expended and to 
    be applied as follows: For . . . housing and technical facilities, 
    Air Corps intermediate station, Connellsville, Pa., $50,000. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language, beginning with the word ``housing,'' 
    in line 24, page 26, and ending with the figures ``$50,000'' on 
    page 27, line 1:

            Housing and technical facilities, Air Corps intermediate 
        station, Connellsville, Pa., $50,000.

        I do this because it is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Luther A. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The act of August 12, 1936, confers upon the Secretary of War 
    authority to establish intermediate stations in compliance with the 
    terms of that act. The chairman of the subcommittee has furnished 
    the Chair with a letter dated March 22, 1938, from the War 
    Department advising that the Secretary of War under this authority 
    has designated Connellsville, Pa., as an intermediate station and 
    that it had been so designated by the Secretary of War.
        The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that 
    before the Secretary of War could make such a designation he must 
    comply with certain provisions of the act. The Chair

[[Page 5423]]

    would not be warranted in assuming that the Secretary of War 
    disregarded the provisions of the law. Since the Secretary of War 
    has made the designation, the Chair thinks it is proper to assume 
    that the Secretary has carried out the provisions of the law giving 
    him that authority; in other words, the Chair does not think that 
    it is necessary for the Chair to assume that the Secretary of War 
    would violate the act. The proper assumption would be that he had 
    complied with the law.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the burden is upon 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, inserting this item in the bill, 
    to show that the Secretary of War has legally made a designation of 
    this place as an intermediate air station in accordance with the 
    provisions of law and that he has met the four requirements that 
    are set forth in the statute. I do not think a mere letter from the 
    Secretary of War stating that he has made some designation would 
    meet the situation unless the Secretary of War set forth that he 
    has determined that this airport complies with the four 
    requirements outlined in the statute. Has the Chair a copy of the 
    statute available?
        The Chairman: The Chair has a copy of the act and is familiar 
    with the act.
        Mr. Taber: It would seem to me that the Secretary of War must 
    make a finding with reference to these four requirements 
    specifically and that evidence of it must accompany the request for 
    an authorization.
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Taber: I yield.
        Mr. Snyder of Pennsylvania: He did make that finding with 
    reference to the four specific points.
        Mr. Taber: But the evidence is not here to support that.
        Mr. Snyder of Pennsylvania: The letter should be sufficient 
    evidence.
        The Chairman: The Chair takes it that the evidence is in the 
    War Department files. The Chair does not think it should be 
    necessary to require that that evidence be sent here. When the 
    House is advised that the Secretary of War has followed the act and 
    has made the designation, the Chair thinks it would be unnecessary 
    to require that the evidence be set forth. In the Chair's opinion 
    the Chair has the right to assume that the Secretary of War has 
    followed the provisions of law and that the records of the War 
    Department would so show.
        The point of order is overruled.

Press Reports Relating to Project

Sec. 10.4 Statements contained in the Official Information Digest 
    issued by the Office of Government Reports, to the effect that 
    Engineer Corps troops were on their way to a specified construction 
    project were held insufficient evidence that the project was 
    authorized, or that it was a ``work in progress,'' for which an 
    appropriation could be made.

[[Page 5424]]

    On Mar. 10, 1942,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a bill concerned with civil functions of the War 
Department. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 2223, 2224, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 4, 
        after line 10, insert ``Alaskan Highway: For prosecuting the 
        construction of a connecting highway from the States to and 
        into Alaska, $5,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: . . . Even if this project were one 
    which required authorization by law the rules of the House provide 
    that where a project is under construction and an appropriation is 
    made for continuing construction, the appropriation is in order and 
    is not subject to a point of order.
        I call the Chair's attention to an Associated Press dispatch . 
    . . in which this statement was made:

            An advance crew of American engineers is at Dawson Creek, 
        and dozens of freight cars carrying construction equipment are 
        expected to pass through Alberta in the next few weeks.

        I also call attention to a statement on page 4 of the Offical 
    Information Digest issued by the Office of Government Reports on 
    March 5, in which it is stated that War Secretary Stimson announced 
    that Engineer Corps troops were already on their way to work on 
    roads for this Alaskan highway. In other words, construction has 
    already begun. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The mere fact that press reports show that certain groups are 
    in Alaska does not constitute in the mind of the Chair that there 
    is really a working performance going on in this project at all.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Did the Chair understand that I 
    quoted also from the Information Digest issued by the Office of 
    Government Reports?
        The Chairman: The mere information does not constitute an 
    authorization, or does not show the work has actually begun, and is 
    in course of construction.

Public Knowledge

Sec. 10.5 The law authorizing an appropriation, conditioned upon 
    submission of a balanced budget, was held to have been complied 
    with, on the basis of public knowledge that the fiscal 1957

[[Page 5425]]

    budget submitted by the President (and printed as a House document) 
    was balanced.

    On Mar. 20, 1956,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10004, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 5200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 16, line 9, insert 
        the following:

            ``National Park Service: Construction: For an additional 
        amount for construction $3 million.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the wording of the amendment does not comply with Public 
    Law 361 of the 83d Congress (requiring a balanced budget as a 
    condition to the appropriation).
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a matter of public knowledge that the budget submitted by 
    the President is a balanced budget; therefore, the Chair feels that 
    subsection 2(b) of section 4, Public Law 361, has been complied 
    with.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Public Law No. 83-361, Sec. 4, stated in 
part:

        Sec. 4(a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to 
    exceed $5,000,000 to complete (certain described) elements of the 
    (Jefferson National Expansion) Memorial as authorized by this Act. 
    . . .
        (b) The authorization for an appropriation contained in 
    subsection (a) shall not be effective until such time as
        (1) the receipts of the Government for the preceding fiscal 
    year have exceeded the expenditures of the Government for such 
    year, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget; or
        (2) the budget submitted to the Congress by the President . . . 
    reveals that the estimated receipts of the Government for the 
    fiscal year . . . are in excess of the estimated expenditures of 
    the Government for such fiscal year.

Item Carried in Past Appropriation Bills

Sec. 10.6 The fact that an item has been carried in appropriation bills 
    for many years does not preclude the point of order that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5269), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 3272, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 
        5799, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1950 (proceedings relating 
        to H.R. 7786).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5426]]

            Mexican fruitfly control: For the control and prevention of 
        spread of the Mexican fruitfly, including necessary surveys and 
        control operations in Mexico in cooperation with the Mexican 
        Government or local Mexican authorities, $160,460.

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the paragraph on page 54 which the Clerk 
    has just read, being lines 1 to 4, inclusive, is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) Can the gentleman from Missouri, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, cite any legislative enactment 
    authorizing this provision?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this provision 
    has been carried in the bill for many years, but there is no law 
    under which an appropriation is authorized for carrying on these 
    activities.
        The Chairman: Of course, the provision was retained in previous 
    bills by reason of the fact that no point of order was made against 
    it.
        If the gentleman has no citation of law authorizing this 
    provision in the bill, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Executive Assurance That Authorization Formula Was Followed

Sec. 10.7 Where the law authorizing funds for the Postal Service 
    required the calculation of the appropriation to be the difference 
    between revenues received under certain rates and revenues which 
    would have been received under certain other conditions, a lump-sum 
    appropriation was held to be authorized as required by Rule XXI 
    clause 2 upon assurance from the Committee on Appropriations that 
    that amount was based upon estimates properly submitted pursuant to 
    that law.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11576), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 38851-53, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For an additional amount for ``Payment to the postal service 
    fund'', $110,000,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the matter contained in chapter IX of the bill, H.R. 
    11576.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Chairman, chapter IX of the bill proposes 
    to appropriate an additional amount for payment to the Postal 
    Service fund in the sum of $110,000,000, for which there is no 
    authorization in the law, and in clear violation of the House rule. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: . . . The purpose of the act on 
    the

[[Page 5427]]

    Postal Corporation is quite clear. It provides that the Congress 
    shall make appropriations to the Postal Corporation for two 
    purposes; one, 10 percent of the 1970 budget, the other, for 
    revenues foregone on certain classes of mail.
        When the budget came out this year, those two items totaled 
    $1,373,000,000. The committee, when it reported the bill in the 
    House and Congress approved the bill, carried these two items of 
    $1,373,000,000, but there was another matter that was involved, 
    because the legislative committees have not finished their work. 
    They have had to fund the Postal Corporation for the Government's 
    portion of contributions to the retirement fund for postal pay 
    raises. The House has passed the bill saying that the government 
    had to make these payments. The other body has not seen fit to take 
    any action. The retirement fund was in desperate circumstances, and 
    the committee, in its wisdom, biding time to wait for the 
    legislative committee to act, put in the original bill to transfer 
    out of this $1,373,000,000 to the retirement fund of $142 million. 
    The $110 million involved here is $32 million under the original 
    budget request based upon these two items provided in the act. The 
    revenue foregone is covered in section (c), paragraph 2401:

            There are authorized to be appropriated to the Postal 
        Service each year a sum determined by the Postal Service to be 
        equal to the difference between the revenues the Postal Service 
        would have received if sections 3217, 3403-3405, and 3626 of 
        this title and the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 had 
        not been enacted and the estimated revenues to be received on 
        mail carried under such sections and Act.

        What we are faced with here is going back to the beginning. We 
    are actually $32 million under what the original estimates were, 
    and also this is perfectly within the law and perfectly within the 
    original budget estimates of the committee, and it is under the 
    amount that they originally set, and I do not think there is any 
    way on earth that we can begin to say that this could be subject to 
    a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Section 2401(b)(1) authorizes certain sums for appropriations, 
    as the gentleman from Oklahoma points out, and the gentleman from 
    Iowa has recognized that with respect to this matter further sums 
    are authorized to be appropriated under section 2401(c) which 
    authorizes the appropriation ``to the Postal Service each year of a 
    sum determined by the Postal Service to be equal to the difference 
    between the revenues the Postal Service would have received'' under 
    certain circumstances and ``estimated revenues to be received on 
    mail carried under such sections and act.''
        The provision carried in the bill is to cover the estimate that 
    was transmitted by the Postal Service.
        The gentleman from Iowa makes the point that the estimate 
    transmitted by the Postal Service was not properly arrived at.
        The Chair does not believe it is his responsibility or 
    privilege to go beyond the provisions printed in the bill and the 
    authorizing statute. As far as a reading of the bill and the 
    authorizing statute reveals to the Chair, the appropriation is 
    authorized, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5428]]

Citation of Generic Law

Sec. 10.8 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill purportedly 
    containing some funds not yet specifically authorized by separate 
    legislation was held not to violate Rule XXI clause 2 where it was 
    shown that all of the funds in the paragraph were authorized by 
    more general provisions of law currently applicable to the programs 
    in question.

    On June 8, 1978,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 12929), a point of 
order was overruled against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 16778, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               student assistance

            For carrying out subparts 1 ($3,373,100,000), 2 
        ($340,100,000), and 3 ($86,750,000) of part A, and parts C 
        ($520,000,000) and E ($328,900,000) of Title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act, and, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
        General Education Provisions Act, $4,675,750,000, of which 
        $4,651,350,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1980: 
        Provided, That amounts appropriated for basic opportunity 
        grants shall be available first to meet any insufficiencies in 
        entitlements resulting from the payment schedule for basic 
        opportunity grants published by the Commissioner of Education 
        during the prior fiscal year: Provided further, That pursuant 
        to section 411(b)(4)(A) of the Higher Education Act, amounts 
        appropriated herein for basic opportunity grants which exceed 
        the amounts required to meet the payment schedule published for 
        any fiscal year by 15 per centum or less shall be carried 
        forward and merged with amounts appropriated the next fiscal 
        year.

        Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. . . .
        [D]uring the discussion of the rule on this bill, I asked if 
    there was money in this portion of the bill for the so-called 
    Middle Income Student Assistance Act. The distinguished chairman of 
    the subcommittee informed me that there indeed was money in the 
    bill for that act.
        I indicated at that time that the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act was not authorized. In fact, the House specifically 
    refused to consider that act and has subsequently passed the 
    Tuition Tax Credit Act. I was informed that was not necessary 
    because this could be done under current law.

        Mr. Chairman, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is not 
    current law. If the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is current 
    law, why did the President propose it as a new program?
        Mr. Chairman, the committee report says that this appropriation 
    is based on the House version of the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act and will expand student aid for middle income 
    students. It will not expand aid for

[[Page 5429]]

    middle income students without increasing the middle income student 
    limitation, and there is no authorization for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the Middle Income 
    Student Assistance Act is or is not in existence and whether it is 
    or is not necessary, and I make the point of order that the $1.4 
    billion in this section that is for expanded aid to middle income 
    students is not authorized. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me 
    just point out that the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which 
    has not yet passed, simply gives direction and makes certain 
    changes in an already existing program. The bill before us today 
    funds programs which are in existing law, and the gentleman's point 
    of order is, therefore, not well taken.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman stated quite accurately that the report of the 
    committee on this appropriation bill indicated that the Middle 
    Income Student Assistance Act H.R. 11274 had not become law. It 
    also says, and I quote, on page 74:

            Even though this legislation is still pending, 
        appropriations can be made under existing authority to expand 
        student aid for middle income students, as expressed in the 
        bill and accompanying report.

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the report on H.R. 
    11274 and the basic law. This is Public Law 94-482, 94th Congress, 
    the Education Amendment of 1976.
        Section 121, Part D, Student Assistance Basic Educational 
    Opportunity Grants, extends the authorizations of the basic act to 
    September 30, 1979.
        Considering all of the authorizations for fiscal 1979 under 
    part D--Student Assistance--together, it would appear that the 
    funds in the paragraph in question are authorized.
        Therefore, the Chair believes that the Committee is correct in 
    its view that there is extant authorization justifying this 
    appropriation, and he overrules the point of order.

Reorganization Plan

Sec. 10.9 While an Executive order creating a federal office cannot, 
    standing alone, be considered authority in law for appropriations 
    for that office, a reorganization plan from which that office 
    derives may be cited by the Committee on Appropriations to support 
    such an appropriation.

    On June 21, 1974,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture and environment 
and consumer protection appropriation bill (H.R. 15472), a point of 
order was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 20596, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order pertaining to title IV on page 45, lines 9 through 
    14, under the title ``Consumer Programs, Department of

[[Page 5430]]

    Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Consumer Affairs'' on the 
    ground that it violates rule XXI, clause 2, in that there is no 
    existing statutory authority for this office, and I cite as 
    authority the fact that last year this same point of order was made 
    and the Chair ruled that there was no existing authority. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . It is pointed 
    out on page 967 of the hearings that we had submitted the report 
    from the Department of HEW, dated March 21, 1974, in which they 
    cite:

            Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 provides in pertinent 
        part: ``In the interest of economy and efficiency the Secretary 
        may from time to time establish central . . . services and 
        activities common to the several agencies of the Department . . 
        .'' (section 7).

        Later this report says:

            The office of Consumer Affairs, they include policy 
        guidance responsibility respecting the relationship of all of 
        the statutes of the Department to the consumer interest.

        So this agency is in line with the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
    1953 which was approved and authorized by the Congress, and for 
    that reason it is within the authorization of the law.
        The Chairman: (14) Could the gentleman from 
    Mississippi give us the statutory citation for this office?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: It is Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    point out that the Appropriations Committee only has authority, and 
    I would say my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, is one 
    of the most wise and able Members of this body and he is well aware 
    of the fact that the reorganization plans are not statutory in 
    effect and do not confer the authority on the executive branch to 
    procure and expend appropriated funds. They do not constitute an 
    authorization and, therefore, even though there is a reorganization 
    plan in being it does not constitute the basis upon which the 
    committee may predicate appropriations.
        The Chairman: Last year when this same point was raised, the 
    authority that was cited was an Executive order. The Chair will 
    state that a reorganization plan--which was not cited as authority 
    on June 15, 1973--once it has become effective, has the effect of 
    law and of statute and, therefore, the point of order would have to 
    be overruled.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will permit me further, 
    the gentleman does not cite the Reorganization Act. He recites a 
    reorganization plan which is very different from a Reorganization 
    Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that if the reorganization 
    plan has become effective, if it was not rejected by the Congress 
    within the time provided, it has the effect of a statute. . . .
        The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair has examined 
    the law and is citing from title V, United States Code, section 
    906, which prescribes the procedure by which a reorganization plan 
    does become effective. It is clear to the Chair that Reorganization 
    Plan No. 1 of 1953 has the effect of law, and therefore, the point 
    of order is overruled.

[[Page 5431]]

Executive Order

Sec. 10.10 Pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2 and 36 USC Sec. 673, 
    commissions and councils must have been established by law--and not 
    merely by Executive order--prior to the expenditure of federal 
    funds therefor.

    On June 25, 1974,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Treasury, Postal Service, 
and Executive Office appropriation bill (H.R. 15544), a point of order 
was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 21036, 21037, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For necessary expenses, including services as authorized by 
        5 U.S.C. 3109 . . . not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
        and representation expenses; and advances or reimbursements to 
        applicable funds of the Commission and the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order 10422 
        of January 9, 1953, as amended; $90,000,000 together with not 
        to exceed $18,698,000 for current fiscal year administrative 
        expenses for the retirement and insurance programs to be 
        transferred from the appropriate trust funds of the Commission 
        in amounts determined by the Commission without regard to other 
        statutes: Provided, That the provisions of this appropriation 
        shall not affect the authority to use applicable trust funds 
        for administrative expenses of effecting statutory annuity 
        adjustments. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the language beginning at line 12 on page 12 of this 
    bill with the figures ``$90,000,000'' through line 20 ending in the 
    word ``adjustments.''. . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is in fact no 
    authorization for the President's Commission on Personnel 
    interchange for which $353,000 is herein requested. It was created 
    solely by Executive Order 11451 on January 19, 1969.
        This House rule is supported in this regard by title 36 of the 
    United States Code, section 673, which also indicates that no funds 
    should be expended by this body without authorization. The full 
    section of the law reads as follows:

                             Title 36, Section 673

            No part of the public monies, or of any appropriation made 
        by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or 
        expenses of any commission, council or other similar body, or 
        any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any 
        work or the results of any work or action of commission, 
        council, board, or similar body, unless the creation of the 
        same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall 
        there be employed any detail hereafter or heretofore made or 
        otherwise personal services from any Executive Department or 
        other Government establishment in connection with any such 
        commission, council, board, or similar body. . . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 5432]]

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Requirement of Annual Authorization Superceding Organic Law

Sec. 10.11 Pursuant to law (22 USC Sec. 2680(a)(1)), no funds shall be 
    available to the Department of State for obligation or expenditure 
    unless the appropriation thereof has been authorized by law enacted 
    after February 1972 (thus requiring specific subsequently enacted 
    authorizations for both the direct operations of that Department 
    and related functions delegated to it by laws enacted prior to that 
    date, and not permitting appropriations under Rule XXI clause 2 to 
    be authorized by the ``organic statute'' or other laws earlier 
    authorizing appropriations for related activities); accordingly 
    several appropriations not specifically authorized as required were 
    conceded to be subject to a point of order.

    On June 14, 1978,(17) appropriations in a general 
appropriation bill for the Department of State, including salaries and 
expenses, representation allowances, expenses under the Foreign 
Services Buildings Act, special foreign currency program, emergencies 
in the diplomatic and consular service, retirement and disability fund, 
international conferences, international peacekeeping activities, 
missions to international organizations, international conferences and 
contingencies, international trade negotiations, international 
commissions, construction, and general provisions, no authorizations 
for such appropriations having been enacted for the fiscal year in 
question as specifically required by law, were conceded to be 
unauthorized and were ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. 
The proceedings are discussed further in Sec. 17.21, infra. See also 
Sec. 17.19, infra, discussing unauthorized funds for the Board for 
International Broadcasting. The Board, having been established 
independently of the Department of State, was not subject to the 
provisions of 22 USC Sec. 2680(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 17616, 17617, 17620, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Similarly, pursuant to law (Public Law

[[Page 5433]]

No. 94-503, Sec. 204) all appropriations for the Department of Justice 
and related agencies and bureaus are deemed unauthorized for fiscal 
1979 and subsequent fiscal years unless specifically authorized for 
each fiscal year, and the creation of any subdivision in that 
department or the authorization of any activity therein, absent 
language specifically authorizing appropriations for a fiscal year, is 
not deemed sufficient authorization. Accordingly, on June 14, 
1978,(18) appropriations for the Department of Justice and 
related agencies for fiscal 1979 were conceded to be unauthorized 
(except for certain agencies for which appropriations had been 
authorized by separate law).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 17622-24, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 11. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Language of Permanence in Prior Appropriation Act

Consumption of Domestic Farm Commodities

Sec. 11.1 An appropriation of $25 million to be used to increase 
    domestic consumption of farm commodities was held authorized by 
    permanent legislation contained in a prior appropriation law 
    providing that ``hereafter such sums shall be available as approved 
    by Congress.''

    On May 20, 1964,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Removal of Surplus Agricultural Commodities (Section 32)

        No funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
    1935 (7 U.S.C. 612C) shall be used for any purpose other than 
    commodity program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
    operating expenses, except for . . . (5) not in excess of 
    $25,000,000 to be used to increase domestic consumption of farm 
    commodities pursuant to authority contained in Public Law 88-250, 
    the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriation 
    Act, 1964, of which amount $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
    expended for construction, alteration and modification of research 
    facilities.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language in this section headed ``Removal of 
    Surplus Agricultural Commodities (sec. 32).''. . .
        My point of order is that the proposition is not in compliance 
    with clause

[[Page 5434]]

    2 rule XXI of the House of Representatives. Clause 2 reads:

             No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditures not previously authorized by law, unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress.

        The Chairman: (20) May the Chair inquire of the 
    gentleman from Illinois as to whether his point of order is to the 
    entire section or the entire paragraph or that portion which he 
    indicated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the 
    portion of the section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. 
    I will read it. It reads as follows:

            (5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase 
        domestic consumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority 
        contained in Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture 
        and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount 
        $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
        construction, alteration and modification of research 
        facilities.

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will include the word ``and'' on 
    line 2, I assume.
        Mr. Findley: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the section in the bill, last year where Congress 
    passed permanent legislation authorizing this in the appropriation 
    act in which we said hereafter this could be done. It is in last 
    year's appropriation act which was written for this specific 
    purpose and provides hereafter not to exceed $25 million may be 
    appropriated for these purposes. We cite chapter and verse there, 
    so to speak, and it is quite clear. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Findley] makes a point of order addressed to the 
    language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning with ``and'' and 
    continuing through and including line 9, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Centennial of Agriculture Department

Sec. 11.2 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    a celebration of the

[[Page 5435]]

    centennial of the establishment of the Department of Agriculture 
    was held to be not specifically authorized by law and not 
    authorized by the organic act creating the department and 
    permitting dissemination of information.

    On June 6, 1961,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7444), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 9625, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Centennial Observance of Agriculture

                             Salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for planning, promoting, 
        coordinating, and assisting participation by industry, trade 
        associations, commodity groups, and similar interests in the 
        celebration of the centennial of the establishment of the 
        Department of Agriculture; expenses of an honorary committee 
        established in connection with such celebration; and employment 
        pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (5 U.S.C. 
        574), as amended by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 
        U.S.C. 55a); $100,000, to remain available until December 31, 
        1962.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 28, line 14, 
    and continuing down to and including line 2 on page 29, that it is 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. May 
    I say we have checked this matter and under the organic act of 1862 
    creating the Department of Agriculture, authority is granted to 
    disseminate information. It is our argument and our insistence that 
    the language which the gentleman would strike under which a 
    centennial observance of the creation of the Department of 
    Agriculture is to be held here in Washington where visitors from 
    all over the United States may come to see the exhibits and 
    demonstrations and reports and various other things that the 
    Department has brought together over the years is clearly 
    disseminating information, and is within the organic act which 
    created the Department of Agriculture, which act was passed in 
    1862.
        The Chairman: The Chair asks the gentleman from Mississippi if 
    he can refer the Chair to any special or specific legislation 
    authorizing the celebration of the centennial of the establishment 
    of the Department of Agriculture or does the gentleman rely on the 
    general organic act?
        Mr. Whitten: I rely upon the general organic act, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further on the point of order?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I did not find anything in that act 
    which said

[[Page 5436]]

    anything about any honorary committee--they never even dreamed of 
    that at that time.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. Whitten: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoffman) makes a point of 
    order against that portion of the bill appearing in line 14 on page 
    28 through and including line 2 on page 29. The Chair is 
    constrained to hold that the language does constitute legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Cooperative Range Improvements

Sec. 11.3 Appropriations for cooperative range improvements (including 
    construction, maintenance of improvements, control of rodents, and 
    eradication of noxious plants in national forests) were authorized 
    by law.

    On May 10, 1951,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3973, a Department of Agriculture appropriation. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 5224, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. H. Carl Andersen (of Minnesota): Page 
    26, line 12, insert:

            ``For artificial revegetation, construction, and 
        maintenance of range improvements, control of rodents, and 
        eradication of poisonous and noxious plants on national 
        forests, as authorized by section 12 of the act of April 24, 
        1950 (Public Law 478), $700,000, to remain available until 
        expended.''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I make [a] point of 
    order.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point 
    of order?
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: I call the Chair's attention to the 
    remarks made by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D'Ewart] on 
    yesterday, which appear in yesterday's Record which shows that this 
    particular item I am attempting to reinsert is authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I refer to section 12 of Public Law 478, Eighty-
    first Congress, which reads as follows:

            Of the moneys received from grazing fees by the Treasury 
        from each national forest during each fiscal year there shall 
        be available at the end thereof when appropriated by Congress 
        an amount equivalent to 2 cents per animal-month for sheep and 
        goats and 10 cents per animal-month for other kinds of 
        livestock under permit on such national forest during the 
        calendar year in which the fiscal year begins, which 
        appropriated amount shall be available until expended on such 
        national forests, under such regulations as the Secretary of 
        Agriculture may prescribe, for (1) artificial revegetation, 
        including the collection or purchase of necessary seed; (2) 
        construction and maintenance of drift or division

[[Page 5437]]

        fences and stockwatering places, bridges, corrals, driveways, 
        or other necessary range improvements; (3) control of range-
        destroying rodents; or (4) eradication of poisonous plants and 
        noxious weeds, in order to protect or improve the future 
        productivity of the range.

        Mr. Chairman, I maintain and respectfully call your attention 
    to the fact that this distinctly authorizes the section of this 
    particular paragraph which I seek by my amendment to have 
    reinserted. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    in order, and therefore overrules the point of order.

Conservation

Sec. 11.4 An amendment proposing an increase of appropriations 
    contained in the bill for the year 1951 for conservation and use of 
    agricultural land resources under the act of Feb. 29, 1936, was 
    held authorized by law inasmuch as the law itself did not provide a 
    limit on the appropriations.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter in the 
general appropriation bill of 1951. The bill stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 5949, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of 
    sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act, approved February 29, 1936, as amended . . . 
    $282,500,000, to remain available until December 31 of the next 
    succeeding fiscal year for compliance with the program of soil-
    building practices and soil- and water-conserving practices 
    authorized under this head in the Department of Agriculture 
    Appropriation Act, 1950, carried out during the period July 1, 
    1949, to December 31, 1950, inclusive: Provided, That not to exceed 
    $25,500,000 of the total sum provided under this head shall be 
    available during the current fiscal year for salaries and other 
    administrative expenses for carrying out such program . . . but not 
    more than $5,000,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
    account, ``Administrative expenses, section 392, Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938'' . . . Provided further, That none of the 
    funds herein appropriated or made available for the functions 
    assigned to the Agricultural Adjustment Agency pursuant to the 
    Executive Order Numbered 9069, of February 23, 1942, shall be used 
    to pay the salaries or expenses of any regional information 
    employees or any State information employees, but this shall not 
    preclude the answering of inquiries or supplying of information at 
    the county level to individual farmers: Provided further, That such 
    amount shall be available for salaries and other administrative 
    expenses in connection with the formulation and administration of 
    the 1951 program of soil-building practices and soil- and water-
    conserving practices, under the Act of February 29, 1936, as 
    amended (amounting to $285,000,000, including administration. . . 
    .)

    An amendment was offered:

[[Page 5438]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George H.] Christopher [of Missouri]: 
    On page 190, line 24, strike out ``$285,000,000'' and insert 
    ``$400,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that this is language that is not 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Christopher: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by rather reliable 
    sources that the authorization is for a $500,000,000 program.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair would invite attention to the fact that this is for the 
    future. Unless there is some limitation of law to which the 
    attention of the Chair has not been called, this amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The burden of proof should have been on the 
proponent of the amendment to show the total amount authorized or the 
absence of any limit.

School Lunch Program

Sec. 11.5 An appropriation to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    carry out the provisions of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 
    was authorized by law; charges that disbursement of funds did not 
    follow requirements of that law did not detract from authorization.

    On Apr. 1, 1947,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2849, a deficiency appropriation bill. A point of 
order against the following amendment was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 2978, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: On 
    page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
        ``For an additional amount, fiscal year 1947, to enable the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the 
    National School Lunch Act of 1946, $6,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not authorized by law.
        The statute which purports to authorize it provides as follows:

            Such payments to any State in any fiscal year during the 
        period 1947 to 1950, inclusive, shall be made upon condition 
        that each dollar thereof will be matched during such year by $1 
        from sources within the State determined by the Secretary to 
        have been expended in connection with the school-lunch program 
        under this act. . . .
            For the purpose of determining whether the matching 
        requirements of this section and section 10, respectively, have 
        been met, the reasonable value of donated services, supplies, 
        facilities, and equipment as certified, respectively, by the 
        State edu

[[Page 5439]]

        cational agency and in case of schools receiving funds pursuant 
        to section 10, by such schools.

        The total appropriation distributed amounts to $72,975,000; the 
    total [amount matched is] $11,470,000.
        There has been complete failure of matching by local 
    authorities within the provisions of the statute. Under the 
    circumstances they have not complied with the law and there is no 
    opportunity for a deficiency here. . . .
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, as the amendment indicates, the 
    appropriation proposed here is to enable the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the National School 
    Lunch Act of 1946. The act speaks for itself. Under the law the 
    question of matching is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture. It is not a matter to be determined by this body. That 
    is a function specifically delegated by the act to the executive in 
    charge of the program--the Secretary of Agriculture. There is no 
    question about the amendment being in order. The sole proposition 
    involved is to carry out the provisions of the act. I submit that 
    the point of order is not well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri is germane to the bill and 
    the appropriation authorized by law; therefore overrules the point 
    of order presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].

Penalty Refunds

Sec. 11.6 A provision for the refund of certain penalties to the wheat 
    producers from whom the penalties were collected was held 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 24, 1945,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2689, an Agriculture Department appropriation. When an 
amendment was offered to a paragraph containing an appropriation for 
programs under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 2713, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William] Lemke [of North Dakota]: 
    Page 49, line 2, after the words ``as amended'' and comma, insert 
    ``$16,000,000 to be made available and earmarked for the refund of 
    the wheat-marketing-quota penalities to the producers, their heirs 
    or assigns, from whom the penalties were collected.''
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order against this amendment. The fact that it is 
    offered in a different place in the bill makes no difference. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is out of order.
        Mr. Lemke: Mr. Chairman, on that I wish to be heard briefly.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lemke: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that this is a 
    limitation on the $300,000,000 appropriated and earmarked for the 
    purpose for which it should be used. In the second place,

[[Page 5440]]

    this tax was collected illegally and unconstitutionally from the 
    producers of wheat, and the Department of Agriculture has that 
    money. I feel that the farmers who paid it are entitled to have it 
    returned.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . Under the 
    authorization the $300,000,000 contained in the bill is for 
    compliance with . . . the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment 
    Act, and under the terms of that act no provisions were made for 
    the refunds embraced in the amendment. Therefore the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Compilation of Consumer Statistics

Sec. 11.7 A section of an appropriation bill providing funds to 
    collect, compile, and analyze data relating to consumer 
    expenditures and savings, and to compile statistics collected by 
    the Department of Agriculture, was conceded not to be authorized by 
    law.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 9073, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 90 Cong. Rec. 
        8940, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 6, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Consumer expenditures and savings study: For all expenses 
        of the Department of Labor necessary to collect, compile, and 
        analyze statistics with respect to the consumer expenditures 
        and savings in predominantly nonrural areas, to publish the 
        results thereof, and to compile statistics collected by the 
        Department of Agriculture in other areas, such expenses to 
        include personal services in the District of Columbia and other 
        items properly chargeable to the appropriations for the 
        Department of Labor for contingent expenses, travel, and 
        printing and binding, fiscal year 1945, $1,532,000, to remain 
        available until June 30, 1946.

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on line 8 and ending 
    in line 18, page 31, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equipment Expenses, Soil Conservation Service

Sec. 11.8 A proviso in the agriculture appropriation bill making 
    certain appropriations in the bill, allocated for work of the Soil 
    Conservation Service, available in part for procurement of 
    equipment for distribution to projects under the super

[[Page 5441]]

    vision of such Service and for sale to other governmental 
    activities, was held to be legislation and to be unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3580, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Soil Conservation Service

            To carry out the provisions of an act entitled ``An act to 
        provide for the protection of land resources against soil 
        erosion, and for other purposes.'' . . . Provided further, That 
        during the fiscal year for which appropriations are herein made 
        the appropriations for the work of the Soil Conservation 
        Service shall be available for meeting the expenses of 
        warehouse maintenance and the procurement, care, and handling 
        of supplies, materials, and equipment stored therein for 
        distribution to projects under the supervision of the Soil 
        Conservation Service and for sale and distribution to other 
        Government activities, the cost of such supplies and materials 
        or the value of such equipment (including the cost of 
        transportation and handling) to be reimbursed to appropriations 
        current at the time additional supplies, materials, or 
        equipment are procured from the appropriations chargeable with 
        the cost or value of such supplies, materials, or equipment: 
        Provided further, That reproductions of such aerial or other 
        photographs, mosaics, and maps as shall be required in 
        connection with the authorized work of the Soil Conservation 
        Service may be furnished at the cost of reproduction to 
        Federal, State, county, or municipal agencies requesting such 
        reproductions, the money received from such sales to be 
        deposited in the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation, 
        as follows:

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language in the paragraph beginning 
    ``Provided further,'' line 12, page 71, and continuing to the end 
    of the paragraph, on the ground that the same is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language referred to is unquestionably out of order and for that 
    reason the point of order undoubtedly will lie, and be sustained. 
    We desire to offer an amendment which will include language that is 
    not out of order to replace the language stricken out by the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Kansas makes 
    the point of order that the language indicated by him beginning on 
    page 71, line 12, and concluding with the words ``as follows'', 
    page 72, line 8, is legislation. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research on Use of Potatoes

Sec. 11.9 An appropriation to permit the Department of Agriculture to 
    investigate and develop methods for the manufacture and utilization 
    of

[[Page 5442]]

    starches from cull potatoes and surplus crops was conceded to be 
    unauthorized and was ruled out.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and an amendment was offered as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 947, 948, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Total, salaries and expenses, Bureau of Agriculture Chemistry 
    and Engineering, $868,775, of which amount not to exceed $457,602 
    may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia, 
    and not to exceed $3,725 shall be available for the purchase of 
    motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles 
    necessary in the conduct of field work outside the District of 
    Columbia.
        Mr. [John G.] Alexander [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: On page 50, line 1, 
        after ``Columbia'', insert ``of which amount not less than 
        $25,000 nor more than $50,000 shall be used for the 
        investigation and development of methods for the manufacturing 
        and utilization of starches from cull potatoes and surplus 
        crops.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    is, of course, subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Missouri makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota, the amendment providing for the investigation and 
    development of methods for the manufacture and utilization of 
    starches. Unless the gentleman from Minnesota can present some 
    authority in law for the appropriation, which has not been called 
    to the attention of the Chair, the Chair is prepared to rule. Does 
    the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authorization in Organic Law

Sec. 11.10 An appropriation for collecting and disseminating 
    information and data with respect to potato production was held 
    authorized by the organic act creating the Department of 
    Agriculture which provided for acquisition and diffusion of 
    information on agriculture.

    On Jan. 23, 1936,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 964, 965, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, which I send to the desk.

[[Page 5443]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Warren: On page 16, after line 5, 
        insert as a new paragraph the following:
            ``For the purpose of collecting and disseminating useful 
        information and data with respect to potato production and 
        marketing within the United States to be available to the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, the sum of $1,000,000 for the fiscal 
        year 1936: Provided, That no part of such fund will be used for 
        the enforcement of the Potato Act of 1935.''

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order on the amendment just offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: The amendment just offered is not germane. The bill 
    under consideration is an appropriation bill which appropriates 
    money to carry out legislation that has already been enacted and 
    which is now in force and effect. This is a distinct effort toward 
    new legislation. It calls for an investigation, based upon no law 
    that is now in existence and is not part and parcel of an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina is not germane to this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule unless the 
    gentleman from Virginia desires to be heard.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: No; Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Warren] is to that part of the bill making 
    appropriations for the Department of Agriculture. This would 
    necessarily relate to the organic law creating the Department of 
    Agriculture. The Chair has examined, in the brief time permitted 
    him, the law establishing the Department of Agriculture. The 
    organic act creating the Department may be found in title V, 
    section 511, United States Code, and contains this provision.

            Establishing of departments. There shall be at the seat of 
        Government a Department of Agriculture, the general design and 
        duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the 
        people of the United States useful information on subjects 
        connected with agriculture, in the most general and 
        comprehensive sense of that word--

        And so forth.
        It occurs to the Chair that the specific language contained in 
    the organic act creating the Department of Agriculture would 
    clearly authorize an appropriation for the purpose sought to be 
    accomplished by the amendment here offered. The pending bill is an 
    appropriation bill, and the part of the bill now under 
    consideration relates to appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture. The Chair therefore feels that the amendment is 
    germane and that the appropriation is authorized by existing law. 
    The Chair overrules the point of order.

Organic Act as Authority for Research and Demonstration Projects

Sec. 11.11 Appropriations for agricultural engineering research, and 
    demonstration and application of methods

[[Page 5444]]

    for prevention and control of dust explosions and fires during the 
    harvesting and storing of agricultural products were held to be 
    authorized by the organic act creating the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 935, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Agricultural engineering investigations: For investigations, 
    experiments, and demonstrations involving the application of 
    engineering principles to agriculture for the investigation, 
    development, experimental demonstration, for investigating and 
    reporting upon the different kinds of farm power and appliances; 
    upon farm domestic water supply and sewage disposal, upon the 
    design and construction of farm buildings and their appurtenances 
    and of buildings for processing and storing farm products; upon 
    farm power and mechanical farm equipment and rural electrification; 
    upon the engineering problems relating to the processing, 
    transportation, and storage of perishable and other agricultural 
    products; and upon the engineering problems involved in adapting 
    physical characteristics of farm land to the use of modern farm 
    machinery; for investigations of cotton ginning under the act 
    approved April 19, 1930 (7 U.S.C., 424, 425); for giving expert 
    advice and assistance in agricultural and chemical engineering; for 
    collating, reporting, and illustrating the results of 
    investigations and preparing, publishing and distributing 
    bulletins, plans, and reports, $294,469.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bulwinkle: On page 48, after line 
        22, after the word ``demonstration'', in line 21, insert ``and 
        application of methods for the prevention and control of dust 
        explosions and fires during the harvesting, handling, milling, 
        processing, fumigating, and storing of agricultural products, 
        and of other dust explosions and resulting fires not otherwise 
        provided for, including fires in grain mills and elevators, 
        cotton gins, cotton-oil mills, and other structures; the 
        heating, charring, and ignition of agricultural products; fires 
        on farms and in rural communities and other explosions and 
        fires in connection with farm and agricultural operations.''

        On page 49, line 13, strike out ``294,469'' and insert 
    $324,469.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina offers an amendment which has 
    been read, and against this amendment the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber] makes the point of order that it is not authorized by 
    law. Title V of the or

[[Page 5445]]

    ganic law establishes the Department of Agriculture, and in section 
    511 is found this language:

            There shall be at the seat of Government a Department of 
        Agriculture the general design and purpose of which shall be to 
        acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States 
        useful information on subjects connected with agriculture.

        Without further reading of the organic law to which the Chair 
    has referred, the Chair is of opinion that the amendment is clearly 
    within the scope of the law.
        The point of order is overruled.

Dutch Elm Disease

Sec. 11.12 An appropriation for control of Dutch elm disease and 
    bestowing certain new discretionary authority on the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to require matching state or local funds was conceded 
    not to be authorized by law and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point, a point of order was raised against a paragraph in the bill and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 3292, 3293, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dutch elm disease eradication: For determining and applying 
    methods of eradication, control, and prevention of spread of the 
    disease of elm trees known as ``Dutch elm disease,'' $100,000: 
    Provided, That, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
    no expenditures from this appropriation shall be made for these 
    purposes until a sum or sums at least equal to such expenditures 
    shall have been appropriated, subscribed, or contributed by State, 
    county, or local authorities, or by individuals, or organizations 
    concerned: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
    shall be used to pay the cost or value of trees or other property 
    injured or destroyed.
        Mr. [Malcom C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order as to the 
    language on pages 56 and 57 of the bill relating to the 
    appropriation for Dutch elm disease eradication on the ground it is 

    not authorized by existing legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Moth Control

Sec. 11.13 An appropriation for gypsy and brown-tail moth control was 
    ruled out as not authorized by law.

[[Page 5446]]

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 3292, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Gypsy and brown-tail moth control: For control and prevention 
    of spread of the gypsy and brown-tail moths, $250,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against lines 
    5, 6, and 7, on page 56, having to do with gypsy and brown-tail 
    moth control on the ground that there is no legislation authorizing 
    this appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Purchase of Vehicles

Sec. 11.14 Language limiting the amount of an appropriation in an 
    Agriculture Department appropriation bill which could be used for 
    necessary vehicles was held authorized by law.

    On Apr. 19, 1938,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10238, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
During consideration of the bill, a point of order against the 
following language was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. !5541-43, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide that the United States shall aid the States in the 
    construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes''. . 
    .$63,000,000, to be immediately available and to remain available 
    until expended . . . Provided further, That not to exceed $45,000 
    of the funds provided for carrying out the provisions of the 
    Federal Highway Act of November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 21, 23), shall 
    be available for the purchase of motor-propelled passenger-carrying 
    vehicles necessary for carrying out the provisions of said act . . 
    . at a cost . . . not to exceed $1,200. . . .
        Mr. [Wilburn] Cartwright [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23, page 70, 
    starting with the words ``Provided further'', and ending on line 7, 
    page 71, with the sign and figures ``$1,200'', that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William L. Nelson (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since last Thursday, when the Chair passed upon a somewhat 
    similar proposition, an opportunity has been afforded to look more 
    fully into the precedents governing such cases. The

[[Page 5447]]

    Chair has examined the precedents which may be found in Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 7, sections 1127, 1193, 1197, 1235, and 1245. 
    The Chair finds that those decisions uniformly hold that an 
    appropriation for the hire or purchase of automobiles is in order 
    on a general appropriation bill. In this connection the Chair 
    desires to call attention to the fact that on February 8, 1929, a 
    point of order was raised against the provision in the naval 
    appropriation bill appropriating money for the hire of automobiles. 
    In overruling the point of order the Chairman, Mr. Luce, of 
    Massachusetts, stated:

            The Chair is of opinion that by an attempt to put into the 
        law minute provision for all possible manner of expenditure the 
        size of the statute books would be largely increased, and that 
        by reason of the impossibility of foresight in matter of detail 
        more harm than good would result. It has been the uniform 
        ruling of preceding Chairmen, so far as the Chair can 
        ascertain, that these minor and incidental objects of 
        expenditures are natural to the conduct of the business 
        establishment concerned.

        The Chair also desires to call attention to the fact that on 
    April 23, 1937, Mr. Taber, of New York, made a point of order 
    against an identical provision in the agriculture appropriation 
    bill authorizing the expenditure of not to exceed $45,000 for the 
    purchase of automobiles by the Bureau of Public Roads and contended 
    that there was no authorization of law for the purchase of 
    automobiles by that Bureau.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri and Mr. Umstead argued that the 
    provision was purely a limitation on an appropriation and that, 
    without it, the Bureau would have authority to spend the entire 
    appropriation for automobiles if they so desired.
        The Chairman, Mr. Hancock of North Carolina, in overruling the 
    point of order stated:

            The Chair overrules the point of order on the ground that 
        the proviso constitutes a limitation, without which the 
        Secretary could spend any amount within the total of the 
        appropriation for this purpose.

        The Chair, in view of the precedents just cited, thinks that 
    the proviso to which the point of order has been directed is in 
    order and overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.

Shelter-belt Trees to Prevent Erosion

Sec. 11.15 An appropriation ``for completing shelter-belt investigation 
    and for the free distribution of shelter-belt trees to farmers'' 
    was held to be authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1936,(7) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 80 Cong. Rec. 2895, 2896, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Forest influences: For investigations at forest experiment 
    stations and elsewhere for determining the possibility of 
    increasing the absorption of rainfall

[[Page 5448]]

    by the soil, and for devising means to be employed in the 
    preservation of soil, the prevention or control of destructive 
    erosion, and the conservation of rainfall on forest or range lands, 
    $99,152. . . .
        Mr. [Phil] Ferguson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Ferguson: Page 48, line 3, after 
        ``$99,15'', strike out the period, insert a comma, and add the 
        following: ``and in addition thereto, $180,000 for completing 
        shelter-belt investigation and for the free distribution of 
        shelter-belt trees to farmers.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation calling for 
    an appropriation not authorized by law. There is no authority in 
    anything I have ever seen to provide for free distribution of trees 
    or for a shelter belt. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Congress in the last session passed an act--Public, No. 
    46--to provide for the protection of land resources against soil 
    erosion, and for other purposes. This act provides that--

            It is hereby recognized that the wastage of soil and 
        moisture resources on farm, grazing, and forest lands of the 
        Nation, resulting from soil erosion, is a menace to the 
        national welfare and that it is hereby declared to be the 
        policy of Congress to provide permanently for the control and 
        prevention of soil erosion and thereby to preserve natural 
        resources, control floods, prevent impairment of reservoirs, 
        and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors, protect 
        public health, public lands, and relieve unemployment, and the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, from now on, shall coordinate and 
        direct all activities with relation to soil erosion, and in 
        order to effectuate this policy is hereby authorized, from time 
        to time--
            (1) To conduct surveys, investigations, and research 
        relating to the character of soil erosion and the preventive 
        measures needed, to publish the results of any such surveys, 
        investigations, or research, to disseminate information 
        concerning such methods, and to conduct demonstrational 
        projects in areas subject to erosion by wind or water.
            (2) To carry out preventive measures, including, but not 
        limited to, engineering operations, methods 
        of cultivation, the growing of vegetation, and changes in use 
        of lands. . . .

        The Chair is of the opinion that this proposed appropriation is 
    authorized by the provision of law just quoted, and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Weather Bureau Buildings; Equipment and Repair

Sec. 11.16 An appropriation for the purchase and installation of 
    instruments, and the construction or repair of buildings of the 
    Weather Bureau was held to be authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1936,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5449]]

ering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 2884, 2885, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General weather service and research: For necessary expenses 
    incident to collecting and disseminating meteorological, 
    climatological, and marine information, and for investigations in 
    meteorology, climatology, seismology, evaporation, and aerology in 
    the District of Columbia and elsewhere . . . $2,228,655. . . .
        Mr. [J. Mark] Wilcox [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wilcox: Page 21, between lines 20 
        and 21, add a new paragraph to read as follows:
            ``In addition to all other sums herein appropriated for 
        that purpose, there is hereby appropriated the sum of $25,000 
        for the purchase and installation of instruments, the 
        construction, extension, and repair of buildings, and payment 
        of wages, salaries, and other expenses incident to the 
        accumulation of information and the issuance of warnings 
        concerning storms and hurricanes originating in the South 
        Atlantic and Caribbean areas.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    statute (U.S.C., title 15, sec. 313) provides, among other things, 
    the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Chief of the Weather Bureau, under the direction of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, shall have charge of the forecasting 
        of the weather . . . the distribution of meteorological 
        information in the interest of agriculture and commerce, the 
        taking of such meteorological observations as may be necessary 
        to establish and record the climatic condition of the United 
        States or as are essential to the proper execution of the 
        foregoing duties . . . and for such purposes to . . . establish 
        meteorological offices and stations.

        The Chair is of opinion that the amendment does not constitute 
    legislation on an appropriation bill but is an appropriation 
    authorized by the provisions of the statute the Chair has quoted.
        The point of order is overruled.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 12. Commerce

Census Bureau Data

Sec. 12.1 The law authorizing the Director of the Bureau of the Census 
    to compile and publish a census of manufacturers, mineral 
    industries, and other businesses was held sufficiently broad to 
    authorize an appropriation for publishing monthly reports on coffee 
    stocks on hand in the United States.

    On May 24, 1955,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6367, a Department of

[[Page 5450]]

Commerce and related agencies appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 101 Cong. Rec. 6912-14, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor Kretzer] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Sullivan: On page 2, line 12, 
        strike out ``$6,200,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``$6,225,000, of which $25,000 shall be for the 
        purpose of gathering and publishing monthly reports of coffee 
        stocks on hand in the United States.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it places additional 
    responsibilities upon the Secretary to publish monthly reports. I 
    find no basic legislation which would authorize this sort of a 
    survey to be made.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentlewoman from 
    Missouri care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Sullivan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Under Public Law 671 of the 80th Congress, it has been 
    authorized that these reports and statistics be made. I had a 
    letter from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
    stating that they are authorized to make this study, but they do 
    not have sufficient funds. I looked this matter up last year when 
    the same thing was before the House.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the point of order. . .
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to close 
    a serious gap in our statistical information involving America's 
    biggest import item--coffee. Everyone knows how we were victimized 
    from late 1953 to mid-1954 and thereafter by a fake shortage of 
    coffee. Hoarding and speculation ran rampant, and the consumer was 
    held up and robbed. Hundreds of millions of dollars were taken out 
    of the pockets of American consumers in tribute to a shortage which 
    never existed. . . . Also in this connection I wish to include as 
    part of my remarks a letter [sent to Mrs. Sullivan by the Director 
    of the Bureau of the Census]:

            Dear Mrs. Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter 
        concerning the Census Bureau and coffee statistics dictated 
        over the phone to my secretary today.
            You ask what the Census Bureau can or will do in regard to 
        collecting statistics on coffee supplies in the United States. 
        The answer in general is that the Census Bureau has the legal 
        authority but lacks the appropriation to conduct a monthly 
        survey on coffee stocks in the hands of importers and roasters. 
        Under the law if the data are gathered more often than once a 
        year the filing of a return is wholly voluntary.
            The cost of compiling a monthly report on coffee stocks in 
        the hands of importers and roasters would be approximately 
        $25,000 to $30,000 per annum. The exact figure would depend 
        largely on the amount of effort which would have to be expended 
        in obtaining returns and in keeping the mailing list up-to-
        date. Incidentally, a quarterly survey would cost approximately 
        $10,000 per annum.
            The only appropriation made to the Census Bureau which 
        could be legally employed to finance a coffee survey would be 
        the item ``salaries and expenses.'' There is currently no 
        provision in this item for a coffee survey. . . .

[[Page 5451]]

            The Bureau will be glad to consider conducting a quarterly 
        coffee stock reporting program in the coming fiscal year 
        provided there is general concurrence amongst the interested 
        agencies of the Government that this is a desirable project in 
        relation to other projects as yet unfinanced, and as indicated 
        above, provided that the continued cooperation of holders of 
        the coffee stocks can be obtained. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri on 
    the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    authorized.
        The gentlewoman from Missouri supports her contention by citing 
    Public Law 671 of the 80th Congress. The Chair has had opportunity 
    to refer to this public law. It states that the Director of the 
    Bureau of the Census is authorized to ``compile and publish 
    censuses of manufacturers, mineral industries, and other 
    businesses.'' The Chair is of opinion that the language of this 
    section is sufficiently broad to cover the proposed amendment, and 
    that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri is in 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sample Surveys of Labor Force

Sec. 12.2 Sample surveys by the Census Bureau to estimate the size and 
    characteristics of the nation's labor force and population were 
    conceded to be unauthorized by law, and a point of order against 
    language providing therefore was upheld.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 2368, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Compiling census reports and so forth: For salaries and 
        expenses necessary for securing information for and compiling 
        and publishing the census reports provided for by law, the 
        collection, compilation and periodic publication of statistics 
        showing United States exports and imports, (and for sample 
        surveys throughout the United States for the purpose of 
        estimating the size and characteristics of the Nation's labor 
        force and population, including personal services at the seat 
        of government. . . .)

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 56, beginning with the words 
    ``and for'' in line 12, continuing through lines 13, 14, and 15, 
    and so much of line 16 up to and including the word ``Government'' 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    There is no authority in law for it.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigations by Tariff Commission

Sec. 12.3 The proponent of an amendment to provide funds

[[Page 5452]]

    for the Commission on Tariffs to make investigations abroad ``to 
    determine the wage levels, cost of production and working 
    conditions on articles imported to assist the committee in 
    processing claims for injury by domestic producers,'' having the 
    burden of showing authority for the appropriation, could cite no 
    authorization therefor, and the amendment was held not to be in 
    order. At a later time, the proponent cited the proper 
    authorization and the amendment was considered by unanimous 
    consent.

    On May 7, 1957,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7221), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 103 Cong. Rec. 6430, 6431, 6446, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey: Page 4, line 5, strike out 
        ``$25,000'' and insert ``$50,000. Of this amount the sum of 
        $25,000 is to be used to make necessary investigations abroad 
        to determine the wage levels, costs of production and working 
        conditions on articles imported from abroad to assist the 
        Commission in processing claims for injury by domestic 
        producers under section 7 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements 
        Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground that there is 
    no authority for the Tariff Commission to make an investigation 
    abroad into the working conditions under which foreign commodities 
    are produced.
        The Chairman: (16) will the gentleman from West 
    Virginia cite to the Chair the authority for the Commission to make 
    an investigation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, the original item of $25,000 in the 
    proposal before us now covers not only the payment of salaries but 
    covers the payment of expenses, and I say this would be an expense 
    on the Tariff Commission and, therefore, it is germane to the 
    statement in the appropriations.
        The Chairman: The Chair was inquiring as to the authority of 
    the Commission to make the investigation that the amendment 
    contemplates.
        Mr. Bailey: They have the authority to make investigations. 
    They have no money to make it. I was trying to give them some 
    money.
        The Chairman: Do they have authority to make investigations 
    abroad?
        Mr. Bailey: Well, why not?
        The Chairman: The Chair is asking the question of the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Bailey: I could not advise the Chairman to that effect. 
    But, I do not see why they should be limited to this country 
    because apparently nobody else is. If somebody wants some 
    information, they go abroad and get it. I

[[Page 5453]]

    think the Tariff Commission should be afforded the same 
    opportunity. Members of the Congress, if you want to sit idly by 
    and see the major part of your small American industry, which is 
    the backbone of our country, driven out of business, you just 
    ignore a proposition like this.
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that there is no authority 
    cited for the Commission to make the investigations contemplated in 
    the amendment, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After the reading of the bill for 
amendment, but prior to the rising of the Committee of the Whole, the 
proponent of the amendment found authority in law for the proposed 
investigations and, by unanimous consent, the amendment was reoffered 
and considered. Mr. Bailey stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I think I owe it to my colleagues in the House to 
    make clear to them that the Tariff Commission does have authority 
    to make investigations abroad and I shall take a part of the time 
    allotted to me in support of this amendment to read section 704 of 
    the basic Tariff Act of 1916. It reads as follows:

            That the commission shall have power to investigate the 
        tariff relations between the United States and foreign 
        countries, commercial treaties, preferential provisions, 
        economic alliances, the effect of export bounties and 
        preferential transportation rates, the volume of importations 
        compared with domestic production and consumption, and 
        conditions, causes, and effects relating to competition of 
        foreign industries with those of the United States, including 
        dumping and cost of production.

        So it is clearly evident that the Tariff Commission does have 
    authority to make these investigations abroad.

Scientific and Technological Aid for Business

Sec. 12.4 Language in a Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and 
    the Judiciary appropriation bill providing appropriations ``for 
    necessary expenses in the performance of activities and services 
    relating to technological development as an aid to business in the 
    development of foreign and domestic commerce'' was conceded to be 
    unauthorized by law.

    On May 14, 1947,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3311. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 5303, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Technical and scientific services: For necessary expenses in 
    the performance of activities and services relating to 
    technological development as an aid to business in the development 
    of foreign and domestic commerce, including all the objects for 
    which the appropriation ``Salaries and expenses, office of the 
    Secretary,'' is available (not to exceed

[[Page 5454]]

    $25,000), for services as authorized by section 15 of the act of 
    August 2, 1946 (Public Law 600), and not to exceed $60,000 for 
    printing and binding, $1,700,000, of which not to exceed $500,000 
    may be transferred to the National Bureau of Standards for testing 
    and other scientific studies.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make a point of order against the language on lines 3 to 
    14, inclusive, on page 42 that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The point of order is conceded, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Officials' Expenses

Sec. 12.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing for maintenance 
    and operation of air navigation facilities, appropriating ``not to 
    exceed 3 cents per mile for travel in privately owned automobiles 
    within the limits of their official posts of duty, of employees 
    engaged in the maintenance and operation of remotely controlled 
    air-navigation facilities,'' was ruled out as unauthorized when the 
    manager of the bill conceded the point of order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 2371, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Maintenance and operation of air-navigation facilities: For 
    necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of air-navigation 
    facilities and air-traffic control, including personal services in 
    the District of Columbia and elsewhere; purchase (not to exceed 
    15), hire, maintenance, repair, and operation of passenger-carrying 
    automobiles; and not to exceed 3 cents per mile for travel, in 
    privately owned automobiles within the limits of their official 
    posts of duty, of employees engaged in the maintenance and 
    operation of remotely controlled air-navigation facilities; 
    $24,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language beginning with the words ``and 
    not'', appearing on page 58, line 25, down to and including the 
    word ``facilities'' on page 59, line 4, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (20) the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earmarking for ``Attendance at Meetings''

Sec. 12.6 An appropriation, for the office of the Secretary of

[[Page 5455]]

    Commerce, for expenses of attendance at meetings of organizations 
    concerned with the work of the office of the Secretary is 
    authorized by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, an appropriation bill for the Federal Loan 
Agency and the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 2367, 2368, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the office 
    of the Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this title referred to 
    as the Secretary) including personal services in the District of 
    Columbia . . . not exceeding $2,000 for expenses of attendance at 
    meetings of organizations concerned with the work of the office of 
    the Secretary; $570,000. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    covered by title V, section 83. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, section 83 of 
    title V is a restriction upon the use of funds carried in an 
    appropriation bill. It is not in any sense an authority to the 
    Appropriations Committee to make any appropriation. It simply says 
    that none of the funds that are appropriated for any purpose shall 
    be used for attendance at meetings unless there is specific 
    appropriation for that purpose. It in no way and in no manner 
    attempts or does authorize any appropriation to be made for the 
    purpose of attendance at meetings. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the language referred to by 
    the gentleman from New York, which the Chair desires to read for 
    the information of the committee, permits the appropriation 
    contained in the language objected to by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        The Chair will read the language:

            No money appropriated by any act shall be expended for 
        membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the 
        United States or of the District of Columbia in any society or 
        association or for expenses of attendance by any person at any 
        meeting or convention of members of any society or association 
        unless such fees or expenses are authorized to be paid by 
        specific appropriation for such purposes or are provided for in 
        express terms in some general appropriation.

        The Chair will rule, unless the gentleman from New York desires 
    to be heard further.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the language 
    the Chair has read is prohibitive language, designed to prevent the 
    use of general funds for the purpose of attendance at meetings.
        It does not in any way authorize appropriations to be made, and 
    they can only be made as the result of language which is specific 
    for that purpose. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that language does 
    not in any way authorize anything to be done.

[[Page 5456]]

        The Chairman: The Chair must hold, however, that the language 
    referred to in the latter part of the sentence clearly permits the 
    Committee on Appropriations to specifically, in express language, 
    appropriate for attendance at meetings of organizations as carried 
    in the bill on page 54, lines 19, 20, and 21, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from New York.

Civilian Conservation Corps; Liquidation Expenses of

Sec. 12.7 The House having refused to appropriate funds for the 
    continuance of the Civilian Conservation Corps, an amendment making 
    an appropriation for the liquidation of the Civilian Conservation 
    Corps was held authorized.

    On June 5, 1942,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7181, a Labor Department and federal security 
appropriation. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 4940, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: On 
    page 18, line 1, after the title ``Civilian Conservation Corps'', 
    insert ``For all necessary expenses to provide for the liquidation 
    of the Civilian Conservation Corps as authorized under the 
    provisions of the act of June 28, 1937, as amended (16 U.S.C. ch. 
    3A), including personal service in the District of Columbia and 
    elsewhere; the conservation and disposition of all of the property 
    of whatever type in use by said Civilian Conservation Corps, 
    including camp buildings, accessories, equipment, and machinery of 
    all types, and for such travel and other necessary expenses as may 
    be incurred in connection with the conservation and liquidation of 
    said Civilian Conservation Corps, $500,000.''
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that there is no authority in law for the liquidation of the 
    Civilian Conservation Corps.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Authorization Not Yet Signed into Law

Sec. 12.8 Funds in a general appropriation bill for expenses of the 
    National Fire Prevention and Control Administration were conceded 
    to be unauthorized by law for fiscal 1979 and were ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5457]]

Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary 
appropriation bill (H.R. 12934), a point of order was raised and 
sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 17626, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

              National Fire Prevention and Control Administration

                   operations, research, and administrations

            For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 
        $15,660,000, to remain available until expended.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    basis of clause 2, rule XXI, I make the point of order that this is 
    an unauthorized appropriation, and has not been authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from West 
    Virginia (Mr. Slack) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Slack: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
        The paragraph is stricken from the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time this appropriation bill was 
considered, both Houses had passed the annual authorization bill for 
fiscal 1979 but it was not signed into law until Oct. 5, 1978 (Public 
Law No. 95-422).

Sec. 12.9 Funds for necessary expenses of the National Bureau of 
    Standards (including amounts for the standard reference data 
    program) in a general appropriation bill were conceded to be 
    unauthorized by law for fiscal 1979 and were ruled out in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and the Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 12934), a point of order was 
sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 17626, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Science and Technical Research

                 scientific and technical research and services

            For necessary expenses of the National Bureau of Standards 
        including the acquisition of buildings, grounds, and other 
        facilities; and the National Technical Information Service; 
        $82,780,000, to remain available until expended, of which not 
        to exceed $3,300,000 may be transferred to the ``Working 
        Capital Fund'', National Bureau of Standards, for additional 
        capital.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    basis of clause 2, rule XXI, I make a point of order that this is 
    an unauthorized ap

[[Page 5458]]

    propriation and has not been authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from West 
    Virginia care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time this appropriation bill was 
considered in the House, both Houses had passed a three-year 
authorization bill for the standard reference data program in the 
Bureau of Standards, but it was not signed into law until July 21, 1978 
(Public Law No. 95-322).

Sec. 12.10 Pursuant to law (15 USC Sec. 57c) for fiscal years ending 
    after 1977, there may be appropriated to carry out the functions of 
    the Federal Trade Commission only such sums as the Congress may 
    thereafter authorize by law (thus requiring specific subsequently 
    enacted authorizations for the operations of the Commission and not 
    permitting appropriations under Rule XXI clause 2 to be authorized 
    by the ``organic statute'' creating the Commission); appropriations 
    for the functions of the Federal Trade Commission for fiscal 1979 
    were conceded not to be authorized by law and were ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12934 (Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriation for fiscal 1979), a point of 
order was sustained against the following provision in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 17629, 17630, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
        including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
        U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
        of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $1,500 for 
        official reception and representation expenses; $63,600,000. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against page 42, lines 1 through 20, based on rule 
    XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the House. Mr. Chairman, there is 
    currently no authorization for the Federal Trade Commission, and as 
    such the language in this bill providing for the Federal Trade 
    Commission is not in order.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (10) The point of order is conceded, 
    sustained, and the paragraph is stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5459]]

Sec. 12.11 Pursuant to law (19 USC Sec. 1330(e)), appropriations for 
    the International Trade Commission must be specifically authorized 
    by laws enacted after 1975; funds in a general appropriation bill 
    for the International Trade Commission were conceded to be 
    unauthorized by law for fiscal 1979 and were ruled out in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 12934 
(Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary 
appropriation for fiscal 1979), a point of order was sustained against 
the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 17630, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the International Trade Commission, 
    including hire of passenger motor vehicles and services as 
    authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $12,800,000.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    basis of rule XXI, clause 2, I make a point of order that this is 
    an unauthorized appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The point of order is conceded, 
    sustained, and the paragraph is stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 13. Defense and Veterans

Veterans' Administration

Sec. 13.1 Language in a general appropriation bill including funds for 
    Veterans' Administration operating expenses, providing expenses for 
    the issuance of memorial certificates to families of deceased 
    veterans, was conceded to be unauthorized by law.

    On May 11, 1965,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriations bill 
(H.R. 7997), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 10166, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         The Clerk read as follows:

                            Veterans Administration

                           General operating expenses

            For necessary operating expenses of the Veterans 
        Administration, not otherwise provided for, including expenses 
        incidental to securing employment for [and recognition of war 
        veterans;] uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
        law; not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses; purchase of one passenger motor 
        vehicle (medium sedan for replacement only) at not to exceed 
        $3,000; and reimbursement of the General Services 
        Administration for security guard services; $157,000,000: 
        Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
        pay in excess of

[[Page 5460]]

        twenty-two persons engaged in public relations work. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language on page 39, commencing in line 18 
    with the words ``and recognition of war veterans'' on the basis 
    that it is legislating in an appropriation bill and not authorized.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Thomas] wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Does the gentleman wish that the words 
    ``war veterans'' go with it? If the gentleman does, the gentleman's 
    point of order is good, if the gentleman insists upon it. I hope 
    the gentleman does not. The gentleman knows what the program is. It 
    is not too expensive. It is a recognition to which certainly any 
    deceased veteran's family is entitled. But if my distinguished 
    friend insists upon it, we have to admit the point of order is 
    good, because it is.
        Mr. Dole: I will say to the gentleman that I shall insist upon 
    the point of order. There is legislation pending now and the 
    projected cost of this little program is $4.2 million. On that 
    basis, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman makes a point of order against the 
    language on line 18 and the point of order is good and the Chair 
    sustains it.

Committee on Fair Employment Practice

Sec. 13.2 An amendment to a war agencies appropriation bill making an 
    appropriation for the Fair Employment Practice Committee was held 
    unauthorized by law.

    On June 8, 1945,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3368, a war agencies appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 5831, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Marcantonio: Page 35, after line 24, 
    insert the following new paragraph:
        ``Fair Employment Practice Committee: For all necessary 
    salaries and expenses, $599,000.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, it is not in order on this bill, it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and it is not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is well taken. It is . . . not 
    authorized by law. The point of order is sustained.

Foreign Military Assistance

Sec. 13.3 Appropriations to enable the President, through such 
    departments or agencies of the government as he might designate, 
    further to carry out the provisions of the act

[[Page 5461]]

    of Mar. 11, 1941, to promote the defense of the United States, were 
    held authorized by the act cited and were not a conferral of new 
    authority on the President.

    On Dec. 5, 1941,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6159, a supplemental appropriation for national 
defense. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 9482, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Title III--Defense Aid

        Sec. 301. To enable the President, through such departments or 
    agencies of the Government as he may designate, further to carry 
    out the provisions of an act to promote the defense of the United 
    States, approved March 11, 1941, and for each and every purpose 
    incident to or necessary therefor, the following sums for the 
    following respective purposes, namely:
        (a) For the procurement, by manufacture or otherwise, of 
    defense articles, information, and services for the government of 
    any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense 
    of the United States, and the disposition thereof, including all 
    necessary expenses in connection therewith, as follows:
        (1) Ordnance and ordnance stores, supplies, spare parts, and 
    materials, including armor and ammunition and components thereof, 
    $830,507,246. . . .

        (6) Facilities and equipment for the manufacture, production, 
    or operation of defense articles and for otherwise carrying out the 
    purposes of the act of March 11, 1941, including the acquisition of 
    land, and the maintenance and operation of such facilities and 
    equipment, $125,000,000. . . .
        (c) Each of the foregoing appropriations shall be additional 
    to, and consolidated with, the appropriations for the same purposes 
    contained in section 1 (a) of the Defense Aid Supplemental 
    Appropriation Act, 1941, and section 101 (a) of the Defense Aid 
    Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1942, and the proviso in section 
    101 (f) of such latter act shall be applicable to such consolidated 
    appropriations.
        Sec. 302. Any defense article procured pursuant to this title 
    shall be retained by or transferred to and for the use of such 
    department or agency of the United States as the President may 
    determine, in lieu of being disposed of to a foreign government, 
    whenever in the judgment of the President the defense of the United 
    States will be best served thereby. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against title III that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (18) Will the gentleman point out for 
    the benefit of the Chair what there is in the title that is 
    legislation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: It reads as follows:

            To enable the President, through such departments or 
        agencies of the Government as he may designate, further to 
        carry out the provisions of an act to promote the defense of 
        the United States.

        It gives the President of the United States power here.

[[Page 5462]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from 
    Missouri on the point of order.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, that is merely 
    a repetition of what is in the act of March 11, 1941, which fully 
    authorizes every item in the title with the exception of section 
    302, and that paragraph is no longer subject to a point of order 
    because consent has been given to consider it and allow amendments 
    to be offered to it. Section 3 of Public Law No. 11 of the Seventy-
    seventh Congress provides in full for the authorizations necessary 
    to the consideration of this title.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the act of March 11, 1941, 
    which authorizes the appropriations contained in this title, and 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

 Travel and Other Expenses Incidental to Authorized Program

Sec. 13.4 An appropriation for travel by privately owned automobiles 
    and per diem expenses of personnel of the Office of Contract 
    Settlement, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion was held 
    authorized by a general provision in the law establishing that 
    office.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5587, a supplemental appropriation bill. A point of 
order was raised against the following provision in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 8939, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      office of war mobilization and reconversion, office of contract 
                                 settlement

        For all necessary expenses, fiscal year 1945, of the Office of 
    Contract Settlement established by the Contract Settlement Act of 
    1944, including fees and expenses of witnesses; travel expenses, 
    including (1) expenses of attendance at meetings of organizations 
    concerned with the work of said office, (2) actual transportation 
    and other necessary expenses and not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu 
    of subsistence of persons serving while away from their permanent 
    homes or regular places of business in an advisory capacity to or 
    employed by the Office of Contract Settlement without other 
    compensation from the United States, or at $1 per annum, and (3) 
    upon the approval of the Director of Contract Settlement, expenses 
    to and from their homes or regular places of business in accordance 
    with the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, including 
    travel in privately owned automobiles (and including per diem in 
    lieu of subsistence at place of employment), of persons employed 
    intermittently away from their homes or regular places of business 
    as consultants and receiving compensation on a per diem when 
    actually employed basis. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on page 5, line 17, 
    and running down to and including line 17 on page

[[Page 5463]]

    6, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this provision 
    is in order under the new law, that has just been enacted at this 
    session of Congress, the Office of Contract Settlement law, Public 
    Law No. 395, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the language on page 6 beginning with ``(3).'' That is legislation.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: These are merely expenses incidental to 
    the conduct of any office authorized by law, Mr. Chairman, and 
    unquestionably are in order on the bill as proposed. The law itself 
    imposed no restrictions whatever. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair refers to lines 7 to 
    12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, that is with respect to 
    travel. This is in the nature of a limitation, referring to the 
    limitation set by the standardized Government travel regulations. 
    If that was not included here, there would be no limitation. It 
    could not be subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman maintain that it is an 
    authorization for travel in privately owned automobiles?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this merely provides in 
    the usual way, as in all the departments, the authority to carry 
    out the law as enacted in Public Law No. 395. I do not see how it 
    could be construed in any other way. It is the method and the means 
    ordinarily provided in all the departments for carrying out 
    legislation of this character.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Missouri, referring to 
    line 23, on page 5, state whether there is any authority in law for 
    payment of $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence of persons serving 
    while away from their permanent homes?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, when a law is enacted by 
    Congress, the authorization provides for the administration of that 
    law, both as to its spirit and its letter. The authorization here 
    involves and includes all the methods ordinarily used by the 
    departments in the administration of such laws. It would be 
    inconsistent to enact a law and then hold there is no authorization 
    to administer it.
        These are not extraordinary provisions. These are ordinary 
    provisions under which all laws of this character are enforced. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair wishes to call to the attention of the 
    gentleman from Michigan section 22, ``Use of appropriated funds,'' 
    item (b) of the Contract Settlement Act:

            To use any such funds appropriated, allocated, or available 
        to it for expenditures for or in behalf of any other 
        contracting agency for the purposes authorized in this act.

        Therefore the Chairman overrules the point of order.

Construction and Improvement of Barracks

Sec. 13.5 An appropriation for the construction and improvement of 
    barracks for enlisted men and quarters for noncommissioned officers 
    of the

[[Page 5464]]

    Army was held not authorized by law.

    On Feb. 13, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11035, a War Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against an amendment to the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 1983, 1984, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the equipment and conduct of school, reading, lunch, and 
    amusement rooms, service clubs, chapels, gymnasiums, and libraries, 
    including periodicals and other publications and subscriptions for 
    newspapers, salaries of civilians employed in the hostess and 
    library services, transportation of books and equipment for these 
    services, rental of films, purchase of slides for and making 
    repairs to moving-picture outfits, and for similar and other 
    recreational purposes at training and mobilization camps now 
    established or which may be hereafter established, $34,940.
        Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Culkin: After the period in line 
        24, page 9, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``For the construction or betterments of barracks for 
        enlisted men and quarters for noncommissioned officers, staff 
        or otherwise, the sum of $50,000,000, to be allocated by the 
        Quartermaster General in the manner heretofore authorized by 
        Congress.

        Mr. [Tilman B.] Parks [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by 
    law and therefore is not in order, and, in addition, it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York is for the 
    construction or betterment of barracks for enlisted men and 
    quarters for noncommissioned officers, staff or otherwise, the sum 
    of $50,000,000, to be allocated by the Quartermaster General in the 
    manner heretofore authorized by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has been unable to find any law authorizing this 
    appropriation, and the Chair thinks no authorization has been made 
    to include the sum of $50,000,000, and no legislation has been had 
    authorizing the disbursement of the money by the Quartermaster 
    General, and therefore sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Culkin: Mr. Chairman, I defer to the Chair's ruling, but 
    may I later present it if I find such legislation? I now offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Culkin: Page 9, after line 24, insert the 
        following: ``For the construction or betterment of barracks for 
        enlisted men and quarters for noncommissioned officers, staff 
        or otherwise, the sum of $50,000,000.''

        Mr. Parks: Mr. Chairman, I make the same point of order stated 
    a moment ago.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York proposes to appropriate $50,000,000 for the 
    construc

[[Page 5465]]

    tion or betterment of barracks for enlisted men, and so forth, as 
    the other amendment provided. In the law regarding the construction 
    or improvements of barracks, the Chair finds the following language 
    in title 10, section 1339, of the United States Code:

            Permanent barracks or quarters and buildings and structures 
        of a permanent nature shall not be constructed unless detailed 
        estimates shall have been previously submitted to Congress, and 
        approved by a special appropriation for the same, except when 
        constructed by the troops; and no such structures, the cost of 
        which shall exceed $20,000, shall be erected unless by special 
        authority of Congress.

        That special authority the Chair thinks has not been granted 
    and, therefore, sustains the point of order, because it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair evidently construed the cited 
provision in title 10 to require, for structures over $20,000, a 
separate authorization in law. For structures under that amount, 
approval by a special appropriation would have been adequate.

Substituting Conventional for Nuclear Naval Vessel; Both Unauthorized

Sec. 13.6 For an item in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for a nuclear aircraft carrier program, against which points of 
    order had been waived for failure of the authorization bill to be 
    enacted into law, a substitute amendment striking out those funds 
    and inserting unauthorized funds for a conventional-powered 
    aircraft carrier program was ruled out under Rule XXI clause 2, as 
    unprotected by the waiver against the bill.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(3) the Chair ruled that, an 
unauthorized item in a general appropriation bill being permitted to 
remain by a special rule waiving points of order, figures in such item 
may be perfected but the provision may not be changed by an amendment 
substituting funds for a different and specified unauthorized purpose. 
The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 3.45, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 24710-12, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 14. District of Columbia

Office of Corporation Counsel

Sec. 14.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill for the District 
    of Columbia permitting the use of funds in the bill by the Office 
    of the Corporation Counsel to retain professional experts at rates 
    fixed by the commissioner

[[Page 5466]]

    was conceded to be legislation and was ruled out in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 18, 1973,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8685), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 11, lines 5 through 
    10, as not being a limitation upon an appropriation bill, and not 
    authorized.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 5. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and shall be available 
        to the Office of the Corporation Counsel to retain the services 
        of consultants including physicians, diagnosticians, 
        therapists, engineers, and meteorologists at rates to be fixed 
        by the Commissioner.

        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Gross)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to say to the members of the Committee that this is a new 
    provision that is carried in the bill at this time. This was sent 
    up from downtown. We at this time, Mr. Chairman, concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade

Sec. 14.2 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for aid in 
    support of the Greater National Capital Committee of the 
    Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade was not authorized by law.

    On July 12, 1961,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8072), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 12404, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           General Operating Expenses

            General operating expenses, plus so much as may be 
        necessary to compensate the Engineer Commissioner at a rate 
        equal to each civilian member of the Board of Commissioners of 
        the District of Columbia, hereafter in this Act referred to as 
        the Commissioners; aid in the support of the Greater National 
        Capital Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Board of 
        Trade; $15,356,600. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 3, line 16, ``aid in the support 
    of the Greater National Capital Committee of the Metropolitan Board 
    of Trade.'' I make

[[Page 5467]]

    the point of order that the language is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan concedes the point of 
    order and the Chair sustains the point of order.

American Legion Convention Expenses

Sec. 14.3 To the District of Columbia appropriation bill, an amendment 
    making funds available for expenditure by the American Legion in 
    connection with its national convention was held not to be 
    authorized by law.

    On June 14, 1954,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9517. A point of order was raised against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 8190, 8191, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell. On page 4, line 1, strike out 
    ``$258,215'' and insert ``$283,215 of which $25,000 shall be 
    available for expenditure by the American Legion Convention 1954 
    Corporation in connection with the 1954 National Convention of the 
    American Legion, subject to reimbursement from the American Legion 
    if receipts exceed expenses.''
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment inasmuch as the proposed 
    expenditure is not authorized by law and that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to make 
    inquiry of the gentleman from Arkansas if he can furnish the Chair 
    with an authorization covering the language in his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I frankly 
    say there is no authorization in law covering this item. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Upon the statement of the gentleman from Arkansas just made to 
    the Chair that there is no authorization for the amendment, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Schools

Sec. 14.4 An appropriation for public schools in the District of 
    Columbia was held not subject to the point of order that it was 
    without authorization, where the point of order was based on the 
    contention that funds were not authorized for segregated schools.

    On Mar. 2, 1949,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5468]]

ering H.R. 3082, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 1741, 1742, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 8, concerning 
    all appropriations for public schools, on the general ground that 
    there is no authorization. To be more specific, I mean the 
    following:
        The public schools in the District of Columbia are segregated 
    schools. Nowhere in the law is there any authorization for 
    appropriations for general administration, supervision, operation 
    of, and instruction in segregated schools. Since this section of 
    the bill makes appropriations for segregated schools, and since 
    there is no authorization in the law for segregated schools, I 
    submit that this is an appropriation without authorization and 
    these appropriations for segregated schools are not in order.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of [Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I cannot find 
    anything in this bill which provides that segregation must be 
    practiced in the District of Columbia. As a matter of fact, I look 
    on that as an administrative matter which is handled by the 
    superintendent of schools in the District of Columbia. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the appropriations provided in this section of the 
    bill are appropriations which are authorized by law; and since, in 
    the language of the bill before us, there is no reference to the 
    basis upon which the gentleman from New York has predicated his 
    point of order, the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

School Playgrounds

Sec. 14.5 An appropriation for expenses of keeping school playgrounds 
    open during the summer months was held authorized by law, and in 
    order.

     On Jan. 31, 1938,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point Chairman William J. Driver, of Arkansas, ruled on a 
point of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 1316, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. On page 26, beginning 
    on line 1, the following language appears in the pending bill:

            For the maintenance and contingent expenses of keeping open 
        during the summer months the public-school playgrounds; for 
        special and temporary services, directors, assistants, and 
        janitor service during the summer vacation, and, in the larger 
        yards, daily after school hours during the school term, 
        $25,000.

        To this paragraph the gentleman from Maryland addresses a point 
    of order upon the ground that there is no authority under the law 
    justifying the

[[Page 5469]]

    appropriation, and that it is an effort to change by law the 
    jurisdiction of the agency in charge of the particular activities 
    dealt with under this paragraph. The Chair must confess that he is 
    unable to find in this language any change whatever in the 
    jurisdiction over the property of the school institutions of the 
    District and the Chair must necessarily presume that any money 
    appropriated will go into the regular channels the law directs it 
    should follow and be expended by the agency charged under the law 
    with jurisdiction over these grounds. The Chair, therefore, is 
    compelled to reach the conclusion that the point of order is not 
    well taken, and it is therefore overruled.
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] also stresses the point 
    of order that is directed to the matter contained in the point 
    raised by the gentleman from Maryland, with this further point, 
    that there is no specific law authorizing an appropriation with 
    respect to the maintenance of the school grounds during the 
    vacation period. The Chair is compelled to reach the conclusion 
    that when jurisdiction is placed for the operation of these 
    institutions, necessarily the agency that is created and given 
    control over the institution continues it at all seasons of the 
    year and therefore the language that authorizes these institutions 
    necessarily is broad enough to cover every activity that the 
    language in this particular paragraph here indicates as the purpose 
    of the appropriation. Again, the Chair is compelled to overrule the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.

Claims of Prison Employees

Sec. 14.6 An amendment to the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing for refunds to certain individuals for meals not taken by 
    employees of a penal institution was held to be unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 3226, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Virginia: On page 31, line 
    22, after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``Refunding erroneous deductions: To enable the Commissioners 
    in cases where deductions were made for meals not taken by 
    employees in the penal institutions, Lorton, Va., and has been 
    covered into the Treasury for personal services: Provided, That 
    this appropriation shall be available for refunding to employees 
    such deductions made from salaries for meals not taken as follows, 
    not to exceed $1,040:
        ``Hospital Supervisor T. T. Grimsley, from November 1, 1938, 
    through April 30, 1945, at rate of $80 per annum, $560.
        ``Special Disbursing Agent Kenneth Dove, from July 1, 1939, 
    through June 30, 1945, at rate of $80 per annum, $480.'' . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is

[[Page 5470]]

    out of order because it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It 
    has to do with claims with reference to employees in a certain 
    institution operated by the District government and should properly 
    come from the Committee on Claims. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It would appear from the information already given to the 
    Committee by both the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman 
    from Washington that the authorization is nonexistent. Under those 
    circumstances it would seem the advisable course would be to file a 
    claim for this money to be refunded.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Street Lighting

Sec. 14.7 An appropriation for street lighting installation and 
    maintenance of public lamps and lampposts, out of the special fund 
    created by the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held in 
    order inasmuch as that act authorized appropriations for 
    improvement and maintenance of public highways and protective 
    structures in connection therewith.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point Chairman William J. Driver, of Arkansas, made the 
following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1375, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] offers an 
    amendment in the following language:

            Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and 
        maintenance of public lamps, lampposts, street designations, 
        lanterns, and fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, 
        alleys, and for all necessary expenses in connection therewith, 
        including rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, 
        maintenance, and repair of motor trucks, this sum to be 
        expended in accordance with the provisions of existing law: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        the payment of rates for electric street lighting in excess of 
        those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 1927, and 
        payment for electric current for new forms of street lighting 
        shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current 
        consumed.

        To this amendment the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] 
    directs a point of order on the ground it is not an appropriation 
    authorized under existing law. It, therefore, becomes necessary for 
    the Chair to look for authority in existing law to justify the 
    amendment.
        The law authorizing appropriation out of the gas-tax fund and 
    setting forth the purposes for which appropriations may be made is 
    found in volume 50, Part I, United States Statutes at Large, at 
    page 677, and is as follows:

            For the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and 
        maintenance

[[Page 5471]]

        of public highways, including the necessary administrative 
        expenses in connection therewith;
            (2) For the expenses of the office of the Director of 
        Vehicles and Traffic incident to the regulation and control of 
        traffic and the administration of the same, and
            (3) For the expenses necessarily involved in police 
        control, regulation, and administration of traffic upon the 
        highways. . . .

        The very language employed with respect to street lighting 
    necessarily leads us to the conclusion that street lighting is 
    regarded as an essential feature necessary in order to establish 
    such safeguards as would maintain these avenues and streets for the 
    benefit, the convenience, and the facility of the people using the 
    same.
        The language in the section of the law which the Chair read 
    that imposes a duty and responsibility upon the police force in 
    connection with these highways necessarily pre-supposes that 
    lighting is one of the necessary and essential features to the 
    safety element in the use of the streets and, therefore, is an 
    incident to and is necessarily included in the item of expense for 
    streets, street improvement, and maintenance.
        However, the Chair may say to the Committee that he is saved 
    considerable trouble and the necessity of dealing thoroughly with 
    this subject from the standpoint of reasoning by one of the 
    precedents of the House. A similar question to the one now under 
    consideration was raised during consideration of a District 
    appropriation bill in the first session of the Seventy-fifth 
    Congress, at which time the very distinguished gentleman from 
    Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] was Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union having under consideration that 
    measure. In a very sound opinion, which will be found on page 3111 
    of the Congressional Record of April 2, 1937, I find this language 
    was used by the then Chairman of the Committee:

            The Chair has pointed out in ruling on a previous point of 
        order that the so-called Gasoline Tax Act provides--
            ``That the proceeds of the tax, except as provided in 
        section 840 of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of 
        the United States entirely to the credit of the District of 
        Columbia and shall be available for appropriation by the 
        Congress exclusively for road and street improvement and 
        repair.''. . .
            The word ``improvement,'' defined to mean ``betterment,'' 
        makes the word broad and general enough to include all of the 
        various activities mentioned in this amendment. They are, 
        therefore, authorized by existing law. For this reason the 
        Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
        Mississippi is in order.
            The point of order is overruled.

        The Chair feels that the decision as made by the Chairman of 
    the Committee then . . . should be followed in construing the 
    present law.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the provision of law 
    pertaining to appropriations from the gas-tax fund is sufficiently 
    broad to authorize appropriations for the purposes set out in the 
    amendment and therefore overrules the point of order.

Airport Lighting

Sec. 14.8 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation

[[Page 5472]]

    bill appropriating for street lighting for ``public spaces'' and 
    ``part cost of maintenance of airport and airway lights necessary 
    for operation of the air mail'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point, a point of order was raised against the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and maintenance of 
    public lamps, lampposts, street designations, lanterns, and 
    fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, alleys, and 
    public spaces, part cost of maintenance of airport and airway 
    lights necessary for operation of the air mail, and for all 
    necessary expenses in connection therewith . . . $765,000. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order was directed at the paragraph beginning on page 68, line 21, 
    down to and inclusive of line 19 on page 69, for the reason that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, contrary to existing law, 
    and not authorized by law.

        In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I shall not argue this 
    point of order at great length at this juncture. It will suffice at 
    this time to point out to the Chair the language contained in lines 
    24 and 25 of page 68, and ask the Chair to remember that this 
    paragraph proposes to charge $765,000, the cost of street lighting 
    in the District of Columbia, to the highway fund of the District of 
    Columbia. Surely there can be no argument but that the following 
    language is legislation and not authorized by existing law:

            And public spaces, part cost of maintenance of airport and 
        airway lights necessary for operation of the air mail. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order is well taken. All of the paragraph 
    goes out, for if any part of the paragraph is subject to a point of 
    order necessarily the whole paragraph must be eliminated, which 
    will be the ruling in this particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juvenile Detention Center

 Sec.14.9 An appropriation for maintenance of a suitable place for the 
    reception and detention of girls and women, and of boys under 17 
    years of age, arrested by the police or held as witnesses in the 
    District of Columbia, was held authorized by law.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation for 1939. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 1359, 1360, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For maintenance of a suitable place for the reception and 
    detention of girls

[[Page 5473]]

    and women, and of boys under 17 years of age, arrested by the 
    police on charge of offense against any laws in force in the 
    District of Columbia, or held as witnesses or held pending final 
    investigation or examination, or otherwise, or committed to the 
    guardianship of the Board of Public Welfare, including 
    transportation, clinic supplies, food, clothing, upkeep and repair 
    of buildings, fuel, gas, ice, laundry, supplies and equipment, 
    electricity, and other necessary expenses, $18,500; for personal 
    services, $9,240; in all, $27,740. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert S.] Bigelow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the language beginning in line 19 on page 37, 
    and ending at the end of line 4 on page 38, is legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        In 1929, Public Law 804, Seventieth Congress, provided that 
    children picked up from the streets and held for disposition by the 
    courts should be separated from adult prisoners; and it provided a 
    receiving home of their own. Throughout all the years intervening 
    this receiving home has been maintained and is now in operation, 
    some 40 or 50 children being residents of the home, held there for 
    a period of a day, a week, or a month, or until they are otherwise 
    disposed of.
        Conditions at the receiving home admittedly are bad, and 
    something should be done about it; but what should be done is, it 
    seems to me, a matter for the consideration of the legislative 
    committee and not for an appropriations subcommittee. I, therefore, 
    make the point of order against the language in this section and 
    ask that the language be stricken from the bill.
        The Chairman: (19) does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order? And in this 
    connection the Chair will ask the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    indicate the authority for the appropriation to maintain the house 
    of detention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to know the grounds of the gentleman's point of order. The 
    house of detention is merely a police precinct.
        The Chairman: The gentleman interposes a point of order on the 
    ground that it is an appropriation without authority of law.
        Mr. Collins: The house of detention is a police precinct owned 
    by the District of Columbia.
        We may not have specific statutory authority to appropriate for 
    this particular precinct and, as a matter of fact, we may not have 
    specific statutory authority to appropriate for any particular 
    police precinct.
        The fact remains, however, that the house of detention has 
    existed since 1901 and appropriations have been made for that 
    purpose since that time. The section against which the point of 
    order is directed proposes appropriations for maintenance of an 
    existing institution. It is a going concern, and under the rule 
    laid down in section 1280 of Cannon's Precedents the Congress has 
    the power to appropriate for the maintenance thereof.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    should like to be heard on the point of order.
        As I understand it, the point of order is to the effect that 
    under the appro

[[Page 5474]]

    priation they are merging, under the act of 1929, as the gentleman 
    stated, the detention home for children into a prison. The children 
    will be placed in a prison.
        Merging the two is legislation in an appropriation bill and if 
    they are merging the two in violation of the act of 1929 then I say 
    the appropriation should be taken out. I think that is what my 
    colleague is contending.
        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    speak briefly on the point of order?
        The provision complained of here is not legislation in the 
    sense it creates some new activity which is required to be 
    authorized by law. Perhaps it expands one already created. This 
    activity, however, has been on the statute books and has been 
    appropriated for during the past 30 years or more.
        Mr. Bigelow: Mr. Chairman, I am not challenging the statement 
    that it may be proper for the Appropriations Committee to 
    appropriate funds for the repair of the detention home. But what 
    that committee is doing by this paragraph is abolishing the 
    receiving home for children. It is abolishing an institution that 
    was established by law for the purpose of segregating children from 
    adult prisoners and I submit it is clearly legislation. If the 
    point of order is sustained I have an amendment that will cure the 
    situation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        To the paragraph found on page 37 of the bill, beginning with 
    line 19, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bigelow] directs a point of 
    order on the ground it is legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    attempts to appropriate without legislative authority. The 
    gentleman from Ohio concedes the fact that there is authority under 
    the provisions of an act of 1929 and therefore this is an 
    appropriation based on the authority of that statute. The matter is 
    further clarified for the Chair by the gentleman from Maryland, who 
    states that his fear is the purpose of the paragraph is to 
    eliminate the use of certain quarters or to merge two of the 
    activities conducted with reference to matters dealt with in this 
    paragraph.
        There is nothing in the paragraph to indicate that there is the 
    purpose of either abandoning or merging and, of course, the Chair 
    is bound by the language and is unable to indulge in a presumption 
    that there is any such underlying purpose. Furthermore, the purpose 
    of this appropriation in express terms is maintenance, and by 
    maintenance I mean the maintenance of an existing institution or 
    institutions; therefore it would come clearly within the rules to 
    appropriate for that purpose.
        The point of order made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Bigelow] is overruled.

Personal Services for Public Buildings

Sec. 14.10 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    appropriating for personal services for the care of the District 
    buildings was held authorized by law and in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5475]]

ering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 1939. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 1303, 1304, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services, including temporary labor, and service 
    of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per hour, 
    $129,000: Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act 
    shall be available for the employment of additional assistant 
    engineers or watchmen for the care of the District buildings.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a 
    point of order against the proviso in this paragraph, but first I 
    wish to raise a point of order as to the entire paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The authority for making 
    appropriations for the care of District buildings is found in 
    Fiftieth Statutes at Large, page 377, in this language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Provided, That all buildings belonging to the District of 
        Columbia shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the 
        Commissioners of the District. . . .

        The gentleman from Ohio also directed the point of order 
    against the paragraph the first portion of which includes this 
    language:

            For personal services, including temporary labor, and 
        service of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per 
        hour, $129,000.

        Standing alone, as a matter of course, this language is immune 
    from a point of order because it is solely an appropriation for 
    personal services, and so forth. If, therefore, the argument 
    directed to the proviso goes down, necessarily the point of order 
    against the paragraph as a whole must go down.
        The Chair overrules the point of order directed against the 
    paragraph.

Employment of People's Counsel

Sec. 14.11 Employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel before the 
    Public Utilities Commission, and employment of expert aid to such 
    counsel, were found to be authorized by law (though the amendment 
    in question was ruled out on other grounds).

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point the Clerk read the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 1308, 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On 
    page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs, as 
    follows:

        ``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel 
    before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
        ``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel, 
    $5,000.''. . .
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I made 
    a point of order against the language on

[[Page 5476]]

    page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to the end of the 
    paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the ground that it 
    was legislation in an appropriation bill. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Connecticut would restore the language that was 
    stricken out on the point of order; not only that, but we have 
    passed that particular section and the amendment comes too late. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (3) the gentleman from Maryland bases 
    his point of order on two grounds. The first ground, that the 
    amendment is not authorized by law, the Chair will be forced to 
    overrule, because in section 121 of the Public Utilities Act of the 
    District of Columbia under the District Code this language is 
    found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Commission shall have the power in each instance to 
        employ and to prescribe the duties of such officers, clerks, 
        stenographers, typewriters, inspectors, experts, and employees 
        as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
        act.

        The Chair finds, therefore, that the amendment does seek to 
    provide funds for a purpose authorized by law.
        The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that 
    the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.
        The Chair sustains the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane to the paragraph offered.

Main Library Building Unauthorized

Sec. 14.12 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and 
    specifications for a new main library building in the District of 
    Columbia was held unauthorized by law.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 1313, 1314, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the preparation of plans and specifications for a new main 
    library building to be constructed on square 491 in the District of 
    Columbia, $60,000.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language found on page 18, beginning in line 
    14, and including all of the language in lines 14, 15, and 16, 
    because it is legislation on an appropriation bill and is without 
    authority of existing law.
        I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose for making this point 
    of order is that there is now pending before the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia a bill which proposes to authorize an 
    appropriation of two and one-half million dollars for the 
    construction of a library in the District of Columbia. The 
    committee before which the bill is pending has had hearings in the 
    past

[[Page 5477]]

    and will no doubt hold hearings in the future in order to determine 
    whether or not there is a need in the District of Columbia for the 
    construction of this library building. Mr. Chairman, until that 
    committee does decide such a building is necessary, and until that 
    committee authorizes an appropriation for the construction of the 
    building, certainly there is no need for the expenditure of $60,000 
    to prepare the plans for a building, the authorization of which 
    could only be made by the District of Columbia Committee. I may say 
    there has been no authorization by the District of Columbia 
    Committee for an appropriation of $60,000 for this purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Nichols) is sustained, and accordingly 
    the provision will be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Branch Library Building Authorized

Sec. 14.13 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and 
    specifications for a branch library building in the District of 
    Columbia was held authorized by law.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. The following ruling was made by the Chairman: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 1314, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 7. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To a clause in the pending appropriation bill to be found 
    beginning on line 14 on page 18, in the following language--

            For the preparation of plans and specifications for a new 
        main library building to be constructed on square 491 in the 
        District of Columbia, $60,000--
    the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] directed a point of order 
    which was sustained by virtue of the language found in section 1421 
    of the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia, which provided for 
    the construction of a central library and branch libraries. The 
    word ``central'' as found in this particular law necessarily 
    precludes any legislation for the construction of another main 
    library, as we can well consider it to be the act and intent of 
    Congress to provide for such only in the form of one library. 
    Within this definition and direction of the law the Chair 
    necessarily sustained the point of order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi then offered an amendment which 
    provides for the preparation of plans and specifications for the 
    construction of a branch library. The Chair turns again to section 
    1421 of the code and finds this language:

            Said library shall consist of a central library and such 
        number of branch libraries so located and so supported as to 
        furnish books and other printed matter and information service 
        convenient to the homes and offices of all residents of the 
        said District.

        Clearly, this amendment, providing for the plans and 
    specifications for a branch library, comes squarely within the 
    authority of the law the Chair has

[[Page 5478]]

    just read and, therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Use of Gasoline Tax Fund--for Salaries

Sec. 14.14 An appropriation for the salary and expenses of the office 
    of Director of Vehicles and Traffic out of the District Gasoline 
    Tax Fund was held unauthorized by law, since the Gasoline Tax Act 
    provided that revenue raised through its operation could only be 
    appropriated by Congress for road and street improvements and 
    repairs.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(8) H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia 
appropriation for 1938, was being considered in the Committee of the 
Whole. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3110, 3111, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For paving, repaving, grading, and otherwise improving streets, 
    avenues, and roads, including temporary per-diem services, 
    surveying instruments and implements, and drawing materials, and 
    the maintenance of motor vehicles used in this work, including 
    curbing and gutters and replacement of curb-line trees where 
    necessary, and including trees and parkings, assessment and permit 
    work and the several purposes provided for in that paragraph, and 
    salaries and expenses of the office of the Director of Vehicles and 
    Traffic, as follows, to be paid from the special fund created by 
    section 1 of the act entitled ``An act to provide for a tax on 
    motor-vehicle fuels sold within the District of Columbia, and for 
    other purposes'', approved April 23, 1924 (43 Stat., p. 106), and 
    accretions by repayment of assessments.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the portion beginning in line 11 on page 71 
    after the word ``work'', and beginning with the word ``including,'' 
    going through lines 11, 12, and 13, on down to and inclusive of 
    line 21, on the ground that it is legislation and changes existing 
    law. . . .
        If there is any provision in the rules of the House which would 
    permit this language to stay in the bill as against the point of 
    order, that it is legislation, it would have to be held under the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. . . .
        The organic law which provided for the expenditure of funds 
    derived from the collection of the gasoline tax in the District of 
    Columbia, stating where those funds might be expended, reads as 
    follows:

            A tax of 2 cents per gallon on all motor-vehicle fuels 
        within the District of Columbia sold or otherwise disposed of 
        by an importer or used by him in a motor vehicle operated for 
        hire or for commercial purposes, shall be levied, collected, 
        and paid in the manner hereinafter provided.

        I ask the Chair to listen carefully to the reading of the 
    following portion of the law:

            The proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 840 
        of this title--

        And for the benefit of the Chair let me say that section 840 of 
    this title

[[Page 5479]]

    simply provides certain exemptions of certain classes of motor 
    vehicles from the provisions of this tax law--
        shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States entirely 
        to the credit of the District of Columbia, and shall be 
        available for appropriation by the Congress exclusively for 
        road and street improvements and repair.

        In Hinds' Precedents, volume 7, page 411, section 1395, this is 
    stated:

            A provision construing or interpreting existing law is 
        legislation and is not in order on an appropriation bill.

        And there follows the ruling where a similar objection to this 
    was made, and it was sustained. My point is this: In answer to this 
    point of order the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations 
    can only say, I believe, that this language is justified because 
    curbs, gutters, parkways, streets, motor vehicles, and other things 
    related thereto are parts of a street and a roadway. If that is the 
    contention, then that is an attempt on the part of this 
    subcommittee to do the thing that section 1394 says cannot be done, 
    to wit:

            A provision construing or interpreting existing law is 
        legislation not in order on an appropriation bill.

        In other words, if the District of Columbia up to this time has 
    been using these funds only for a particular purpose, that is an 
    administrative discretion of theirs and this rule provides that if 
    an Appropriations Committee attempts to direct that executive 
    officer that he must use the funds for some other purpose than that 
    for which he is using it, that that is legislation, and I submit, 
    Mr. Chairman, that this under that rule is clearly legislation. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the law 
    merely says that the gasoline-tax fund shall be available for road 
    and street improvement and repair. Trees are just as much a part of 
    the street as the center of the street. Assessment and curbing work 
    simply means the paving of sidewalks and gutters. Certainly 
    operation and maintenance of traffic lights is a part of street 
    improvements. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: [Clearly] this is legislation, because that thing 
    cannot be done by an appropriations committee. I will read from 
    volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents, at page 444, section 1438, as 
    follows:

            A provision limiting discretion vested in an executive 
        officer is legislation and not in order on an appropriation 
        bill.

        Which goes back to the very thing I stated before. If these 
    gentlemen whose duty it is to spend the funds derived from this 
    gasoline tax are not spending it for the things provided for here, 
    then if you direct them what they shall spend the money for, that 
    makes it legislation, beyond question. Under the admission of the 
    chairman of the subcommittee, certainly it cannot be construed as 
    anything else.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] makes a point of order 
    against certain language appearing on page 71, beginning with the 
    word ``including'', in line 11, and extending to the end of the 
    paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] in speaking in 
    opposition to

[[Page 5480]]

    the point of order, has called attention to certain improvements 
    that are provided for by the language included in this part of the 
    bill. The Chair would be inclined to agree with the gentleman in 
    the contention that he presents in all respects except that 
    relating to the question of salaries and expenses of the office of 
    director of vehicles and traffic. The Chair observes that the 
    office of director of vehicles and traffic is provided for in the 
    act to regulate traffic in the District of Columbia, and so forth. 
    An examination of this law clearly shows that the director of 
    vehicles and traffic has rather broad general duties to perform, 
    and it is not related alone to what might be imposed upon him in 
    connection with the Gasoline Tax Act. The Gasoline Tax Act 
    provides, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Oklahoma, that--

            The proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 840 
        of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United 
        States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia and 
        shall be available for appropriations by the Congress 
        exclusively for road and street improvements and repairs.

        The Chair is unable to see how that language would be broad 
    enough to authorize the payment of salaries for the director of 
    vehicles and traffic. The Gasoline Tax Act does not make provision 
    for the payment of the salaries to which the Chair has directed 
    attention. Therefore, salaries paid out of this fund would not be 
    authorized by law. For that reason the provision to which the point 
    of order is made would, in the opinion of the Chair, be legislation 
    on a general appropriation bill and would be subject to a point of 
    order
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order

-- For Street Repair and Improvement

Sec. 14.15 An appropriation for paving, grading, and otherwise 
    improving streets, including curbing and gutters, and replacement 
    of curb-line trees where necessary, out of the special fund created 
    by the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held to be in 
    order inasmuch as that act authorized appropriations for ``road and 
    street improvement and repair.''

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (10) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1938. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3111, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 71, line 7, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For paving, repaving, grading, and otherwise improving 
    streets, avenues, and roads, including temporary per-diem services, 
    surveying instruments and implements, and drawing materials, and 
    the maintenance of motor vehicles used in this work, including 
    curbing and gutters and replacement of curb-line trees where 
    necessary, and

[[Page 5481]]

    including trees and parkings, assessment and permit work and the 
    several purposes provided for in that paragraph, as follows, to be 
    paid from the special fund created by section 1 of the act entitled 
    `An act to provide for a tax on motor-vehicle fuels sold within the 
    District of Columbia, and for other purposes', approved April 23, 
    1924 (43 Stat., p. 106), and accretions by repayment of 
    assessments.''
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . . If I properly interpret the 
    amendment, it is the exact language that was heretofore in the 
    bill, with the exception that that portion has been stricken which 
    provides for the payment of the salary of a supervisor of traffic 
    Am I correct in that understanding?
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point of order against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, the 
    wording of which, as pointed out by the gentleman from Oklahoma, is 
    the same as the wording of the bill excluding the portion to which 
    the Chair invited attention in the ruling made on the previous 
    point of order. It will be remembered that the Chair pointed out in 
    ruling on the previous point of order that the so-called Gasoline 
    Tax Act provides:

            That the proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 
        840 of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of the 
        United States entirely to the credit of the District of 
        Columbia and shall be available for appropriation by the 
        Congress exclusively for road and street improvement and 
        repair.

        The Chair has consulted the dictionary and finds that the word 
    ``improvement'' is there defined to be--

            An act or process of improving, as profitable employment or 
        use, cultivation, development, enhancement, or increase; 
        especially betterment--

        And so forth. The word ``improvement'' appears in the so-called 
    Gasoline Tax Act, and this word is defined in the dictionary as 
    meaning, among other things, ``especially betterment.'' The Chair, 
    therefore, is of the opinion that the various functions mentioned 
    in the language of the amendment and the various things to be 
    provided--trees, parking, curbing, guttering, and so forth--
    certainly are proper to be included as betterment or improvement of 
    the streets.
        The word ``improvement'', defined to mean ``betterment'', makes 
    the word broad and general enough to include all of the various 
    activities mentioned in this amendment. They are, therefore, 
    authorized by existing law. For this reason the Chair feels that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is in 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

-- For Personal Services

Sec. 14.16 An appropriation for personal services for the Department of 
    Vehicles and Traffic, out of the special fund created by the 
    District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held not to be 
    authorized by the act

[[Page 5482]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
    $76,440.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I interpose a 
    point of order against the language appearing in line 13, page 80, 
    reading as follows:

            For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
        $76,440.

        That this is legislation and contrary to existing law.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point of 
    order against the language appearing in lines 13 and 14, on page 
    80, which reads as follows:
        ``For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
    $76,440.''
        It will be remembered that on page 71 of the bill a point of 
    order was made against language appearing in lines 15 and 
    16.(14) For the reasons indicated at the time that point 
    of order was under consideration, the Chair is of opinion that this 
    is an appropriation not authorized by law and therefore sustains 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the discussion in Sec. 14.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- For Sidewalks and Curbing

Sec. 14.17 An appropriation for the construction and repair of 
    sidewalks and curbs around public reservations and municipal and 
    federal buildings, out of a special fund created by the District of 
    Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held to be authorized by the 
    language of that act specifying in general terms the purposes of 
    the fund.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1938. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order to the language in line 22, page 79, after the comma, as 
    follows:

            And construction and repair of sidewalks and curbs around 
        public reservations and municipal and United States buildings, 
        including purchase or condemnation of streets, roads, and 
        alleys, and of areas less than 250 square feet at the 
        intersection of streets, avenues, or roads in the District of 
        Columbia, to be selected by the Commissioners, and including 
        maintenance of non-pas

[[Page 5483]]

        senger-carrying motor vehicles, $150,000

        Mr. Chairman, there might be a portion of that language which 
    may conform to existing law, but I make the point of order because 
    it is legislation and does not conform to existing law. Certainly 
    that portion which provides for the construction of sidewalks 
    around public reservations and municipal and United States 
    buildings cannot be according to existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order to the language beginning in line 22, page 79, 
    down to and including line 4, on page 80
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had occasion in several instances during the 
    course of the consideration of this bill to invite attention to the 
    so-called Gas Tax Act and the provisions therein relating to the 
    improvement and betterment of the streets and roads. The Chair 
    feels for the reasons heretofore stated in passing upon several 
    other points of order very similar in application to the pending 
    question that these improvements, such as paving, sidewalk 
    improvement, and all of those various activities, come within the 
    scope of this act to which reference has been made; therefore these 
    activities are authorized by existing law, and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

-- For Motor Vehicles Licenses

Sec. 14.18 An appropriation for the purchase of motor vehicle 
    identification plates out of the special fund created by the 
    District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act was held not to be authorized 
    by the act.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 3113, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purchase of motor-vehicle identification number plates, 
    $20,000.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    interpose a point of order against the language beginning in line 
    16, page 81, ``For the purchase of motor-vehicle identification 
    number plates, $20,000'', for the reason it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, which is contrary to the rules of the House. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order against the language appearing in lines 16 and 17 
    on page 81. The Chair is of the opinion the so-called Gas Tax Act, 
    to which reference has been made on several occasions during the 
    consideration of this bill, does not authorize appropriation out of 
    that fund to provide for these identification plates, and so forth. 
    The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purchase of Municipal Asphalt Plant.

Sec. 14.19 Language in the District of Columbia appropria

[[Page 5484]]

    tion bill authorizing the Commissioners to purchase a municipal 
    asphalt plant for which no authorization was cited was ruled out as 
    unauthorized and not in order on a general appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3111, 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For current work of repairs to streets, avenues, roads, and 
        alleys, including the reconditioning of existing gravel streets 
        and roads; for cleaning snow and ice from streets, sidewalks, 
        cross walks, and gutters in the discretion of the 
        Commissioners; and including the purchase, exchange, 
        maintenance, and operation of non-passenger-carrying motor 
        vehicles used in this work, $800,000: Provided, That the 
        Commissioners of the District of Columbia, should they deem 
        such action to be to the advantage of the District of Columbia, 
        are hereby authorized to purchase a municipal asphalt plant at 
        a cost not to exceed $30,000: Provided further, That 
        appropriations contained in this act for highways, sewers, city 
        refuse, and the water department shall be available for snow 
        removal when specifically and in writing ordered by the 
        Commissioners.

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph on page 77, beginning in line 9 
    after the semicolon, the following language:

            And including the purchase, exchange, maintenance, and 
        operation of non-passenger-carrying motor vehicles used in this 
        work, $800,000.

        I might make this in sections, Mr. Chairman, but I will make it 
    all at once. I make a point of order against the following language 
    on page 77, line 11:

            Provided, That the Commissioners of the District of 
        Columbia, should they deem such action to be to the advantage 
        of the District of Columbia, are hereby authorized to purchase 
        a municipal asphalt plant at a cost not to exceed $30,000: 
        Provided further, that appropriations contained in this act for 
        highways, sewers, city refuse, and the water department shall 
        be available for snow removal when specifically and in writing 
        ordered by the Commissioners.

        I make a point of order against these provisions on the ground 
    that they are legislation and change existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) While the Chair is constrained to 
    agree with many of the observations made by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, yet the Chair is of the opinion that the inclusion of 
    the words in lines 14 and 15, as follows: ``and hereby authorized 
    to purchase a municipal asphalt plant'', and so forth, together 
    with the failure to point out to the Chair the provision of 
    existing law authorizing such an activity, makes this legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 5485]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 15. Environment and Interior

Environmental Protection Agency

Sec. 15.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    to enable the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
    to obtain reports as to the probable adverse effect on the economy 
    of certain federal environmental actions, and reappropriating funds 
    generally available to the Administrator for the preparation of 
    such reports, was conceded to be unauthorized by law and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On June 23, 1971,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 21641, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The sum of $6,300,000, together with such additional funds 
        as may be necessary to be derived from general administrative 
        funds available to the Administrator, is appropriated to enable 
        the Administrator to obtain, except where there is determined 
        to be an imminent hazard to human life, in advance of 
        determination of action to be taken or recommended from those 
        agencies of Government or other entities, governmental or 
        private, which are required to file reports on major Federal 
        actions determined to have a significant effect on the quality 
        of the human environment, reports as to the probable adverse 
        effect on the economy, including employment and unemployment, 
        if such action is taken and the project or proposed action is 
        delayed or terminated. And, if necessary, the Administrator is 
        authorized to reimburse the affected agency of Government or 
        other entities for the reasonable costs of preparing such 
        reports, if additional work is required.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The whole paragraph was conceded to be subject to a point of order. 
        See H. Rept. No. 92-289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise for 
    the purpose of making a point of order with regard to the language 
    appearing on page 28, lines 8 through 24, of the bill, which 
    constitutes, in my opinion, and also in the language in the report, 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore is violative of 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order and say, if I may, the 
    committee agrees as to the point of order on the bill. Of course, 
    we do not agree as to the point of order in the report. We wrote 
    this in the report and, if I may pursue this a little further, we 
    were asked to appropriate all of this money through the agency 
    without any safeguard being written around how it would be handled. 
    We did not ask for a rule on it, but until the gentleman in the 
    well

[[Page 5486]]

    and others who are responsible, on very fine legislative 
    committees, get around to writing some kind of a restriction or a 
    guideline for this environmental protection agency and for the 
    administrator, we are in a bad way, in my opinion, unless we have 
    this language in here. It was for that reason that we wrote it in 
    here trying to hold the line until the legislative committees could 
    act. We readily concede that it is subject to a point of order, and 
    if the gentleman or others insist on knocking it out, all they have 
    to do is make the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Whitten), concedes the point of order to the language 
    appearing between lines 8 and 24 on page 28 of the bill on the 
    ground that it does provide funds for carrying out a function not 
    previously authorized by enabling legislation Therefore it does 
    constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Funds for Outside Review Board

Sec. 15.2 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill making funds 
    available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
    Agency to establish an independent grant and contract review board 
    to review the priorities of the agency and its award of contracts 
    was conceded to be subject to a point of order and was ruled out as 
    unauthorized by law.

    On June 23, 1971,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 21641, 21642, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The sum of $2,500,000, together with such additional funds 
        as may be necessary to be derived from general administrative 
        funds available to the Administrator, is appropriated to 
        provide for an independent grant and contract review board made 
        up of qualified persons selected to review the agency's 
        priorities and to assume that such contracts and grants are 
        awarded only to qualified research agencies or individuals 
        consistent with national economic and environmental needs.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order on which the Chair has just ruled, namely, that 
    the language beginning on page 28 at line 25 and continuing through 
    line 8 on page 29 again constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
    bill, and so is violative of the rules. Again I renew my point of 
    order in that this appropriation has not been previously 
    authorized.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee takes the same view and concedes the point of order.

[[Page 5487]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point 
    of order, so the point of order is sustained.

River and Harbor Projects; Lump Sum

Sec. 15.3 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some 
    of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation 
    of funds had not been authorized, since language in the bill 
    limited use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''

    On June 18, 1958,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law; detailed 
    studies, and plans and specifications, of projects (including those 
    for development with participation or under consideration for 
    participation by States, local governments, or private groups) 
    authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such studies 
    shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
    construction); and not to exceed $1,600,000 for transfer to the 
    Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife as 
    authorized by law; to remain available until expended $577,085,500. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the paragraph.
        Mr. Taber: The paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending 
    on page 5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the 
    appropriation which has not been authorized by law. The figure 
    there is $577,085,500. I am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by 
    letter dated June 11, 1958, that there is contained here 
    $57,702,253 in projects which are not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23, 
    page 3, the language is as follows:

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.

        Then further, as again pointed out by the chairman, there is 
    this language on the bottom of page 4:

            That no part of this appropriation shall be used for 
        projects not authorized by law.

        Now, that language, in the opinion of the Chair, is quite 
    specific in that none

[[Page 5488]]

    of these funds, regardless of the amount involved, can be used for 
    any project which is not authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 15.4 To an appropriation bill providing a lump sum for 
    construction of river and harbor projects authorized by law, an 
    amendment to allocate part of the lump-sum appropriation to three 
    projects not authorized by law (although provided for in an 
    authorization bill which had passed the House) was ruled out of 
    order.

    On June 19, 1958,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858, a bill making appropriations for civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army and certain 
agencies of the Department of the Interior. During consideration, a 
point of order was raised and sustained against an amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 11763, 11764, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law . . . 
    $577,085,500. . . .
        Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Becker: Page 4, line 8, 
        immediately preceding the colon, insert the following: ``of 
        which $1,370,000, shall be used to initiate (1) the Fire Island 
        Inlet beach erosion project, in accordance with the 
        recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in House 
        Document No. 411, 84th Congress; (2) the Irondequoit Bay 
        dredging and beach erosion project in accordance with the 
        recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in House 
        Document No. 332, 84th Congress; and (3) the Eel River, Calif., 
        flood control project in accordance with recommendations of the 
        Chief of Engineers contained in House Document No. 80, 85th 
        Congress.'' . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (9) Will the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker], as author of the amendment, cite the authority 
    wherein these projects are authorized by law?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Becker: Mr. Chairman, these projects are not authorized by 
    law any more than the question which was raised yesterday on the 
    point of order on the previous projects and surveys. These are 
    authorized in the bill that was passed yesterday, the omnibus 
    public works bill. Therefore, I know it is not signed into law, but 
    it was passed by the House yesterday and this method is being used 
    to try to expedite the work and get the projects done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has pointed out that these projects 
    are in

[[Page 5489]]

    cluded in the bill which passed the House on yesterday, but as the 
    gentleman knows that bill has not yet become law. These projects, 
    therefore, do not meet the requirements of eligibility and the 
    Chair must, therefore, under the rules sustain the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].

Protection of Deer; Leasing of Land For

Sec. 15.5 A provision of law giving general authorization for wildlife 
    conservation activities was held not to authorize earmarking part 
    of an appropriation to be expressly ``for the leasing and 
    management of the lands for the protection of the Florida Key 
    deer.''

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4828, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 99 Cong. Rec. 4148, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Lantaff: On page 20, line 6, 
    immediately following the semicolon and preceding the word ``and'', 
    insert the following: ``not to exceed $10,000 for the leasing and 
    management of the lands for the protection of the Florida Key deer, 
    16 U.S.C. 661.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I hate to do it, 
    but I must make a point of order against this amendment. It is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Lantaff [of Florida]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The 
    reference to the United States Code authorizes the leasing of lands 
    by the Department of Interior and is so cited for that purpose This 
    specific authorization is to authorize the leasing of land in this 
    particular area for this particular project and classifies it much 
    the same as the authorization contained in the bill for the Wichita 
    Mountains Wildlife Refuge and for the Crab Orchard National 
    Wildlife Refuge. In the bill you will find the statutory authority 
    cited the same as the statutory authority cited in the amendment 
    which I have offered. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has inspected section 661 of title 16 of the United 
    States Code, the provision which the gentleman from Florida cites 
    as authorizing the proposal contained in his amendment. That code 
    section gives fairly broad authorization to the Fish and Wildlife 
    Service for wildlife conservation, but it does not authorize 
    leasing of lands or the protection of key deer. The gentleman's 
    amendment would earmark funds for a narrow, specific purpose, a 
    purpose not mentioned in the code section which is general. 
    Reference is made to volume VII, section 1452, of Cannon's 
    Precedents, under which the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the authorizing law confers discre

[[Page 5490]]

tion on an executive in allotting funds, authorization for a general 
appropriation is not to be construed as authorizing an appropriation 
for a specific purpose. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1452 states that, 
while the appropriation of a lump sum for a general purpose authorized 
by law is in order, a specific appropriation for a particular item 
included in such general purpose is a limitation on the discretion of 
the executive charged with allotment of the lump sum and is not in 
order on an appropriation bill.

New Function of Government Created by Executive Order

Sec. 15.6 An appropriation for the Division of Geography in the 
    Department of the Interior, for the performance of duties imposed 
    by Executive order with respect to uniform usage in orthography 
    throughout the federal government was conceded and held not to be 
    authorized by law.

    On May 10, 1946,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6335, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following paragraph in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 4828, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Division of Geography

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the 
    Division of Geography, in performing the duties imposed upon the 
    Secretary by Executive Order 6680, dated April 17, 1934, relating 
    to uniform usage in regard to geographic nomenclature and 
    orthography throughout the Federal Government, including personal 
    services in the District of Columbia, stationery and office 
    supplies, and printing and binding, $12,956.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: I make a point of order against the language 
    appearing in lines 3 to 11 on page 3, on the ground that there is 
    no authority of law for the inclusion of this item. . . .
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, as much as it 
    deeply pains me to do so, I must concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois makes a point of 
    order, which is conceded by the gentleman from Oklahoma. The point 
    of order is sustained.

Appropriation for Presidential Committee

Sec. 15.7 Appropriations for the National Power Policy Committee to be 
    used by the com

[[Page 5491]]

    mittee in the performance of functions prescribed by the President, 
    were conceded not to be authorized by law.

    On Mar. 25, 1942,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6845, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point a point of order was raised against a portion of the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 2926, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries: For the Secretary of the Interior, Under Secretary, 
    First Assistant Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and other personal 
    services in the District of Columbia, including a special assistant 
    to the Secretary of the Interior to be appointed without reference 
    to civil-service requirements, at a salary of not to exceed $5,000, 
    and including $28,520 for the National Power Policy Committee, to 
    be used by said committee in the performance of the functions 
    prescribed for it by the President of the United States, 
    $1,027,170: Provided, That no part of the appropriation made 
    available to the office of the Secretary by this section shall be 
    used for the broadcast of radio programs designed for or calculated 
    to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation pending 
    before the Congress.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the words beginning in line 8, on page 74, with the 
    word ``and'' and including the following words which I shall read--
        and including $28,520 for the National Power Policy Committee, 
        to be used by said committee in the performance of the 
        functions prescribed for it by the President of the United 
        States--
    on the ground that this is not authorized by law, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and that there is no 
    authority anywhere for this appropriation to the National Power 
    Policy Committee.

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, the words to which 
    the gentleman refers are conceded by the committee to be subject to 
    a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against certain language quoted by him. The point 
    of order is conceded by the chairman in charge of the bill, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storage Buildings; Limitation on Funds for Unauthorized Project

Sec. 15.8 An appropriation for the construction of buildings for 
    storage of equipment used for forest roads and trail construction 
    and including a stated limit of cost for construction of any such 
    building was held unauthorized by law and to be legislation 
    establishing a total cost of construction.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5492]]

ering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 3458, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Forest Roads and Trails

        For carrying out the provisions of section 23 of the Federal 
    Highway Act approved November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 23), including not 
    to exceed $59,500 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $10,000,000, which sum consists of the 
    balance of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal 
    year 1939 by the act approved June 16, 1936 (Stat. 1520), and 
    $3,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year 1940 by the act approved June 8, 1938 (52 Stat 635), to 
    be immediately available and to remain available until expended: 
    Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for the 
    rental, purchase, or construction of buildings necessary for the 
    storage of equipment and supplies used for road and trail 
    construction and maintenance, but the total cost of any such 
    building purchased or constructed under this authorization shall 
    not exceed $7,500.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The latter provision could be considered an interference with 
        executive discretion, therefore legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill providing for the construction of a building at 
    a limit beyond that authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman make the point 
    of order against the proviso or against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: I may say, Mr. Chairman, 
    that this provision in the bill is the only limiting authority. If 
    the gentleman can cite us to some other authority establishing the 
    limitation, I should be pleased to have the citation. There is no 
    other limitation, Mr. Chairman, and the point of order is not well 
    taken.
        Mr. Taber: There is no authorization for it at all.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authority to Make Payroll Deductions

Sec. 15.9 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of the Interior, in his administration of the Bureau of 
    Reclamation, is authorized to contract for medical services for 
    employees and to make necessary payroll deductions agreed to by the 
    employees, was held unauthorized by law.

    The provision and the ruling thereon by the Chairman are discussed 
in the following section.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 15.10, infra.

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

[[Page 5493]]

Authority to Settle Claims

Sec. 15.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing in part 
    an appropriation for payment of damages caused to the owners of 
    lands by reason of the operations of the United States in the 
    construction of irrigation works which may be ``compromised by 
    agreement between the claimants and the Secretary of the Interior, 
    or such officers as he may designate,'' was held to constitute 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point points of order were directed to portions of the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Administrative provisions and limitations: For all expenditures 
    authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof 
    or supplementary thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all 
    other acts under which expenditures from said fund are authorized, 
    including . . . payment of damages caused to the owners of lands or 
    other private property of any kind by reason of the operations of 
    the United States, its officers or employees, in the survey, 
    construction, operation, or maintenance of irrigation works, and 
    which may be compromised by agreement between claimant and the 
    Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may designate . . 
    . Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
    administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
    contract for medical attention and service for employees and to 
    make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the employees 
    therefor. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and contains items not authorized by law.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the language on page 72, 
    line 22, ``examination of estimates for appropriations in the 
    field,'' and at the bottom of the page, ``for lithographing, 
    engraving, printing, and binding,'' and in line 20 of the same 
    page, ``for photographing and making photographic prints,'' and 
    then at the top of page 73, ``purchase of rubber boots for official 
    use by employees,'' and in the middle of the page, at line 12, 
    ``and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
    and the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may 
    designate,'' giving him authority to do things that the law does 
    not authorize. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order for two reasons. First, 
    page 73, line 12, after the word ``works'', the language--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
        and the Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may 
        designate.

[[Page 5494]]

        Then, going down to the last line on page 73, after the colon, 
    the language:

            Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
        administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
        contract for medical attention and services for employees and 
        to make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the 
        employees therefor.

        For these reasons the Chair sustains the point of order.

Division of Grazing; Travel and Per Diem

Sec. 15.11 Language in a general appropriation bill providing payment 
    of a salary of $5 per diem and necessary travel expenses of members 
    of advisory committees of local stockmen under the Division of 
    Grazing in the Department of the Interior, was held unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938, (2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation, when the 
following paragraph was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2548, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Division of Grazing

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing 
    and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, 
    improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry 
    dependent upon the public range, and for other purposes,'' . . . 
    not to exceed $1,000 for expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the work of the Division of Grazing when authorized 
    by the Secretary of the Interior, $550,000; (for payment of a 
    salary of $5 per diem while actually employed and for the payment 
    of necessary travel expenses, exclusive of subsistence, of members 
    of advisory committees of local stockmen, $100,000); in all, 
    $650,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning with the word ``for'' 
    [following the figure of $550,000] down to the dollar sign 
    ``$100,000'', in line 12, on the ground it is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we admit this is 
    legislation, but it is extremely desirable and I hope the gentleman 
    will not press the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the appropriation for this item is all 
    out of line with the justification given at the hearings and, 
    frankly, I shall have to insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Marvin Jones (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of order 
    against the language beginning with the word ``for'', line 8, page 
    5, and continuing down to and including the word ``$650,000'', in 
    line 12 of the same page.
        This being in the form of legislation it is clearly subject to 
    the point of order, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

[[Page 5495]]

Fund for Emergencies of Confidential Character

Sec. 15.12 Language in a general appropriation bill providing for an 
    appropriation for the Division of Investigations in the Department 
    of the Interior, to be expended under the direction of the 
    Secretary of the Interior to meet unforeseen emergencies of a 
    confidential character was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was sustained against the following paragraph because of language 
included therein:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2545, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For investigating official matters under the control of the 
    Department of the Interior; for protecting timber on the public 
    lands, and for the more efficient execution of the law and rules 
    relating to the cutting thereof; for protecting public lands from 
    illegal and fraudulent entry or appropriation; for adjusting claims 
    for swamplands and indemnity for swamplands; and for traveling 
    expenses of agents and others employed hereunder, $440,000, 
    including not exceeding $34,000 for personal services in the 
    District of Columbia; not exceeding $38,000 for the purchase, 
    exchange, operation, and maintenance of motor-propelled passenger-
    carrying vehicles and motorboats for the use of agents and others 
    employed in the field service; [and not to exceed $5,000 to meet 
    unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character,] to be expended 
    under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who shall 
    make a certificate of the amount of such expenditure as he may 
    think is advisable not to specify, and every such certificate shall 
    be deemed a sufficient voucher for the sum therein expressed to 
    have been expended.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph, because it sets up a new 
    division of investigation for which there is no authority of law. 
    This division of investigation was originally created as an 
    emergency in connection with the work of the Public Works program. 
    They now seek to continue it as a permanent proposition, although 
    the Public Works program is on its way out, and no new contracts 
    are being let. This is an entirely new provision for which there is 
    no authority of law, and it is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    provision on page 4, lines 5 and 6, which provides that not to 
    exceed $5,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
    character may be expended, is clearly not authorized by existing 
    law. The Chair sustains the point of order to the paragraph, 
    without considering the other points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timber Protection

Sec. 15.13 An appropriation for a Division of Investigations,

[[Page 5496]]

    for protecting timber on public lands, was held authorized under 
    existing law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2545, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Division of Investigations

        For protecting timber on the public lands, and for the more 
    efficient execution of the law and rules relating to the cutting 
    thereof; for protecting public lands from illegal and fraudulent 
    entry or appropriation; for adjusting claims for swamplands and 
    indemnity for swamplands; and for traveling expenses of agents and 
    others employed hereunder, $440,000, including not exceeding 
    $34,000 for personal services in the District of Columbia; not 
    exceeding $38,000 for the purchase, exchange, operation, and 
    maintenance of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles and 
    motorboats for the use of agents and others employed in the field 
    service.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph. There is no authority of law for a 
    division of investigating. Some of the things that are specified 
    there may be authorized, but a division of investigation is not 
    authorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is merely the 
    name of the organization which is carrying on this work, which is 
    clearly authorized by title XVI, chapter 4, United States Code, and 
    certainly is not subject to the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    language embodied in the amendment proper is clearly authorized by 
    existing law for protecting timber, and so forth. It seems clear 
    that incidental to such authority the power to conduct the 
    investigation in the handling of that and to properly handle it, 
    would be entirely in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgin Islands Deficits

Sec. 15.14 An appropriation for defraying the deficits in the 
    treasuries of the municipal governments of the St. Thomas and St. 
    John Islands was held not to be authorized by law.

    On May 20, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was sustained against the following paragraph for the reasons 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4873, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For defraying the deficits in the treasuries of the municipal 
    governments because of the excess of current expenses over current 
    revenues for the fiscal year 1938, municipality of St. Thomas and 
    St. John, $60,000, and municipality of St. Croix, $50,000; in

[[Page 5497]]

    all, $110,000, to be paid to the said treasuries in monthly 
    installments.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order on lines 9 to 14, page 126, to ask some 
    questions of the chairman of the committee. What provision of law 
    is there providing that we should pay the deficits of the 
    municipalities of the Virgin Islands, as carried in lines 9 to 14?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I will say to the gentleman that 
    the authority for the administration of the Virgin Islands is to be 
    found in title 48, section 1391, United States Code. Although there 
    is no specific provision of law providing for the payment of 
    deficits of a municipality, the committee felt that the law is 
    sufficiently broad to grant authority for this purpose. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I read from section 1391:

            Under jurisdiction of the Governor; except as provided in 
        this chapter, all military, civil, and judicial powers of the 
        United States to govern the West India Islands acquired from 
        Denmark, shall be vested in the Governor and in such person or 
        persons as the President shall direct. The Congress shall 
        provide for the government of said islands; provided that the 
        President may assign an officer of the Army or the Navy to 
        serve as such Governor--

        And so forth. This is the section that the Budget referred the 
    committee to, and it will be noted that the authority is general 
    but broad in its scope.
        Mr. Snell: I do not see anything in there that says that the 
    Federal Government is responsible for all municipal deficits.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Nor do I see the specific authority, 
    but I will say to the gentleman that this item has been carried in 
    the bill year after year and no one has ever raised the question as 
    to the authority heretofore. Undoubtedly it was the intent of 
    Congress to confer that authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] makes a point of order 
    against the paragraph appearing in lines 9 to 14, inclusive, on 
    page 126 of the bill on the ground that the appropriation there 
    sought to be made is not authorized by existing law.
        The Chair has examined section 1391 of title 48 of the United 
    States Code, to which reference was made by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson]. It appears to the Chair that this provision 
    of law authorizes the establishment of a government for the West 
    Indies Islands, acquired from Denmark, and vests certain 
    discretionary authority in the President until the Congress shall 
    provide for the government of said islands. The Chair is unable to 
    find any definite, specific provision of law included in this 
    section which, in the opinion of the Chair, would authorize the 
    appropriation here sought to be made.
        The Chair has likewise examined the act of Congress approved 
    June 22, 1936, to provide a civil government for the Virgin Islands 
    of the United States, and in neither the provision of law cited by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma nor the act to which the Chair has 
    referred does the Chair find sufficient authority of law to 
    authorize appropriations for municipal deficits in the 
    municipalities set out in this provision of the bill.

[[Page 5498]]

        The Chair is of the opinion that the appropriation is not 
    authorized by existing law, as it is here sought to be made, and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Streets Adjacent to National Park

Sec. 15.15 A proposition to resurface city streets adjacent to Hot 
    Springs National Park was held to be without authority of law.

    On May 14, 1941,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4590, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 4057, 4058, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hot Springs National Park, Ark.: For administration, 
    protection, maintenance, and improvement, including not exceeding 
    $1,400 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of 
    motor-driven passenger-carrying vehicles for the use of the 
    superintendent and employees in connection with general park work, 
    $77,890.
        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell: On page 109, line 8, 
        after the word ``work'', strike out the sum ``$77,890'', and 
        insert ``including not exceeding $7,000 for payment of the 
        Federal Government's share of resurfacing and reconstructing of 
        Reserve Avenue from its intersection with Cottage Street at the 
        entrance to the Army and Navy Hospital northeasterly to its 
        intersection with Palm Street and that portion of Spring Street 
        and Laurel Street immediately adjacent to and surrounding the 
        grounds on which the Government free bathhouses are located, 
        $84,890.''

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Permit the Chair to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas who owns the street that is here sought 
    to be paved? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Answering the Chair, I am 
    compelled to say that the Park Service advises the committee that 
    the city has jurisdiction over that street, and in fact owns the 
    street. That is the information given the committee. The title is 
    in the city. . . .

        Mr. Norrell: I am prepared to advise the Chairman that the 
    Federal Government owns the fee-simple title to one-half of that 
    street, notwithstanding anything that the Department of the 
    Interior might say.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas offers an amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. 
    The gentleman from California [Mr. Carter] makes the point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized by 
    law. The Chair in

[[Page 5499]]

    vites the attention of the gentleman from Arkansas to section 3779, 
    volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, which appears to the Chair to be 
    directly in point on the question presented. This section reads as 
    follows:

            A proposition to repair paving originally laid by the 
        Government in a city street adjacent to a public building was 
        held not to be in continuation of a public work.
            A proposition to pave city streets adjacent to a public 
        building was held to be without authority of law.
            By reason of that decision and that precedent, the Chair 
        feels that he is compelled to sustain the point of order. The 
        Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and the Clerk will 
        read.

Telephones in Government-owned Residences

Sec. 15.16 Installation of telephones in government-owned residences 
    occupied by employees of the National Park Service was held to be 
    authorized by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following amendment was the subject of a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: On page 
    117, after line 8, insert:

            Appropriations herein made for the National Park Service 
        shall be available for the installation and operation of 
        telephones in Government-owned residences, apartments, or 
        quarters occupied by employees of the National Park Service.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against that amendment in that it goes so far as to include 
    quarters occupied by employees of the National Park Service, which 
    is beyond the authority of the law.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, these are Government-
    owned residences and this service is a necessary incident to the 
    proper carrying out of the work of the Department of the Interior. 
    If the residences in question were privately owned, there might be 
    a question about the point of order, but certainly the language to 
    which the gentleman objects could not possibly be construed as 
    being subject to a point of order under the circumstances and facts 
    stated.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule. If 
    the cottages, residences, and so forth, were privately owned, the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    might lie, but these are entirely Government-owned residences and 
    the installation appears to be necessary and incident to the 
    operation of the National Park Service, and for that reason the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Park Service--Educational Services

Sec. 15.17 An appropriation for the development of edu

[[Page 5500]]

    cational work of the National Park Service was held authorized 
    under the law stating the fundamental purpose of parks, monuments, 
    and reservations to be to conserve the scenery and the natural and 
    historic objects and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in 
    such manner as would leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
    future generations.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was directed against the bracketed language in the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2890, 2891, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           National Park Service

        Salaries: For the Director of the National Park Service and 
    other personal services in the District of Columbia, including 
    accounting services in checking and verifying the accounts and 
    records of the various operators, licensees, and permittees 
    conducting utilities and other enterprises within the national 
    parks and monuments, and including the services of specialists and 
    experts for investigations and examinations of lands to determine 
    their suitability for national-park and national-monument purposes: 
    Provided, That such specialists and experts may be employed for 
    temporary service at rates to be fixed by the Secretary of the 
    Interior to correspond to those established by the Classification 
    Act of 1923, as amended, and without reference to the Civil Service 
    Act of January 16, 1883, $259,580, of which amount not to exceed 
    $19,200 may be expended for the services of field employees engaged 
    in examination of lands [and in developing the educational work of 
    the National Park Service. . . .]
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in lines 3 and 4, on page 105, 
    reading, ``and in developing the educational work'' on the ground 
    that there is no law authorizing the Department to go into 
    educational work. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section that the gentleman from Oklahoma has called 
    attention to is the basic law governing the National Park Service, 
    and provides for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 
    such means as will leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
    generations.
        Certainly the education that may be offered by the National 
    Park Service in dealing with its own features and wildlife is a 
    means which will leave the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
    future generations.
        In addition to that, may the Chair call the attention of the 
    Committee to a ruling made on March 2, 1938, in the Committee of 
    the Whole when it was considering the Interior Department 
    appropriation bill, at which time a point of order was made against 
    the paragraph that follows this one be

[[Page 5501]]

    cause of the motion-picture feature. The Chairman at that time 
    ruled that this was a necessary incident to the carrying on of the 
    activities of the National Park Service and certainly must be 
    regarded as in part, at least, educational.
        Under that precedent and with the Chair's present understanding 
    of the purport of the basic law, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

-- Educational Lectures

Sec. 15.18 An appropriation for educational lectures in national parks 
    and other reservations under the National Park Service was held 
    authorized under the law stating the fundamental purpose of such 
    parks and reservations to be to conserve the natural and historical 
    objects and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner 
    as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
    generations.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Appropriations herein made for the national parks, national 
    monuments, and other reservations under the jurisdiction of the 
    National Park Service, shall be available for the giving of 
    educational lectures therein; for the services of field employees 
    in cooperation with such nonprofit scientific and historical 
    societies engaged in educational work in the various parks and 
    monuments as the Secretary, in his discretion, may designate; and 
    for travel expenses of employees attending Government camps for 
    training in forest-fire prevention and suppression.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, on page 
    116, at line 23, where it states ``shall be available for the 
    giving of educational lectures therein,'' I make a point of order 
    against that language.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair overrules the point of 
    order for the same reason that a similar point of order has been 
    overruled.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
18. See Sec. 15.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Park Service Photographic Supplies

Sec. 15.19 Language in a general appropriation bill providing 
    appropriations for photographic supplies, prints, and motion 
    picture films for the National Park Service was held authorized by 
    law since incidental to the work of the Service.

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5502]]

ering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. The following 
paragraph was the subject of a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 2715, 2716, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General expenses: For every expenditure requisite for and 
    incident to the authorized work of the office of the Director of 
    the National Park Service not herein provided for, including 
    traveling expenses, telegrams, photographic supplies, prints, and 
    motion-picture films, necessary expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the work of the National Park Service when 
    authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, and necessary expenses 
    of field employees engaged in examination of lands and in 
    developing the educational work of the National Park Service, 
    $28,500: Provided, That necessary expenses of field employees in 
    attendance at such meetings, when authorized by the Secretary, 
    shall be paid from the various park and monument appropriations.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, because the motion-picture 
    feature of it is not authorized by law. . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    this is a necessary incident to the carrying on of the National 
    Park Service, and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boulder Canyon Project

 Sec.15.20 An appropriation for the continuation of construction of a 
    diversion dam and main canal as part of the Boulder Canyon project 
    was held to be authorized by the Boulder Canyon Act.

    On Jan. 31, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10630, a Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  80 Cong. Rec. 1312, 1313, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor of Colorado for the 
    committee: On page 69, after line 9, insert a new paragraph to read 
    as follows:
        ``Boulder Canyon project (All-American Canal): For continuation 
    of construction of a diversion dam and main canal (and appurtenant 
    structures) located entirely within the United States connecting 
    the diversion dam with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in 
    California; to acquire by proceedings in eminent domain or 
    otherwise all lands, rights-of-way, and other property necessary 
    for such purposes; and for incidental operations, as authorized by 
    the Boulder Canyon Project Act, approved December 21, 1928 (U.S.C., 
    Supp. VII, title 43, ch. 12-a), to be immediately available and to 
    remain available until advanced to the Colorado River Dam fund, 
    $6,500,000, and for all other objects of expenditure that are 
    specified for projects included in the Interior Department 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1937 under the caption 
    `Bureau of Reclamation.' '
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of

[[Page 5503]]

    order against the amendment that it is an appropriation not 
    authorized by law. . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will state that the 
    appropriation proposed in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Taylor) is authorized by the Boulder Canyon 
    Project Act (U.S.C., title 43, sec. 617), a portion of which the 
    Chair will read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2.  Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado 
        River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a 
        storage reservoir of a capacity of not less than 20,000,000 
        acre-feet of water and a main canal and appurtenant structures 
        located entirely within the United States connecting the Laguna 
        Dam, or other suitable diversion dam, which the Secretary of 
        the Interior is hereby authorized to construct if deemed 
        necessary or advisable by him upon engineering or economic 
        consideration with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, Calif.

        That provision of law seems to the Chair to authorize the 
    appropriation; therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Indian Affairs

Sec. 15.21 An amendment making an appropriation for financial 
    assistance to public school districts, for the construction and 
    equipment of public school facilities for Navaho Indian children 
    from reservation areas not included in such districts, was held to 
    be authorized by law.

    On July 22, 1954,(3) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9936, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  100 Cong. Rec. 11451, 11452, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further amendment:

            Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$3,900,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$6,900,000.''
            Page 10, line 8, after the word ``expended'', insert the 
        following: ``which sum is composed of $3,000,000 to provide 
        financial assistance to public-school districts, for the 
        construction and equipment of public-school facilities for 
        Navaho Indian children from reservation areas not included in 
        such districts, and $3,900,000 for payments under contracts or 
        other obligations entered into pursuant to section 6 of the 
        Federal Aid Highway Act of 1954 (38 Stat. 73).''

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the Rehabilitation Act of the Indian tribes and 
    feels that it is broad enough to cover the amendment. In title 25 
    of the United States Code, where the Navaho and Hopi Rehabilitation 
    Act is codified, section 631 authorizes a broad program of 
    rehabilitation, expressly including ``school buildings and 
    equipment, and other educational measures'' and funds appropriated 
    for such pur

[[Page 5504]]

    poses are authorized to be available ``for all other objects 
    necessary for or appropriate to the carrying out of the provisions 
    of this section.'' Section 452 of title 25 of the United States 
    Code authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contract with 
    States or subdivisions thereof for the education of Indians. 
    Therefore, the appropriation set forth in the amendment in the 
    opinion of the Chair is authorized by law, and the point of order 
    is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Smithsonian Institution

Sec. 15.22 An appropriation for salaries and expenses for 
    anthropological research among the American Indians and the natives 
    of Hawaii ``and other lands under the jurisdiction or protection of 
    the United States'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  91 Cong. Rec. 953, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           [Smithsonian Institution]

            Salaries and expenses: For all salaries and expenses 
        necessary for continuing preservation, exhibition, and increase 
        of collections from the surveying and exploring expeditions of 
        the Government and from other sources; for the system of 
        international exchanges between the United States and foreign 
        countries; for anthropological researches among the American 
        Indians and the natives of Hawaii and other lands under the 
        jurisdiction or protection of the United States, and the 
        excavation and preservation of archeological remains. . . .

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language on page 50, lines 18 and 
    19, under the heading ``Smithsonian Institution,'' as follows:

            And other lands under the jurisdiction and protection of 
        the United States.

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  William M. Whittington (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expenses of Indian Tribal Councils

Sec. 15.23 Appropriations for expenses of tribal councils for travel, 
    including supplies and equipment, $5 per day in lieu of 
    subsistence, and 5 cents per mile for use of automobiles (including 
    visits to Washington, D.C.) when authorized and approved by the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs, was held not authorized by law and 
    to include legislation.

[[Page 5505]]

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. When the 
following amendment was offered, a point of order was raised against 
certain of its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  83 Cong. Rec. 2646, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 63, line 8, 
    insert:
        ``Expenses of tribal councils or committees thereof (tribal 
    funds): For traveling and other expenses of members of tribal 
    councils, business committees, or other tribal organizations, when 
    engaged on business of the tribes, including supplies and 
    equipment, not to exceed $5 per diem in lieu of subsistence, and 
    not to exceed 5 cents per mile for use of personally owned 
    automobiles, and including visits to Washington, D.C., when duly 
    authorized or approved in advance by the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs, $50,000, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of 
    the particular tribe interested: Provided, That except for the 
    Navajo Tribe, not more than $5,000 shall be expended from the funds 
    of any one tribe or band of Indians for the purposes herein 
    specified.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law and 
    that it creates additional duties for the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs and, generally, that the entire matter is unauthorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is authorized 
    under the Snyder Act, and I call attention to title 25, section 13, 
    which clearly authorizes this expenditure. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The item to which attention has been called in the last 
    paragraph of section 13, title 25, United States Code, includes the 
    following language:

            And for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It does not seem to the Chair that this language is sufficient 
    to include the various items that are included in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the Chair therefore 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

Assistance to Indians

Sec. 15.24 Language in a general appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for advances to Indians having irrigable allotments, 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof and 
    thereby to enable Indians to become self-supporting, was held to be 
    within the broad authority to appropriate for assistance of 
    Indians, authorized by law and in order.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior De

[[Page 5506]]

partment appropriation. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  83 Cong. Rec. 2638, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 28, 
    after line 10, insert a new paragraph as follows:
        ``For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support 
    among the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, 
    and other crops, $240,000, which sum may be advanced to Indians for 
    the purchase of seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, and 
    other equipment necessary, and for advances to Indians having 
    irrigable allotments to assist them in the development and 
    cultivation thereof, in the discretion of the Secretary of the 
    Interior, to enable Indians to become self-supporting: Provided, 
    That not to exceed $75,000 of the amount herein appropriated, 
    together with $50,000 made available for this purpose under this 
    head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal 
    year 1938, and hereby continued available for the same purpose for 
    the fiscal year 1939, may be advanced to the Navajo Tribe of 
    Indians for the purchase, feeding, sale, or other disposition of 
    sheep, goats, and other livestock belonging to the Navajo 
    Indians.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, not authorized by law. I make the point of 
    order particularly to that part of the amendment which relates to 
    advances to the Indians having irrigable lands. There is no 
    authority for that provision. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order is made to that provision of the amendment 
    which authorizes advances to Indians having irrigable allotments, 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Referring to title 25, United States Code, section 13, under 
    the heading ``Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau of Indian 
    Affairs,'' the Chair finds that the Bureau is authorized to spend--
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes.

        Among these purposes are listed the following:

            General support and civilization, including education.
            For industrial assistance and advancement and general 
        administration of Indian property.
            For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenance of 
        existing Indian irrigation systems, and for development of 
        water supplies.

        It seems clear to the Chair the appropriation is authorized 
    under the terms of that act, and the point of order is, therefore, 
    overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The discretionary authority given to the 
Secretary was not specifically mentioned in the point of order and was 
not the basis of the Chair's ruling.

[[Page 5507]]

 Indian Forest Lands

Sec. 15.25 An appropriation for the administration of Indian forest 
    lands from which timber was sold, to be available for the expenses 
    of such administration ``to the extent only that proceeds from the 
    sales of timber . . . are insufficient for that purpose,'' was 
    authorized by the Snyder Act.

    On May 14, 1937,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order against the following paragraph was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the preservation of timber on Indian reservations and 
    allotments other than the Menominee Indian Reservation in 
    Wisconsin, the education of Indians in the proper care of forests, 
    and the general administration of forestry and grazing work, 
    including fire prevention and payment of reasonable rewards for 
    information leading to arrest and conviction of a person or persons 
    setting forest fires, or taking or otherwise destroying timber, in 
    contravention of law on Indian lands, $260,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for the expenses of administration 
    of Indian forest lands from which timber is sold to the extent only 
    that proceeds from the sales of timber from such lands are 
    insufficient for that purpose. . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  The latter provision could actually be regarded as a limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr Chairman, 
    I make the point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wigglesworth: I make the point of order on the paragraph 
    upon the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman kindly indicate just what 
    there is in the paragraph that constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation?
        Mr. Wigglesworth: I call the Chair's attention particularly to 
    the proviso at the conclusion of the paragraph.
        The Chairman: In what respect does the gentleman hold that that 
    proviso constitutes legislation?
        Mr. Wigglesworth: It seems to me that the language is clearly 
    legislative in character and imposes additional duties to those now 
    in existence. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes a point of order against the 
    proviso beginning in line 24, page 23, of the pending bill, and 
    assigns as ground for the point of order that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chair invites the gentleman's attention to section 13 of 
    title 25 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Snyder 
    Act, which provides for industrial assistance and advancement and 
    general administration of Indian property. Further, the same act 
    provides ``and for general and incidental expenses in connection 
    with the administration of Indian affairs.''

[[Page 5508]]

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the provisions of existing 
    law, to which attention has been invited, contain legislative 
    authority for the appropriation appearing in the item to which the 
    gentleman makes a point of order.
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that it is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and overrules the point of 
    order.

 Indians--Extent of Authority Under Snyder Act

Sec. 15.26 Language providing an appropriation for the purpose of 
    encouraging industry and self-support among the Indians and 
    outlining areas of discretionary authority to be exercised by the 
    Secretary of the Interior was held to be authorized by the Snyder 
    Act although other language of the paragraph in question caused the 
    entire paragraph to be ruled out as legislation.

     On May 14, 1937,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000, which sum may be used for the purchase of 
    seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, and other equipment 
    necessary, and for advances to Indians having irrigable allotments 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, to enable Indians to 
    become self-supporting: Provided, That the expenditures for the 
    purposes above set forth shall be under conditions to be prescribed 
    by the Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States 
    on or before June 30, 1943, except in the case of loans on 
    irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in which 
    the period for repayment may run for not exceeding 20 years, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior: . . . Provided 
    further, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, 
    in his discretion and under such rules and regulations as he may 
    prescribe, to make advances from this appropriation to old, 
    disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, for their support, to 
    remain a charge and lien against their lands until paid. . . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    it imposes discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. 
    The language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules 
    and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.

[[Page 5509]]

        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, the Committee 
    feels that this provision is in order. It provides only a method by 
    which the appropriation might be expended. I have no further 
    comment to make.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision in 
    existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has been 
    in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. This precedent, with reference to language ruled out as 
        legislation, is also discussed in Sec. Sec. 38.14 
        (reimbursements), 46.13 (imposition of lien against lands as 
        legislation), and 62.10 (provisions affecting executive 
        authority), infra.

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

[[Page 5510]]

Indian Agent Under Contract

Sec. 15.27 An appropriation in the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill for the payment of an Indian agent employed under a contract 
    approved by the Secretary was held to be authorized by the Snyder 
    Act and to be merely descriptive of contract authority contained in 
    existing law and therefore not legislative in character.

    On May 14, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958. A point of order against the following language 
in the bill was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec.  4605, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Utah: Uintah and Ouray, $7,100, of which amount not to exceed 
    $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent employed 
    under a contract, approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make the point of order on the paragraph beginning in line 11 and 
    ending in line 14 of page 57 that there is no authorization in law 
    for the appropriation recommended. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes a 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 57, lines 11 
    to 14, inclusive, on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by existing law.
        The Chair has examined the statement in the hearings to which 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts has invited attention, and 
    especially is impressed by the following statement contained in the 
    hearings:

            The contract was approved on March 2, 1937, by the 
        Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the 
        Interior in accordance with sections 2103 and 2106 of the 
        Revised Statutes of the United States.

        This would clearly indicate to the Chair that the law to which 
    reference is here made would be authority for the contract. It 
    appears that the contract was made and the discharge of the duty 
    entered upon under the provisions of the contract.
        Attention is also invited again to the so-called Snyder Act 
    which, among other things, provides for the employment of 
    inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, clerks, field matrons, 
    farmers, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges, and other 
    employees. The language of the bill to which the point of order is 
    directed provides for the sum of $7,100, of which amount not to 
    exceed $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent 
    employed under a contract approved by the Secretary of the 
    Interior.
        The Chair is of the opinion that this provision is clearly 
    within the scope of existing law to which attention has been 
    invited, and therefore is not legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in viola

[[Page 5511]]

    tion of the rules of the House. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Reclamation Law--Appropriations From ``General Funds'' Instead of 
    ``Reclamation Fund''

Sec. 15.28 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating funds 
    ``out of the general funds of the Treasury'' (and not the 
    reclamation fund) for general investigations of proposed federal 
    reclamation projects was held unauthorized by law and to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, Interior Department appropriations for 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec.  2710, 2711, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general investigations, $200,000, to enable the 
        Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, 
        to carry on engineering and economic investigations of proposed 
        Federal reclamation projects, surveys for reconstruction, 
        rehabilitation, or extension of existing projects and studies 
        of water conservation and development plans, such 
        investigations, surveys, and studies to be carried on by said 
        Bureau either independently, or, if deemed advisable by the 
        Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with State agencies, 
        and other Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, 
        National Resources Committee, and the Federal Power Commission.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning on line 18, page 85, 
    ending with line 4, page 86, upon the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    authorized in my opinion in the general terms of the Reclamation 
    Act. It has been in effect for many years.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, an appropriation in accordance with 
    the authorization under the Reclamation Act is provided on page 77, 
    line 8, down to and including line 3 on page 78. The appropriation 
    is $25,000. That is the authorized appropriation. I do not believe 
    there is any authority for this out of the general fund of the 
    Treasury.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has examined sections 
    411 and 396, United States Code, title 43, and it seems to the 
    Chair that under the terms of these two sections which are rather 
    broad in their application, this appropriation may be authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Is not that limited to the reclamation fund?
        The Chairman: The Chair was looking particularly with reference 
    to that. The Chair will read the entire section 411:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct, 
        as provided in

[[Page 5512]]

        this chapter, irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and 
        development of waters, including artesian wells, and to report 
        to Congress at the beginning of each regular session as to the 
        results of such examinations and surveys, giving estimates of 
        cost of all contemplated works, the quantity and location of 
        the lands which can be irrigated therefrom, and all facts 
        relative to the practicability of each irrigation project; also 
        the cost of works in process of construction as well as of 
        those which have been completed.

        Mr. Taber: I call the attention of the Chair to the language:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the 
        provisions of this chapter--

        That is where the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    and the reclamation fund are defined. That would imply that it is 
    to be done under the provisions of the reclamation fund. It would 
    seem to me that that is the authority under which they operated in 
    providing the appropriation that is to be found on page 77.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Nevada desire to comment 
    on this, or the gentleman from Oklahoma? On consideration it seems 
    to the Chair that this comes out of the general fund in the 
    Treasury and not the reclamation fund, and this is limited in the 
    way suggested by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Scrugham: Section 411 seems to cover the matter.
        The Chairman: If this were out of the reclamation fund, there 
    would be no question about it, but this appropriation is out of the 
    general fund in the Treasury. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order inasmuch as the 
    appropriation is made out of the general fund and not the 
    reclamation fund. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    The ruling above was expressly followed on Apr. 27, 
1945.(1) In the 1945 proceedings, Mr. Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, contended that legislation passed subsequently to the 
1938 ruling did authorize the language in question on the 1945 bill. 
The Chair, however, decided that the provisions objected to on that 
bill still went beyond the language of the authorizing law. The 
proceedings on Apr. 27, 1945, relating to H.R. 3024, an Interior 
Department appropriation, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 3908-10, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General investigations: For engineering and economic 
    investigations of proposed Federal reclamation projects and 
    surveys, investigations, and other activities relating to 
    reconstruction, rehabilitation, extensions, or financial 
    adjustments of existing projects, and studies of water conservation 
    and development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to 
    be carried on by said Bureau either independently, or in 
    cooperation with State agencies and other Federal agencies, 
    including the Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Power Commission, 
    $1,485,000: Provided, That the expenditure of any sums from this 
    appropriation for investigations of any nature requested by States, 
    municipalities, or other interests shall be upon the basis of the

[[Page 5513]]

    State, municipality, or other interest advancing at least 50 
    percent of the estimated cost of such investigations.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all 
    the language in the paragraph starting with line 14 on page 57 and 
    continuing to the words and figures ``$1,485,000,'' for the reason 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and for the further 
    reason that the amount ``$1,485,000'' is beyond the authorization 
    of the statute to wit, title 43, sections 411 and 411a-1 of the 
    United States Code. The sections of the statute to which I refer 
    are as follows:
        The section is as follows:

            411. Surveys for, location, and construction of irrigation 
        works generally--Reports to Congress:
            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct 
        as provided in sections 372, 373 . . . and 498, of this title, 
        irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of 
        waters, including artesian wells, and to report to Congress at 
        the beginning of each regular session all results of such 
        examinations and surveys, giving estimates of cost of all 
        contemplated works; the quantity and location of lands which 
        can be irrigated therefrom, and all facts relative to the 
        practicability of each irrigation project; also the cost of 
        works in process of construction as well as those which have 
        been completed.
        Section 411a-1 reads as follows:
        The title provides:

            Appropriations for investigations of the feasibility of 
        reclamation projects: The sum of $125,000 annually is hereby 
        authorized to be provided for cooperative and miscellaneous 
        investigations of the feasibility of reclamation projects.

        Mr. Chairman, I have sought Webster's definition of the words 
    in the statutes, sections 411 and 411a-1 of title 43 of the United 
    States Code. The definitions of the various words are as follows:

            Practicable: That may be practiced or performed; capable of 
        being put into practice, done, or accomplished; capable of 
        being used; readily practiced on; gullible; or pliant.
            Practical: Fit for doing; of, pertaining to, or consisting 
        or manifested in, practice or action; opposed to theoretical, 
        ideal, or speculating; available, usable, or valuable in 
        practice or action; capable of being turned to use or account; 
        useful; skillful or experienced from practice; given or 
        disposed to action as opposed to speculation; capable of 
        applying knowledge to some useful end.
            Practicability: A quality or state of being practicable; 
        feasibility or an instance of it.
            Feasibility: Quality of being feasible; practicability; 
        also that which is feasible.
            Feasible: Capable of being done, executed, or effected; 
        practicable; fit to be used or dealt with successfully; 
        suitable; likely; probable; reasonable.
            Examination: Act of examining, or state of being examined; 
        a search or investigation; scrutiny by study or experiment; a 
        process prescribed or assigned for testing qualification.
            Investigation: Act of investigating; process of inquiring 
        into or following up; research, especially patient or thorough 
        inquiry or examination.
            Survey: Act of surveying; an examination, especially an 
        official exam

[[Page 5514]]

        ination of all the parts or particulars of a thing to ascertain 
        its condition, quantity, or quality; the operation of finding 
        and delineating the contour, dimensions, positions, etc., as of 
        any part of the earth's surface; to inspect; to view 
        attentively, as from a high place; to view with a scrutinizing 
        eye; to examine; to examine as to conditions, situation, value, 
        etc., to examine and ascertain state of.

        Following are Black's Law Dictionary definitions of such terms 
    as appear therein:

            Survey: The process by which a parcel of land is measured 
        and its contents ascertained; also a statement of the result of 
        such survey, with the courses and distances and the quantity of 
        the land. . . . The land included in field notes. . . . 
        (Black's Dictionary, p. 1689.)
            Investigation: To follow up step by step by patient inquiry 
        or observation; to trace or track mentally; to search into; to 
        examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by 
        careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a 
        legal inquiry. . . .

        I find that the language against which I made a point of order 
    is not within the terms of the sections of the statute which I have 
    read. The words I referred to which are beyond the authorization of 
    the statutes are as follows:

            Engineering, economic investigations, and other activities 
        relating to reconstruction, rehabilitation, and extension, or 
        financial adjustments of existing projects and studies.

        Then down further there is a provision in the section that the 
    development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to be 
    carried on by said Bureau, ``either independently or in cooperation 
    with State agencies and other Federal agencies, including the Corps 
    of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.'' These provisions 
    to which I have lastly referred are beyond the terms of the statute 
    and beyond the limitation in money as outlined in 411 and 411a-1 of 
    the United States Code.
        So, summarizing, I make the point of order against this 
    language which I have indicated for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; for the further reason that 
    words go in the bill beyond the amount allowed to be appropriated; 
    and for the further reason that it is in contradiction of existing 
    law as outlined in these two sections.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has made a point of order 
    against the language appearing in the pending bill beginning in 
    line 14 and extending to the colon in line 23 on the grounds stated 
    by him. The gentleman from Oklahoma, chairman of the subcommittee 
    in charge of the pending bill, has conceded the point of order.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that this same question 
    was presented when a point of order was made on March 2, 1938. 
    Without reviewing the decision made at that time, but citing it as 
    a precedent as guiding the Chair in the present instance, the Chair 
    feels that the decision then made is sound and is applicable to the 
    question here presented, and sustains the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the 
    Chair to state that his decision was based on the precedent made in 
    March 1938?
        The Chairman: One of the guiding features of the decision on 
    the pending

[[Page 5515]]

    point of order is the decision appearing on page 2710 and 2711 of 
    volume 83, part 3, of the Congressional Record, Seventy-sixth 
    Congress, Third Session, March 2, 1938.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: My reason for asking the question is 
    that the basic Reclamation Act of August 4, 1939, was passed 
    subsequently to the basis on which that decision was made. In 
    addition to that, the Wheeler-Case Act, as amended in 1940, also 
    placed on the Secretary of the Interior an obligation to make 
    investigations of potential projects. And further, the Flood 
    Control Act of last year, finally passed in December 1944, in 
    several places specifically places on the Secretary of the Interior 
    a responsibility and authority for making such investigations, in 
    cooperation with the Secretary of War and with the States. The law 
    that relates to the revision and adjustment of obligations on 
    irrigation districts was a part of the act passed in 1939. The 5-
    year limitation on that authority expired in 1944, but Congress 
    renewed it in a bill passed this year in the early days of this 
    Congress. All three of these acts specifically authorize the 
    activities on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
    Secretary of Interior, involved in this point of order, and all 
    these laws were passed subsequent to the precedent which the Chair 
    has cited.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not deem it necessary or 
    appropriate to go into too great detail in deciding the question 
    here presented, but in the opinion of the Chair there is language 
    appearing in that part of the bill against which the point of order 
    was made, which is legislation on an appropriation bill and goes 
    further than the provisions of existing law. As previously stated, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order and the Clerk will read.

Reclamation Law--Submission of Report Constitutes Authorization

Sec. 15.29 An appropriation for the Arizona-Nevada Bullshead Project 
    was held to be authorized by section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 
    1939 which authorized expenditures to be made following submission 
    to Congress of a favorable report on the project's feasibility.

     On May 14, 1941,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4590, an Interior Department appropriation At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 4047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Bullshead project, Arizona-Nevada, $5,000,000, for the purposes 
    and substantially in accordance with the report thereon heretofore 
    submitted under section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 
    and subject to the terms of the Colorado River compact.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the item contained in this project is not authorized 
    by law. I make the point of order against the entire paragraph 
    which has just been

[[Page 5516]]

    read, beginning in line 22, page 84, and ending in line 2, page 85.
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the project 
    is fully authorized. It is stated in the hearings, page 729, that 
    the project has been thoroughly investigated and was not authorized 
    at the time of the report, but it has now been authorized in 
    accordance with section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 1939. I call 
    attention to the Congressional Record of April 28, 1941, page 3367, 
    under the head of ``Executive communications,'' item 473, which 
    fully conforms to the requirements of law. The project is 
    authorized.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the hearings at page 731, the last paragraph at the bottom of the 
    page:

            Mr. Page: It has not had as yet the certification of the 
        Secretary and the approval of the President, as required by 
        law.

        The Chairman: (4) What is the date of the page to 
    which the gentleman refers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: The date is April 3, 1941. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order against the paragraph appearing 
    in the pending bill beginning on line 22, page 84, and concluding 
    in line 2, page 85, on the ground that it is not authorized by law. 
    The Chair has examined section 9 of the Reclamation Act, approved 
    August 4, 1939, which appears to be adequate authority for the 
    Secretary of the Interior to recommend the project here in 
    question. That section reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 9. (a) No expenditures for the construction of any new 
        project, new division of a project, or new supplemental works 
        on a project shall be made, nor shall estimates be submitted 
        therefor, by the Secretary until after he has made an 
        investigation thereof and has submitted to the President and to 
        the Congress his report and findings on--
            (1) the engineering feasibility of the proposed 
        construction . . .
            If the proposed construction is found by the Secretary to 
        have engineering feasibility and if the repayable and 
        returnable allocations to irrigation, power, and municipal 
        water supply or other miscellaneous purposes found by the 
        Secretary to be proper, together with any allocation to flood 
        control or navigation made under subsection (b) of this 
        section, equal the total estimated cost of construction as 
        determined by the Secretary, then the new project, new division 
        of a project, or supplemental works on a project, covered by 
        his findings, shall be deemed authorized and may be undertaken 
        by the Secretary. If all such allocations do not equal said 
        total estimated cost, then said new project, new division, or 
        new supplemental works may be undertaken by the Secretary only 
        after provision therefor has been made by act of Congress 
        enacted after the Secretary has submitted to the President and 
        the Congress the report and findings involved.

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that on April 28, 1941, 
    the Secretary of the Interior transmitted to the Congress a 
    communication including the project here in question. The gentleman 
    from New York states that the statements made by the Commissioner 
    of the Bureau of Reclamation were made on April 3. Thereafter, the

[[Page 5517]]

    Secretary of the Interior complied with the provisions of the act 
    by transmitting a communication on April 28, 1941, recommending 
    this project. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the 
    point of order and does overrule the point of order.

Sec. 15.30 The Reclamation Act was held to authorize appropriations for 
    irrigation projects which had been recommended by the Secretary of 
    the Interior and approved by the President of the United States.

    On May 17, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against the following paragraph and was 
overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 4680, 4681, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provo River project, Utah, $750,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this paragraph that the appropriation is not 
    authorized by law. No construction has been started and no law is 
    in force authorizing the project. I call the attention of the 
    Chairman to the latter part of page 245 of the record of the 
    hearings and to the following words:

            Construction program through fiscal year 1937. The starting 
        of actual construction work has been delayed by the necessity 
        of organization and negotiating repayment and water-
        subscription contracts.
            It is expected that bids will be received for the 
        construction--

        And so forth. This means there has been no actual construction 
    on this job and that it has not been authorized by specific 
    legislation. Therefore, I make the point of order against it that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and has not been 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair invites attention to the 
    provision of the United States Code in title 43, section 413, which 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Approval of projects by President. No irrigation project 
        shall be begun unless and until the same shall have been 
        recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by 
        direct order of the President of the United States.

        This is the act of June 25, 1910, commonly referred to as the 
    Reclamation Act.

        The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah, or 
    someone else in position to give the information, whether or not 
    this item against which a point of order has been made has been 
    recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by the 
    direct order of the President of the United States, and the Chair 
    would like to have some evidence on this point.
        Mr. [James W.] Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I hold in my 
    hand, in answer to the statement of the Chair, a letter----
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, I offer such 
    documentary evidence.
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: I am submitting, Mr. Chairman, a letter 
    from Sec

[[Page 5518]]

    retary Ickes, together with the approval of this project by the 
    President.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, if documentary 
    evidence is offered for the purpose of showing compliance with the 
    law, it seems to me it should be presented to the committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair has in mind referring to the document 
    in passing upon the question here presented.
        The Chair feels he has examined sufficient evidence to supply 
    the information requested. Does the gentleman from Utah desire to 
    be heard further?
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: Does the Chair care to hear argument on 
    the other proposition of whether or not work has actually been 
    commenced on this project?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not feel that particular point is 
    involved with respect to this particular item.
        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        There has been presented to the Chair a letter from the 
    Secretary of the Interior, under date of November 13, 1935, which 
    consists of three pages, and the Chair will only refer to the 
    pertinent part of the letter which applies to the particular item 
    under consideration. The letter is addressed to the President of 
    the United States by the Secretary of the Interior. Among other 
    things, it is stated in the letter:

            I recommend that the Provo River project, consisting of the 
        Deer Creek division and the Utah Lake division, be approved and 
        that authority be issued to this Department to proceed with the 
        work and to make contracts and to take any necessary action for 
        the construction of said projects or either division thereof.
            Sincerely yours,
                                            Harold L. Ickes,
                                        Secretary of the Interior.

        There appears on this letter ``Approved November 16, 1935, 
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, President.''
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the evidence is 
    sufficient to meet the requirements in that this item in the 
    pending bill has been recommended by the Secretary of the Interior 
    and approved by the President of the United States, in accordance 
    with the provisions of existing law, as cited by the Chair, 
    appearing in section 413, title 43, of the United States Code. The 
    Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

 Reclamation Law--Incidental Administrative Expenses Authorized

Sec. 15.31 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    proposing an appropriation for certain expenses incidental to the 
    main purpose of carrying out the reclamation law was held to be 
    authorized by that law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation During 
consideration of the bill, a point of order against the following 
amendment was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Page 
    72, be

[[Page 5519]]

    ginning with line 12, insert the following:
        ``Administrative provisions and limitations: For all 
    expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts 
    amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the 
    reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures from 
    said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 for 
    personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the office of 
    the chief engineer, $20,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other 
    communication service, $5,000 for photographing and making 
    photographic prints, $41,250 for personal services, and $7,500 for 
    other expenses in the field legal offices; examination of estimates 
    for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and 
    deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for 
    lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding; purchase of ice; 
    purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees; maintenance 
    and operation of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger 
    vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for purchase and exchange of horse-
    drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; packing, 
    crating, and transportation (including drayage) of personal effects 
    of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to 
    be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; payment of damages 
    caused to the owners of lands or other private property of any kind 
    by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or 
    employees, in the survey, construction, operation, or maintenance 
    of irrigation works, payment for official telephone service in the 
    field hereafter incurred in case of official telephones installed 
    in private houses when authorized under regulations established by 
    the Secretary of the Interior; not to exceed $1,000 for expenses, 
    except membership fees, of attendance, when authorized by the 
    Secretary, upon meetings of technical and professional societies 
    required in connection with official work of the Bureau; payment of 
    rewards, when specifically authorized by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, for information leading to the apprehension and 
    conviction of persons found guilty of the theft, damage, or 
    destruction of public property. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not 
    authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic 
    prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision 
    for examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, which 
    is not authorized by law; $15,000 for lithographing and engraving, 
    not authorized by law; the purchase of ice, the purchase of rubber 
    boots for official use by employees, not authorized by law.
         The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    amendment provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of 
    June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary 
    thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all other acts under 
    which expenditures from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The 
    Chair thinks that the items to which the gentleman from New York 
    objects specifically are incidental to the main purpose of carrying

[[Page 5520]]

    out the reclamation law. These incidental items it seems to the 
    Chair are necessary to carry out the major purposes of the 
    reclamation law, and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granting New Authority to Cover Incidental Costs

Sec. 15.32 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the Secretary 
    of the Interior, when in his judgment it is necessary, to utilize 
    appropriations made for the Indian field service to purchase 
    certain equipment for the use of employees and to pay travel 
    expenses of employees on official business was held unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9621), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 2653, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            When, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, it 
        is necessary for accomplishment of the purposes of 
        appropriations herein made for the Indian field service, such 
        appropriations shall be available for purchase of ice, for 
        rubber boots for use of employees, for travel expenses of 
        employees on official business, and for the cost of packing, 
        crating, drayage, and transportation of personal effects of 
        employees upon permanent change of station.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning with line 9, page 71, and 
    ending with line 16, page 71. It is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill; it requires additional duties on the part of the Secretary of 
    the Interior and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to 
    be heard.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.

Alaska Reindeer Industry

Sec. 15.33 A direction in law to an executive official to acquire, by 
    purchase or otherwise, ``necessary'' cold storage plants and other 
    equipment for purposes of developing the Alaskan Reindeer industry, 
    was held to permit an appropriation for that object to be 
    implemented in such manner as the official shall determine.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation At one

[[Page 5521]]

point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 60, 
    line 23, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner 
    as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable, of reindeer, 
    abattoirs, cold-storage plants, corrals and other buildings, and 
    communication and other equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, 
    as authorized by the act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), 
    $820,000; and for necessary administrative expenses in connection 
    with such purchase and the establishment and development of the 
    reindeer industry for the benefit of the Eskimos and other natives 
    of Alaska, as authorized by said act, including personal services 
    in the District of Columbia (not to exceed $2,300) and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, erection, repair, and maintenance of corrals, 
    fences, and other facilities, $250,000; in all $1,070,000, to be 
    immediately available: Provided, That under this appropriation not 
    exceeding an average of $4 per head shall be paid for reindeer 
    purchased from nonnative owners: Provided further, That the 
    foregoing limitation shall not apply to the purchase of reindeer 
    located on Nunivak Island.''
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, unauthorized by law, and it 
    delegates to the Department additional authority which it does not 
    now have. . . .
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from California is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carter: The opening sentence of the amendment reads:

            For the purchase in such manner as the Secretary of the 
        Interior shall deem advisable.

        Now, certainly there is nothing in the statute that gives the 
    Secretary of the Interior that much discretion. In addition to 
    that, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the proviso in the amendment which reads as the proviso in the 
    bill, which is clearly legislation. Therefore I say the point of 
    order must be sustained against the proposed amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The act of September 
    1, 1937, on which the appropriation contained in this paragraph is 
    based, reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized 
        and directed to acquire, in the name of the United States, by 
        purchase or other lawful means, including exercises of power of 
        eminent domain, for and on behalf of the Eskimos and other 
        natives of Alaska, reindeer, reindeer range, equipment, 
        abattoirs, cold-storage plants, warehouses and other property, 
        real or personal, the acquisition of which he determines to be 
        necessary to the effectuation of the purposes of this act.

        This seems to be a broad, all-inclusive grant of power. The 
    language used in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma merely restates, in slightly different words, the 
    authorization contained in the act of September 1, 1937.
        The proviso to which the gentleman from California [Mr. Carter] 
    refers ap

[[Page 5522]]

    pears to the Chair to be nothing more than a limitation, in the 
    strictest sense of the word.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules both points of order.

Bituminous Coal Commission

Sec. 15.34 Language permitting an appropriation to be used for public 
    instruction and information deemed necessary by the Bituminous Coal 
    Commission, in the course of conducting research on coal, was held 
    authorized by a law conferring broad discretionary authority on the 
    Commission to undertake acts deemed ``necessary'' for coal 
    promotion.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following paragraph in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 2553, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    National Bituminous Coal Commission in performing the duties 
    imposed upon said Commission by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 
    approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72), including personal services 
    and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere . . . 
    miscellaneous items, including those for public instruction and 
    information deemed necessary by the Commission; and not to exceed 
    $8,500 for purchase and exchange of newspapers, law books, 
    reference books, and periodicals, $2,700,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning with the word ``including'' in 
    line 11 on page 11, and running down through the word 
    ``Commission'', in line 13, that it is not authorized by law, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and requires additional 
    duties of the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will call attention to the fact that volume 50, 
    Statutes at Large, page 74, section 2, of the Bituminous Coal 
    Commission Act, the last paragraph, contains this provision:

            The Commission is hereby authorized to initiate, promote, 
        and conduct research designed to improve standards and methods 
        used in the mining, preparation, conservation, distribution, 
        and utilization of coal and the discovery of additional uses 
        for coal, and for such purposes shall have authority to assist 
        educational, governmental, and other research institutions in 
        conducting research in coal, and to do such other acts and 
        things as it deems necessary and proper to promote the use of 
        coal and its derivatives.

        It seems to the Chair that clearly the appropriation to which 
    the point of order is directed is authorized by the provisions of 
    the paragraph just read.

[[Page 5523]]

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    further.
        Mr. Taber: It seems to me the language in this bill is much 
    broader than the language in the enabling act, in that this item 
    may permit action way beyond the range of the enabling act. With 
    reference to particular activities like research with respect to 
    coal, which the Commission may conduct, the Commission undoubtedly 
    has that power; but the language in the provision against which I 
    have made the point of order is not limited to the scope of the 
    act. Under it the Commission may go into any conceivable subject. 
    Therefore, it seems to me this particular language is way beyond 
    the scope of the authorization act. If this language were limited 
    to the scope of the authorization act, of course, it would be in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is unable to see how broader terms 
    could be used than are used in the enabling act, which reads:

            To assist educational, governmental, and other research 
        institutions in conducting research in coal, and to do such 
        other acts and things as it deems necessary and proper to 
        promote the use of coal and its derivatives.

        This provision covers not only educational, governmental, and 
    other research institutions, but such other acts as the Commission 
    may deem necessary.
        It seems to the Chair the language of the act is fully as broad 
    as the terms embodied in the pending bill, and, therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.



                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 16. Federal Employment

Overseas Allowances

Sec. 16.1 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds and 
    authority for an overseas allowance for employees of the Foreign 
    Claims Settlement Commission, ``similar to the allowance 
    established by law for Foreign Service personnel,'' was conceded to 
    be unauthorized and not in order in a general appropriation bill.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 12740) 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 17899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in the bill on page 7, beginning on line 
    11, running through line 4 on page 8, as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The language referred to is as follows:

                      Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

                             Salaries and expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses,'' 
        including allowances and benefits similar to those provided by 
        title nine of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as

[[Page 5524]]

        determined by the Commission; expenses of packing, shipping, 
        and storing personal effects of personnel assigned abroad; 
        rental or lease, for such periods as may be necessary, of 
        office space and living quarters for personnel assigned abroad; 
        maintenance, improvement, and repair of properties rented or 
        leased abroad, and furnishing fuel, water, and utilities for 
        such properties; hire of passenger motor vehicles abroad; 
        insurance on official motor vehicles abroad; and advances of 
        funds abroad; $145,000: Provided, That the limitation under 
        this head in the General Government Matters Appropriation Act, 
        1961, on the amount available for expenses of travel, is 
        increased from ``$10,000'' to ``$20,000''.

        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Iowa is right. This is the first time that these people have 
    operated overseas and they asked for a little overseas allowance 
    The Bureau of the Budget recommended it. We did not feel that we 
    wanted to be the least bit oppressive on it. Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Iowa is sustained.

Representation Allowances

Sec. 16.2 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
    ``representation allowances overseas and official entertainment 
    expenses, to be expended upon the approval or authority of the 
    Administrator,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 7978), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 12126, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For contractual research, development, operations, 
        technical services, repairs, alterations, and minor 
        construction, and for supplies, materials, and equipment 
        necessary for the conduct and support of aeronautical and space 
        research and development activities of the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration, including not to exceed $5,000 for 
        representation allowances overseas and official entertainment 
        expenses, to be expended upon the approval or authority of the 
        Administrator. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language on page 4, beginning with the word 
    ``including'' in line 10 and running through the word 
    ``Administrator'' in line 13, on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thomas) on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: I cannot recall that there was any 
    legislation au

[[Page 5525]]

    thorizing this entertainment fund for the Administrator. We reduced 
    it drastically as it was sent up by the Bureau of the Budget. 
    Perhaps it would serve a useful purpose. I think the gentleman's 
    point of order is good and I concede it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 16.3 A section of a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretaries of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare to use 
    funds in the bill for official reception and representation 
    expenses was conceded to be unauthorized and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 27, 1974,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 15580 (Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriations), a point of order was sustained 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 21686, 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 404. The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare are each authorized to make 
        available not to exceed $7,500 from funds available for 
        salaries and expenses under titles I and II, respectively, for 
        official reception and representation expenses.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 37, beginning with 
    line 21 and running through line 25 as being appropriation not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: It is the entire 
    section 404?
        Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Presidential Commission

Sec. 16.4 A lump-sum amount for the Civil Service Commission contained 
    in a general appropriation bill was conceded to be in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2 where it was shown that a portion of that amount 
    was intended to fund the President's Commission on Personnel 
    Interchange--a Commission established solely by Executive order and 
    not created by law.

    On June 25, 1974,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Treasury, Postal Service, 
and Executive Office appropriation bill, a

[[Page 5526]]

point of order was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21036, 21037, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For necessary expenses, including services as authorized by 
        5 U.S.C. 3109 . . . not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
        and representation expenses; and advances or reimbursements to 
        applicable funds of the Commission and the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order 10422 
        of January 9, 1953, as amended; $90,000,000 together with not 
        to exceed $18,698,000 for current fiscal year administrative 
        expenses for the retirement and insurance programs to be 
        transferred from the appropriate trust funds of the Commission 
        in amounts determined by the Commission without regard to other 
        statutes: Provided, That the provisions of this appropriation 
        shall not affect the authority to use applicable trust funds 
        for administrative expenses of effecting statutory annuity 
        adjustments. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the language beginning at line 12 on page 12 of this 
    bill with the figures ``$90,000,000'' through line 20 ending in the 
    word ``adjustments.''. . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is in fact no 
    authorization for the President's Commission on Personnel 
    Interchange for which $353,000 is herein requested. It was created 
    solely by Executive Order 11451 on January 19, 1969.
        This House rule is supported in this regard by title 36 of the 
    United States Code, section 673, which also indicates that no funds 
    should be expended by this body without authorization. The full 
    section of the law reads as follows:

                             Title 36, Section 673

             No part of the public monies, or of any appropriation made 
        by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or 
        expenses of any commission, council or other similar body, or 
        any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any 
        work or the results of any work or action of commission, 
        council, board, or similar body, unless the creation of the 
        same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall 
        there be employed any detail hereafter or heretofore made or 
        otherwise personal services from any Executive Department or 
        other Government establishment in connection with any such 
        commission, council, board, or similar body. . . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

                          CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 17. Foreign Relations

Fishermen's Protective Act

Sec. 17.1 The Fishermen's Protective Act of 1957 was held sufficient 
    authorization for an appropriation to compensate certain vessel 
    owners whose vessels were seized by Ecuador.

[[Page 5527]]

    On June 28, 1971,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9271, an appropriation bill for the Department of the 
Treasury, the Postal Service, the Executive Office, and independent 
agencies. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 22439-42, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: On page 32, after line 19, 
    insert:

         ``Title V--Claims Under Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967

        ``Sec. 501. For payment of claims settled and determined in 
    accord with the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1971 
    and fol.) for amounts paid to the Government of Ecuador and 
    certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Secretary of 
    State in respect of the Ocean Queen (certified April 23, 1971), the 
    Day Island (certified May 10, 1971), the Apollo (certified May 4, 
    1971), the John F. Kennedy (certified May 4, 1971), the Quo Vadis 
    (certified May 12, 1971), and the Sun Europa (certified May 3, 
    1971), $387,190.''. . .
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Ohio wish 
    to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be very brief.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no question but that the law does 
    provide for the payment to these fishermen who have had their ships 
    seized in Ecuador.
        But I call the attention of the Chair to what the gentleman 
    from Michigan has said, which is quite correct, that the law has 
    been amended--that is, the original law of 1926 has been amended--
    the law of 1927--to provide where there is a seizure of this kind 
    that the payment shall be made from the withholding of foreign aid 
    funds from the recipient country. The law so provides, and this has 
    not been done. So the amendment of the law would provide the method 
    of payment in those countries which receive foreign aid and Ecuador 
    is one of them. So it would seem to me that at this time there is 
    no authority for an appropriation, because the law provides that it 
    shall be paid out of foreign aid funds and not by an appropriation 
    here.
        I point this out simply to call attention to what the 
    distinguished gentleman from Michigan has stated, and I think he 
    will agree that this is what the law is. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    desire to be heard further on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
    happen to have before me the two statutes which are relevant here 
    and I will cite them to the Chair at this particular time.
        The first is that the act of August 27, 1954, 68 Stat. 883-22 
    U.S. 3 71-76--the relevant part of that statute reads as follows--
    and this is section 2:

            In any case where--
            (a) a vessel of the United States is seized by a foreign 
        country on the basis of rights or claims in territorial waters 
        or the high seas which are not recognized by the United States; 
        and
            (b) there is no dispute of material facts with respect to 
        the location or

[[Page 5528]]

        activity of such vessel at the time of such seizure, the 
        Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable take such 
        action as he deems appropriate to attend to the welfare of such 
        vessel and its crew while it is held by such country and to 
        secure the release of such vessel and crew. . . .

        [Subsequent language provides] that once the Secretary of State 
    has certified the amounts paid to the Secretary of the Treasury . . 
    . the Secretary of the Treasury shall procure an appropriation from 
    the Congress and shall pay from appropriated funds the fine and 
    other charges necessary.
        Then subsequently, Mr. Chairman, in the statute of the 90th 
    Congress, Public Law 90-482, dated August 12, 1968--and this 
    appears at 75 Stat. 424, 22 U.S.C. 2151--we amended the statute 
    then to add to the word ``fine,'' which the United States is 
    supposed to compensate these fishermen for; in addition to that, 
    license fee, registration fee, or any other direct charge, and the 
    committee in this report interpreted this as being anything that is 
    necessary to release the vessel from the holding of the foreign 
    government--in each of these cases, I believe, the Government of 
    Ecuador. I would be happy to read the statute further if the 
    gentleman desires.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to permit me to 
    read that part which says that the fine and charges shall be paid 
    out of the foreign aid funds?
    Mr. Dingell: There is such a statute, but I would tell my good 
friend from Ohio the statute to which he is now addressing himself is 
another statute which says that the Secretary of State shall withhold 
and shall compensate the United States for the amounts paid out. We 
were very careful, I want my good friend from Ohio to know, in drafting 
the statute not to set it up so that the Secretary of State would have 
to withhold the fine from foreign aid funds so as to leave our 
fishermen naked and destitute. I do not believe the committee felt that 
we should trust the Secretary, making the commercial fishermen subject 
to that kind of whim or mercy. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Under section 1973 of the United States Code, title 22, there 
    is an authorization, as the gentleman from Michigan has said, which 
    does permit the payment of charges and authorizes these payments.
        In spite of the fact that there is a reference in section 1975 
    to action by the Secretary of State, nevertheless the Chair does 
    not find that the condition as contended for by the gentleman from 
    Ohio is contained in this section. The Chair believes the law cited 
    by the gentleman from Michigan would authorize the appropriation 
    carried in the amendment. The Chair finds the point of order is not 
    well taken and overrules the point of order.

International Organizations and Conferences

Sec. 17.2 An appropriation for ``International Conferences and 
    Contingencies'' which included a provision earmarking a certain 
    amount for a contribution to the International Secretariat on 
    Middle Level Manpower was

[[Page 5529]]

    held to be authorized by a law allowing the Secretary of State to 
    generally participate in international activities in conducting 
    foreign affairs.

    On Apr. 10, 1963,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5517, a supplemental appropriation bill containing the 
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 6157, 6158, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.

    For an additional amount for ``International conferences and 
contingencies,'' $315,000, of which $250,000 shall be available for 
expenses of organizing and holding the World Food Congress in the 
United States, as authorized by the act of October 18, 1962 (Public Law 
87-841), and $65,000 shall be available for the U.S. contribution to 
the International Secretariat on Middle Level Manpower.

        Mr. [Glenard P.] Lipscomb [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language in the bill on page 23, lines 
    8 through 15, under the heading ``International Conferences and 
    Contingencies'' on the ground that it is not authorized by law. The 
    authorizations for appropriations for international conferences and 
    contingencies under section 5 of Public Law 84-885 conveys 
    authority for a general appropriation and not authority for a 
    specific appropriation such as proposed under this section which 
    provides that of the $315,000 for ``International conferences and 
    contingencies,'' $65,000 shall be available for the U.S. 
    contributions to the International Secretariat on Middle Level 
    Manpower.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this appropriation is 
    authorized by law. It is authorized by Public Law 885, 84th 
    Congress, in section 5 of which we find the following:

            The Secretary of State is authorized to (a) provide for 
        participation by the United States in international activities 
        which arise from time to time in the conduct of foreign affairs 
        for which provision has not been made by the terms of any 
        treaty, convention or special act of Congress. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language cited by the gentleman from New York is, indeed, 
    very broad. The Chair believes that the point of order is not well 
    taken.
        The point of order is overruled.

Authority to Join International Organization Implies Authority for 
    Expenses

Sec. 17.3 An act authorizing the President to accept membership in an 
    international organization was held to be sufficient authorization 
    to support an appropriation for the obligation assumed by the 
    United States in accepting such membership.

[[Page 5530]]

    On Feb. 7, 1935,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 1616, 1677-80, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Tinkham [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    relation to the appropriation of $174,630 for the International 
    Labor Organization, I make the point of order that there is no 
    legislative authority to support this appropriation and, Mr. 
    Chairman, I make the further point of order that the appropriation 
    in any event is limited to the terms of the instrument which sets 
    up the International Labor Organization, namely title XIII of the 
    Versailles Treaty. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tinkham) involves the question as 
    to the authorization of an appropriation under title I of the bill 
    (H.R. 5255) granting to the International Labor Organization the 
    sum of $174,630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William N. Rogers (N.H.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In order that we may not be confused, the Chair feels it proper 
    to state that the reference to the Versailles Treaty in regard to 
    the legality of this appropriation, and the point of order raised 
    thereon, is absolutely irrelevant. The Versailles Treaty is no part 
    of the law of the United States of America, is not mentioned in the 
    paragraph providing this appropriation, and is not referred to in 
    the joint resolution passed in the Seventy-third Congress and 
    approved June 19, 1934. The law under which this appropriation is 
    proposed results from the joint resolution approved June 19, 1934, 
    which provided that the President of the United States was 
    authorized to accept membership for the Government of the United 
    States of America in the International Labor Organization which, 
    through its general conference of representatives and its members 
    and through its International Labor Office, collects information 
    concerning labor throughout the world, and prepares international 
    conventions for the consideration of member governments, with a 
    view of improving conditions of labor. The Versailles Treaty and 
    other matters of that kind are not referred to in that joint 
    resolution.
        The question, it seems to the Chair, resolves itself into 
    whether or not a reasonable interpretation of the law passed during 
    the Seventy-third Congress includes therein an authorization of the 
    Congress of the United States, which enacted that legislation, to 
    make reasonable appropriations to carry it into effect. Bearing on 
    the generally recognized standard of interpretation of legislation 
    of this kind, the Chair thinks that it is proper to refer to the 
    language of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
    Tinkham] when this bill was under debate in this House on June 16, 
    1934, when he said:

            Let me ask the chairman of the committee, on which I have 
        the honor to serve, has there been an estimate of the cost to 
        the American people of our annual contribution to this 
        organization; if so, how much?

        The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds] said:
        That will depend on a number of circumstances.
        Then the gentleman from Massachusetts made this remark:

            Mr. Speaker, I may say that it is estimated that we shall 
        contribute to

[[Page 5531]]

        the support of this organization from $150,000 to $400,000 a 
        year.

        At that time it seems to have been contemplated that a 
    reasonable appropriation to be made by Congress was involved in the 
    passage of that legislation. In view of that interpretation it 
    seems to the Chair that the joint resolution approved June 19, 
    1934, is sufficient authorization for this appropriation, and the 
    Chair is of the opinion that the point of order should be overruled 
    The Chair therefore overrules the point of order should be over-
    ruled.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Foreign Currency Program--Preservation of Nubian Monuments

Sec. 17.4 An appropriation added by the Senate to a general 
    appropriation bill and included in a conference report, for the 
    purchase of Egyptian pounds accruing under the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954, to be used for the 
    preservation of ancient Nubian monuments on the Nile was held to be 
    authorized by a provision of the act allowing foreign currencies to 
    be used ``to promote and support programs of . . . cultural and 
    educational development'' and further specifying that ``foreign 
    currencies shall be available for purposes of this subsection . . . 
    only in such amounts as may be specified from time to time in 
    appropriation acts.''

    On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(9) the House 
was considering a conference report on H.R. 9169, a supplemental 
appropriation. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 21521, 21522, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961 
        (Calendar Day)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas (of Texas): Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 9169) and ask unanimous consent 
    that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read 
    in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object
        The Clerk read the conference report.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report, and I refer especially to the paragraph on page 
    30, under the title of ``Preservation of Ancient Nubian Monuments--
    Special Foreign Currency Program''. . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    conference report in connection with the

[[Page 5532]]

    amendment on page 30, which reads as follows:

            For the purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under 
        title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
        Act of 1954, as amended, for the purposes authorized by section 
        104(k) of that Act, $4 million to remain available until 
        expended

        The Chair has carefully studied the provisions of section 
    104(k), the organic law, which include among other things:

            To promote and support programs of medical and scientific 
        research, cultural and educational development, health, 
        nutrition, and sanitation: Provided, That foreign currencies 
        shall be available for the purpose of this subsection (in 
        addition to funds otherwise made available for such purposes) 
        only in such amounts as may be specified from time to time in 
        appropriation acts. . .

        Continuing what the Chair has said, it is the opinion of the 
    Chair that section 104(k) justifies the language contained in the 
    conference report, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Foreign Currencies for Children's Hospital in Poland

Sec. 17.5 In a bill appropriating funds for the mutual security 
    program, a provision earmarking a part of the funds of the 
    ``special assistance'' appropriation for the purchase of foreign 
    currencies to be used for the construction of a children's hospital 
    in Poland was held to be authorized by a provision in the 1954 
    Mutual Security Act.

    On June 17, 1960,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12619, a bill making appropriations for mutual 
security and related agencies. At one point the Clerk read as follows, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 13132, 13133, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Special assistance, general authorization: For assistance 
    authorized by section 400(a), $206,000,000, of which not to exceed 
    $1,500,000 may be used to purchase foreign currencies or credits 
    owed to or owned by the Treasury of the United States for 
    assistance authorized by section 400(c) for construction of the 
    American Research Hospital for Children in Poland at the University 
    of Krakow. . .
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language beginning on page 3, line 7, and ending 
    on line 12 which reads as follows: ``of which not to exceed 
    $1,500,000 may be used to purchase foreign currencies or credits 
    owed to or owned by the Treasury of the United States for 
    assistance authorized by section 400(c) for construction of the 
    American Research Hospital for Children in Poland at the University 
    of Krakow:''
        Mr. Chairman, this language is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The authorizing act, the Mutual Security Act of 1959, 
    provides for the utilization

[[Page 5533]]

    of ``foreign currencies for hospitals abroad designed to serve as 
    centers for medical treatment, education and research founded or 
    sponsored by citizens of the United States''. . .
        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, may I read 
    the provision of law authorizing it? It is section 400(c) of the 
    Mutual Security Act of 1954 as amended. It provides:

            The President is authorized to use not to exceed $20 
        million of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) of 
        this section for assistance on such terms and conditions as he 
        may specify to schools and libraries abroad founded or 
        sponsored by citizens of the United States and serving as study 
        and demonstration centers for ideas and practices of the United 
        States notwithstanding any other act authorizing assistance of 
        this kind
        And further:

            In addition to the authority contained in this subsection 
        it is the sense of Congress that the President should make a 
        special and a particular effort to utilize foreign currencies 
        accruing under title I of the Agricultural Trade, Development 
        and Assistance Act of 1954 as amended and notwithstanding the 
        provisions of Public Law 213, 82d Congress, the President is 
        authorized to utilize foreign currencies accruing to the United 
        States under this or any other act for the purposes of this 
        subsection and for hospitals abroad designed to serve as 
        centers for medical treatment, education, and research, founded 
        or sponsored by citizens of the United States.

        The Chairman: (12) the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    language of section 400(c) as read by the gentleman from Virginia 
    [Mr. Gary] is sufficient to establish the point that this language 
    is authorized by law; and therefore the Chair overrules the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential Authority to Provide for Participation in International 
    Exhibition

Sec. 17.6 An amendment providing funds for a health exhibit at the 
    Universal and International Exhibition of Brussels was held to be 
    authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1958,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 10881, a supplemental appropriation 
bill, a point of order against an amendment was overruled. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 2910, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Funds Appropriated to the President

                 President's special international program

        Not to exceed $1 million of the funds previously appropriated 
    under this head for the trade fair exhibit in Gorki Park, Moscow, 
    may be used for the Universal and International Exhibition of 
    Brussels, 1958, and the limitation thereon as contained in the 
    Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1958, is increased from 
    ``$7,045,000'' to ``$8,045,000.''

[[Page 5534]]

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fogarty: On page 17, lines 21 and 
        22, strike out ``$8,045,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``$9,045,000, and in addition there is hereby 
        appropriated $1,000,000 to establish and conduct a health 
        exhibit in connection with the Universal and International 
        Exhibition of Brussels.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make a point of order against this amendment for the 
    reason that the purpose of it is not authorized. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    provides:

            To establish and conduct a health exhibit in connection 
        with the Universal and International Exhibition of Brussels.

        In the statute authorizing our participation in this exhibition 
    it is provided:

            Sec. 2. The President is authorized to provide for United 
        States representation in artistic, dramatic, musical, sports, 
        and other cultural competitions and like exhibitions abroad

        The phrase ``like exhibitions abroad'' in the opinion of the 
    present occupant of the Chair, is sufficiently broad to include the 
    object of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
    particularly in view of the fact that in the stated purpose--and, 
    of course, the purpose is not binding, however, it is provided:

            The purpose of this chapter is to strengthen the ties which 
        unite us with other nations by demonstrating the cultural 
        interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the 
        United States.

        It certainly would seem to the present occupant of the Chair 
    that one of the things we could point to with greatest pride would 
    be our accomplishments in the medical field and the contributions 
    being made by the United States economic and social system toward 
    the peaceful and more fruitful life for its own people, and so on.
        Reading the broad general purpose together with the statement 
    in the statute concerning the President's authorization, leads the 
    Chair to conclude that the appropriation is authorized by law.
        The point of order is overruled.

Translation of Foreign Literature

Sec. 17.7 An amendment proposing to earmark part of the appropriation 
    for the United States Information Agency for the establishment of a 
    nonprofit book corporation to provide facilities for the 
    translation and publication of books and other printed matter in 
    various foreign languages was held to be unauthorized by law.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5535]]

ering H.R. 5502, an appropriation bill for the Departments of State and 
Justice, the Judiciary, and related agencies. At one point the Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 101 Cong. Rec. 4504, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: On page 35, line 
    14 strike out ``Provided'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: ``Provided, That not to exceed $350,000 shall be used 
    for the establishment of a nonprofit book corporation to provide 
    facilities for the translation and publication of books and other 
    printed matter in the various foreign languages: Provided 
    further,''
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped 
    that this amendment would be accepted by the Committee.
        All that this amendment seeks to do is to make available to the 
    peoples of the world the classics of American democracy that were 
    the inspiration of our forefathers and have been an inspiration in 
    our own lives. . . .
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order There 
    is no authority in law for the appropriation, and it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    O'Hara] offers an amendment which the Clerk has reported, against 
    which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] makes a point of 
    order on the ground that it is not authorized by law. Can the 
    gentleman from Illinois, the author of the amendment, cite to the 
    Chair any authority in law for this appropriation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed by 
    replying that I cannot.
        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the gentleman's reply.
        Obviously, the amendment is not in order. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Appropriations to Nations Which Are Not Authorized to Receive Aid

Sec. 17.8 To a bill making appropriations for mutual security, 1952, to 
    countries party to the North Atlantic Treaty and to countries 
    determined by the President to be eligible for such assistance, an 
    amendment providing that a part of the appropriations should be 
    available for Spain, which was not included in either of the two 
    categories, was held to be unauthorized.

    On Oct. 11, 1951,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5684. During consideration of the bill, a point of 
order was sustained against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 13020, 13025, 13026, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Military assistance, title I: For assistance authorized by 
    section

[[Page 5536]]

    101(a)(1), $5,072,476,271, of which $44,476,271 is for payment of 
    obligations incurred under authority granted in the Second 
    Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1950, and extended in the Foreign 
    Aid Appropriation Act, 1951, to enter into contracts under the 
    Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1571-
    1604); and, in addition, unexpended balances of appropriations 
    heretofore made for carrying out the purposes of title I of the 
    Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended, shall remain 
    available through June 30, 1952, and such unexpended balances of 
    appropriations shall be consolidated with this appropriation; . . .
        Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment which is at the Clerk's desk
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Green: On page 2, line 12, after 
        the word ``appropriation'' and before the semicolon, insert 
        ``Provided, That of the amount appropriated by this paragraph 
        the amount of $200,000,000 shall be available for military 
        assistance to Spain.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The first section of title I of 
    the Mutual Security Act of 1951 provides authorization for 
    appropriation for military assistance to European countries only in 
    the following categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First. To countries party to the North Atlantic Treaty, and
        Second. To countries determined by the President to be eligible 
    for such assistance under conditions spelled out by the act.
        The act does not authorize appropriations to be available for 
    countries other than those in the categories indicated. The Chair 
    understands that Spain in not a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, 
    and that the President has not designated Spain as an eligible 
    country.
        Therefore, the amendment provides for an appropriation which 
    has not been authorized by law, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Expenses Incident to Treaty

Sec. 17.9 A treaty providing that representatives of the participating 
    countries were to determine and record amounts of water available 
    for purposes of the treaty and ``to record the amounts of water 
    used for power diversions'' was held to authorize an appropriation 
    for ``investigations, pending authorization for construction, of 
    projects for development . . . for power purposes of waters of the 
    Niagara River''; and a reservation to the treaty that ``no project 
    for redevelopment of the United States share of such waters shall 
    be undertaken until it be specifically authorized by Act of 
    Congress'' was held not to nullify such authorization.

[[Page 5537]]

    On Apr. 10, 1951,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3587, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 3575, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         niagara power development

        For engineering and economic investigations, pending 
    authorization for construction, of projects for development and 
    utilization for power purposes of the waters of the Niagara River, 
    allocated to the United States under the treaty between the United 
    States of America and Canada signed February 27, 1950, and ratified 
    by the United States Senate on August 9, 1950, to remain available 
    until expended, $450,000.
        Mr. [Ivor D.] Fenton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fenton: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order to the 
    language appearing on page 17, lines 9 to 18, inclusive, as an 
    appropriation not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order has been made that the item appearing on 
    page 17, lines 9 to 18, inclusive, for Niagara power development is 
    not authorized by law. It will be noted that the language of the 
    proposed appropriation provides for investigations pending 
    authorizations for construction of projects for power purposes of 
    the waters of the Niagara River allocated to the United States 
    under the treaty between the United States of America and Canada 
    signed February 27, 1950, and ratified by the United States Senate 
    on August 9, 1950.
        The Chair has examined a copy of the treaty and finds that the 
    treaty provides in some detail for distribution of the water which 
    flows over the Niagara Falls between the United States and Canada 
    and then in article 7 provides:

            The United States of America and Canada shall each 
        designate a representative, who, acting jointly, shall 
        ascertain and determine the amounts of water available for the 
        purposes of this treaty, and shall record the same, and shall 
        also record the amounts of water for power diversions.

        It has long been settled that a duly ratified treaty to which 
    the United States is party constitutes authority of law for 
    appropriations. And it has also been settled by decisions of the 
    Chair that the treaty need not specifically authorize specific 
    appropriations. It is necessary only that the proposed 
    appropriations be directly necessary to enable the United States to 
    carry out the obligations it has assumed under the treaty For 
    example, in volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents, section 1138, a 
    decision is recorded holding that where the United States has 
    entered into a treaty establishing an international institute it is 
    in order to appropriate the necessary funds to send delegates to 
    the institute. It was further held in section 1142, volume 7, 
    Cannon's Precedents, that a treaty providing for mutual reports by 
    contracting parties to an international bureau was held to

[[Page 5538]]

    sanction appropriations for the bureau's maintenance although no 
    treaty had been entered into providing for the establishment of the 
    bureau itself.
        It seems clear, therefore, that the proposed appropriation is 
    entirely within the purview of the treaty, as its only purpose is 
    to provide the necessary funds for the United States to pay the 
    expenses of the duly authorized representative of the United States 
    acting under article 7 of the treaty.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Cultural Relations Program

Sec. 17.10 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of State, 
    an amendment providing an appropriation for an information and 
    cultural program to be disseminated in foreign countries was held 
    to be unauthorized.

    On May 14, 1947,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 5291, 5292, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary: Page 2, line 18, after the 
        semicolon insert ``acquisition, production, and free 
        distribution of informational materials for use in connection 
        with the operation, independently or through individuals, 
        including aliens, or public or private agencies (foreign or 
        domestic), and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
        Statutes, of an information program outside of the continental 
        United States, including the purchase of radio time . . . and 
        the purchase, rental . . . and operation of facilities for 
        radio transmission and reception, the acquisition of land and 
        interests in land . . . for radio broadcasting and relay 
        facilities, and the acquisition or construction of buildings 
        and necessary improvements on such lands; purchase and 
        presentation of various objects of a cultural nature suitable 
        for presentation (through diplomatic and consular offices) to 
        foreign governments, schools, or other cultural or patriotic 
        organizations . . . not to exceed $13,000 for entertainment.''

        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stefan: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order this is not 
    authorized by law and it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gary: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. It is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment does propose legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, the functions therein referred to not being 
    authorized by law. The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 5539]]

Sec. 17.11 An appropriation to enable the Secretary of State to carry 
    out a program of ``cultural relations with China and countries of 
    the Near East and Africa'' was held unauthorized by law and to be 
    legislation waiving existing law.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 2307, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Cultural relations with China and the neighboring countries and 
    countries of the Near East and Africa: For all expenses, without 
    regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, necessary to enable 
    the Secretary of State independently or in cooperation with other 
    agencies of the Government to carry out a program of cultural 
    relations with China and the neighboring countries and with 
    countries of the Near East and Africa, $1,390,000 (payable from the 
    appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,'' contained in 
    the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1943, as 
    supplemented and amended). . . .
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against all of the paragraph beginning line 25, page 
    29, to and including line 17, on page 31, on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and there is no authority in 
    law for such an appropriation.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The point of order is sustained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Conference on Education

Sec. 17.12 Appropriations for a Conference of Allied Ministers of 
    Education in London were conceded and held to be unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, a bill making appropriations for the State, 
Judiciary, and Commerce Departments, and the Federal Loan Agency. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 2307, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Conference of Allied Ministers of Education in London: For all 
    necessary expenses of the participation by the United States in the 
    Conference of Allied Ministers of Education in London, or its 
    successor, and in addition for surveys and studies related to the 
    work thereof, including personal services in the District of 
    Columbia and elsewhere without regard to civil-service and 
    classification laws; travel expenses without regard to the 
    Standardized Government Travel Regulations and the Subsistence 
    Expense Act of 1926, as amended; entertainment,

[[Page 5540]]

    stenographic reporting and other services by contract, books of 
    reference and periodicals, and rent of office space, without regard 
    to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes; printing and binding; and 
    the share of the United States in the expenses of the secretariat 
    of the Conference; $172,000, payable from the appropriation 
    ``Emergency fund for the President,'' contained in the First 
    Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1943, as 
    supplemented and amended.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the entire paragraph, beginning line 7, page 29, 
    and continuing through line 24, on the ground this is not 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Service Incidental Expenses

Sec. 17.13 ``Representation'' allowances for ambassadors and foreign 
    service officers were held authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1943,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1975, a deficiency appropriation bill Proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 89 Cong. Rec. 1369, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Foreign Service, auxiliary (emergency): For an additional 
    amount for Foreign Service, auxiliary (emergency), Department of 
    State, fiscal year 1943, including the objects specified under this 
    head in the Department of State Appropriation Act, 1943, $491,000: 
    Provided, That cost of living and representation allowances, as 
    authorized by the act approved February 23, 1931, as amended, may 
    be paid from this appropriation to American citizens employed 
    hereunder.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the words ``and representation,'' in line 11 on page 23, on 
    the ground that they are legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the item is 
    authorized by law. Paragraph 12 of title XXII, found on page 1877 
    of the United States Code, provides specific authorization for the 
    item.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: As I understand, this appropriation is for 
    a new auxiliary service, not the regular service.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Missouri advise the Chair 
    whether the auxiliary service referred to in the paragraph is 
    authorized by law?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: This comes within the provisions of the 
    statute, which reads:

            Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, and 
        within the limitations of such appropriations as may be made 
        therefor, which appropriations are authorized, ambassadors, 
        ministers, Diplomatic,

[[Page 5541]]

        Consular, and Foreign Service officers may be granted 
        allowances for representation; and also post allowances 
        wherever the cost of living may be proportionately so high 
        that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, such allowances 
        are necessary to enable such Diplomatic, Consular, and Foreign 
        Service officers to carry on their work efficiently.

        The Chairman: The Chair has advised itself on the language 
    referred to by the gentleman from Missouri, but the point on which 
    the Chair would like to be enlightened is the language in the last 
    sentence of the paragraph referring to the fact that moneys may be 
    paid from this appropriation to American citizens employed 
    thereunder.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, there is no specific 
    legislation authorizing the Foreign Service Auxiliary, but it is in 
    existence and is in operation at this time for this fiscal year. No 
    point of order was made by the gentleman on that score. The point 
    of order was directed at the provision for representation 
    allowances, which are authorized by law, as I have indicated.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Not for this kind of organization, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Missouri kindly answer 
    one more questions the Chair has in mind? Is there legislative 
    authorization for representation allowances to be made to American 
    citizens employed in accordance with this paragraph?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, language could not be 
    more explicit than that just cited from paragraph 12 of title XXII, 
    which specifically covers authorization of appropriations for cost 
    of living and representation allowances under such circumstances.
        The Chairman: What the Chair is concerned about is, Does the 
    term ``American citizens'' as used in this paragraph refer to 
    ambassadors, ministers, diplomatic, consular, and Foreign Service 
    officers. Is that what the committee has in mind?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Unless they were American citizens they 
    could not be serving as representatives of this Government.
        The Chairman: Are they employees under the terms of this law?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Certainly; there can be no question 
    about it.
        The Chairman: In view of the explanation made by the chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations as to the existing law, the 
    Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Kansas.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. A further point of order made by Mr. Rees is discussed in 
        Sec. 17.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Service Auxiliary.

Sec. 17.14 Appropriations for the Foreign Service Auxiliary were not 
    authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1943,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1975, a deficiency appropriation. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 1369, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Foreign Service, auxiliary (emergency): For an additional 
    amount for

[[Page 5542]]

    Foreign Service, auxiliary (emergency), Department of State, fiscal 
    year 1943, including the objects specified under this head in the 
    Department of State Appropriation Act, 1943, $491,000: Provided, 
    That cost of living and representation allowances, as authorized by 
    the act approved February 23, 1931, as amended, may be paid from 
    this appropriation to American citizens employed hereunder.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the . . . 
    point of order against the language in lines 6 to 13 on page 23 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: We have passed the 
    proposition, Mr. Chairman; we are now on the proviso. The point of 
    order made by the gentleman did not apply to the first portion, 
    which is a separate entity as against the proviso. Inasmuch as the 
    point of order was not interposed at the time, it now comes too 
    late.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The prior point of order is discussed in Sec. 17.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair advises the gentleman 
    from Missouri that he will hold that the point of order does not 
    come too late, in view of the fact that the proviso is a part of 
    the paragraph. Does the gentleman desire to advise the Chair any 
    further on the paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri. The point has been covered.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Missouri point out to the 
    Chair the legislative authority for the Foreign Service Auxiliary? 
    The section referred to by the gentleman from Missouri, which has 
    been analyzed by the Chair, refers to the language [``and 
    representation''] on line 11, page 23. Is there legislation to 
    which the gentleman can refer the Chair authorizing the Foreign 
    Service Auxiliary?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: There is no specific legislation on 
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: In view of the statement of the gentleman from 
    Missouri, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Kansas.

International Committee on Political Refugees

Sec. 17.15 An appropriation for expenses of participation by the United 
    States in the International Committee on Political Refugees was not 
    authorized by law.

    On June 23, 1939, (13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6970, a deficiency and supplemental appropriation 
bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 7827, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        International Committee on Political Refugees: For the expenses 
    of participation by the United States in the International 
    Committee on Political Refugees, including personal services in the 
    District of Columbia and elsewhere without regard to the civil 
    service laws and regulations or the Classification Act of 1923, as 
    amended; sten

[[Page 5543]]

    ographic reporting, translating, and other services by contract if 
    deemed necessary, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
    Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); rent; traveling expenses; purchase of 
    necessary books, documents, newspapers, and periodicals; 
    stationery, equipment; official cards; printing and binding; 
    entertainment; and such other expenses as may be authorized by the 
    Secretary of State, including the reimbursement of other 
    appropriations from which payments may have been made for any of 
    the purposes herein specified, fiscal year 1940, $20,000, together 
    with the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this purpose 
    for the fiscal years 1938 and 1939 contained in the Second 
    Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1938: Provided, That no 
    salary shall be paid hereunder at a rate in excess of $10,000 per 
    annum.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order on the paragraph on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    wish to be heard upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Ambassadors' and Ministers' Pay

Sec. 17.16 Where the President at will has raised a legation to an 
    embassy or reduced an embassy to a legation and followed it with an 
    appointment under his constitutional authority in article II 
    section 2, that has been approved by the Senate, an appropriation 
    for the salary of the appointee has been held in order if the rate 
    of pay was not in contravention of law.

    On May 19, 1939, (15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6392, a State, Justice, Judiciary, and Commerce 
Departments appropriation. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 5846, 5847, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Foreign Intercourse

        Salaries, Ambassadors and Ministers: Ambassadors Extraordinary 
    and Plenipotentiary to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, 
    Cuba, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Panama, 
    Peru, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
    and Venezuela, at $17,500 each;
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order in the paragraph to the words ``Columbia'' in line 21, 
    ``Panama'' in line 22, ``Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'' and 
    ``Venezuela'' in line 23. I make the point of order that each is an 
    appropriation not authorized by law. Title 22, section 31, of the 
    Code sets forth the act of March 2, 1909, which provides:

            No new ambassadorships shall be created unless the same 
        shall be provided for by act of Congress.

[[Page 5544]]

        As to the other ambassadorships which are listed in this 
    paragraph, they have been provided for by acts of Congress. As to 
    these four, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has no 
    statutory authorization, and the other three are new 
    ambassadorships created in South America during last fall by the 
    Department of State, for which there is no authority in law. There 
    is not only no authority, but the appropriation is in clear 
    violation of the act of Congress which I have quoted, which forbids 
    the creation of new ambassadorships unless the same shall be 
    provided for by act of Congress. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) Will the gentleman permit the 
    Chair to ask the gentleman from Ohio a question? The Chair would 
    like to know whether or not the gentleman has taken the position 
    that the Ambassadors or Ministers referred to have not been 
    actually appointed and confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Harold D. Cooley (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, that is not the point 
    at all.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes that these Ambassadors 
    have been appointed and confirmed by the Senate?
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: I concede that.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels justified in taking judicial 
    notice of the appointment of these Ambassadors to these various 
    countries named. . . .
        The Chair is prepared to rule. This specific question seems to 
    have been passed upon on a former occasion. In Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 7, section 1248, we find the following language:

            The power of the President to appoint diplomatic 
        representatives to foreign governments and to determine their 
        rank is derived from the Constitution and may not be 
        circumscribed by statutory enactments.
            Where the President has appointed a diplomatic 
        representative and the appointment has been approved by the 
        Senate, a point of order does not lie against an appropriation 
        for the salary of such representative unless the rate of pay 
        has been otherwise fixed by law.
            A statute prohibiting the creation of new ambassadorships 
        except by act of Congress is in contravention of the 
        President's constitutional prerogatives and will not support a 
        point of order against an appropriation for the salary of an 
        ambassadorship not created by act of Congress but appointed by 
        the President and confirmed by the Senate.
            The President, at will, may raise a legation to an embassy 
        or reduce an embassy to a legation, any statute to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, and where the President has made such change 
        and followed it with an appointment which has been approved by 
        the Senate, an appropriation for the salary of the appointee is 
        in order unless the rate of pay is in contravention of law.

        In the decision to which the Chair has referred the Honorable 
    Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union, referred to the identical statute 
    referred to by the gentleman from Ohio, and that was taken into 
    consideration at the time the decision was rendered.
        In view of the precedents of the House, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Sec. 17.17 An appropriation for the salary of a particular U.S minister 
    to a foreign country

[[Page 5545]]

    is not authorized by law (the Constitution) if the President has 
    made an appointment but the Senate has not confirmed the appointee.

    On Aug. 17, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8245, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 9175, 9176, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries of ambassadors and ministers: For an additional amount 
    for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938, for 
    the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
    to Lithuania at $10,000 per annum, $8,333.34: Provided, That the 
    appropriation for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal 
    year 1938, shall be available for payment of the salary of an envoy 
    extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Estonia and Latvia at 
    $10,000 per annum. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 28, lines 4 to 12, 
    inclusive, as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    not authorized by law. It creates a new position, that of Minister 
    of Lithuania. The President has no constitutional right and is 
    empowered by no act of Congress to create additional positions. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule As 
    stated by the gentleman from Virginia, the President has the right 
    to appoint. At the present time, however, the Senate has not 
    confirmed the appointment. The appropriation, therefore, is subject 
    to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Arms Control and Disarmament

Sec. 17.18 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was conceded to be 
    unauthorized by law for the fiscal year in question and was ruled 
    out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 12934) a point of order was 
raised and sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 17629, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

                  arms control and disarmament activities

        For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for arms 
    control and disarmament activities, including not to exceed $15,000 
    for official reception and representation expenses, author

[[Page 5546]]

    ized by the Act of September 26, 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2551 
    et seq.), $16,395,000.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the basis of clause 2, rule XXI, that this is an 
    unauthorized appropriation and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Slack) concedes the point of order, the paragraph is stricken, 
    and the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: 22 USC Sec. 2589 contains specific 
authorization for this agency on a fiscal year basis, and the bill 
amending this law to authorize appropriations for fiscal 1979 had 
passed both Houses prior to June 14 but had not yet been enacted into 
law (Public Law No. 95-338). This agency was not covered by the State 
Department authorization restriction cited supra, but is an independent 
agency governed solely by 22 USC Sec. Sec. 2551-2589.

Board for International Broadcasting

Sec. 17.19 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for the Board for International Broadcasting was conceded to be 
    unauthorized by law for the fiscal year in question and was ruled 
    out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1978, (1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 12934), a point of order was 
sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 17629, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Board for International Broadcasting

                              grants and expenses

            For expenses of the Board for International Broadcasting, 
        including grants to RFE/RL, Inc., $85,000,000, of which 
        $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
        available only for fluctuations in foreign currency exchange 
        rates in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the 
        Board for International Broadcasting Act of 1973, as amended: 
        Provided, That not to exceed $40,000 shall be available for 
        official reception and representation expenses.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the basis of clause 2, rule XXI, that this is an 
    unauthorized appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.

[[Page 5547]]

        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Slack) concedes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraph is stricken and the Clerk will read.

    Parliamentarian's Note: 22 USC Sec. 2877 contains specific 
authorization for the Board on a fiscal year basis, and the fiscal 1979 
authorization bill for this Board was part of H.R. 12598, State 
Department and other agencies authorization bill, which had passed the 
House but not the Senate on this date (see Public Law No. 95-426). 
Under 22 USC Sec. 2872, however, the Board was established 
independently of the Department of State and was not therefore subject 
to the restrictions in 22 USC Sec. 2680(a) requiring specific 
authorization for State Department activities.

International Communications Agency

Sec. 17.20 The creation of the International Communications Agency by 
    Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 was conceded not to constitute 
    sufficient authorization in law for appropriations for that agency 
    for fiscal 1979, where under section 2 of that plan the agency 
    remained subject to direction of the Department of State and thus 
    subject to the requirement for specific authorization in law 
    applicable to the Department, where the specific authorization bill 
    for the fiscal year in question had not yet been enacted, and where 
    the reorganization plan contained no specific authorization for 
    appropriations.

    On June 14, 1978,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 12934), a point of order was 
sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 17630, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       International Communication Agency

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
        enable the International Communication Agency, as authorized by 
        Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, the Mutual Educational and 
        Cultural Exchange Act (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and the United 
        States Information and Educational Exchange Act, as amended (22 
        U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), to carry out international communication, 
        educational and cultural activities. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 5548]]

    of order on the basis of rule XXI, clause 2, that this is an 
    unauthorized appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The point of order is conceded, 
    sustained, and the paragraph is stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of State, Requirement for Annual Authorization

Sec. 17.21 Appropriations in a general appropriation bill for the 
    Department of State, including salaries and expenses, 
    representation allowances, expenses under the Foreign Services 
    Buildings Act, special foreign currency program, emergencies in the 
    diplomatic and consular service, retirement and disability fund, 
    international conferences, international peacekeeping activities, 
    missions to international organizations, international conferences 
    and contingencies, international trade negotiations, international 
    commissions, construction, and general provisions, no 
    authorizations for such appropriations having been enacted for the 
    fiscal year in question as specifically required by law, were 
    conceded to be unauthorized and were ruled out as in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    Pursuant to law [22 USC Sec. 2680(a)(1)], no funds shall be 
available to the Department of State for obligation or expenditure 
unless the appropriation thereof has been authorized by law enacted 
after February 1972 (thus requiring specific subsequently enacted 
authorizations for both the direct operations of that Department and 
related functions delegated to it by laws enacted prior to that date, 
and not permitting appropriations under Rule XXI clause 2 to be 
authorized by the ``organic statute'' or other laws earlier authorizing 
appropriations for related activities). Accordingly, on June 14, 1978, 
(5) during consideration of H.R. 12934 (Departments of 
State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary, and related agencies 
appropriations for fiscal 1979), several points of order made against 
paragraphs of the bill were conceded and sustained. Among the 
provisions subject to points of order were the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 17616, 17617, 17620, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5549]]

            For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
        Foreign Service, not otherwise provided for, including 
        allowances as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5921-5925; expenses of 
        binational arbitrations arising under international air 
        transport agreements; expenses necessary to meet the 
        responsiblities and obligations of the United States in Germany 
        (including those arising under the supreme authority assumed by 
        the United States on June 5, 1945, and under contractual 
        arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany) . . . 
        $659,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this language in this paragraph in that it 
    amounts to an unauthorized appropriation, and it cannot be 
    contained in an appropriation bill unless authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman is correct if he insists on his point of order, in which 
    event I would concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained. The paragraph in question is stricken from the bill. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For necessary expenses of carrying into effect the Foreign 
        Service Buildings Act, 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), 
        including personal services in the United States and abroad; 
        salaries and expenses of personnel and dependents as authorized 
        by the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C 801-
        1158); allowances as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5921-5925; and 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $125,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 
        $2,544,000 may be used for administrative expenses during the 
        current fiscal year. . . .

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the language in this paragraph in that it amounts to an 
    unauthorized appropriation, and it cannot be contained in an 
    appropriation bill unless authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. Slack: . . . Mr. Chairman, again, if the gentleman from 
    California insists on his point of order, I concede the point of 
    order. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
        Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $38,107,000.

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of clause 2, rule 
    XXI, I make the same point of order. . . .

        Mr. Slack: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair makes the same ruling. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

                        international trade negotiations

            For necessary expenses of participation by the United 
        States in international trade negotiations, including not to 
        exceed $25,000 for representation allowances, as authorized by 
        section 901 of the Act of August 13, 1946, as amended (22 
        U.S.C. 1131), and for official entertainment, $4,717,000: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall be available in 
        accordance with the authority provided in the current 
        appropriation for ``International conferences and 
        contingencies''.

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of clause 2, rule 
    XXI, I make the same point of order once again. . . .

[[Page 5550]]

        Mr. Slack: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order. In each 
    case the paragraph will be stricken.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 18. Justice

Training of United States Attorneys

Sec. 18.1 An appropriation for the training of United States attorneys 
    and other officials was held not authorized by a law empowering the 
    Attorney General to exercise supervision over United States 
    attorneys.

    On Apr. 3, 1936,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12098, an appropriation bill for the State, Justice, 
Commerce, and Labor Departments. During consideration, a point of order 
was sustained against a paragraph in the bill as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 80 Cong. Rec. 4926, 4927, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For salaries and expenses incident to 
    the special instruction and training of the United States attorneys 
    and United States marshals, their assistants and deputies, and 
    United States commissioners, including personal services, supplies, 
    and equipment in the District of Columbia, traveling expenses, 
    including expenses of attendance at meetings when specifically 
    authorized by the Attorney General, $35,000.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on page 38, line 17, 
    ending on line 26, embracing the proposed appropriation of $35,000, 
    because there is no law authorizing it and it is legislation upon 
    an appropriation bill, unauthorized by law.
        The Chairman: (8) the Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Byron B. Harlan (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan: Mr. Chairman, this item is carried in 
    the bill, I may say to the Committee, on the authority of law as we 
    find it in section 317 of title V of the Code of Laws of the United 
    States in force January 3, 1935, in which I find this language:

            The Attorney General shall exercise general superintendence 
        and direction over the attorneys and marshals in the districts 
        of the United States and Territories as to the manner of 
        discharging their respective duties--

        And so forth. We take it that, in view of the language I have 
    just read, the Attorney General would have discretion under this 
    substantive law to provide for these men, marshals and district 
    attorneys, and what not, to be brought to Washington for such a 
    course of instruction or training as they may need. The purpose of 
    this language is to make uniform a policy to apply to district 
    attorneys and marshals throughout the country.

[[Page 5551]]

        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Chairman, that language in the statute read by 
    the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] in no way embraces 
    authority for ``special instruction and training of United States 
    attorneys and United States marshals, their assistants and 
    deputies, and United States commissioners'' and their trips to 
    Washington. There is nothing in that language read by my colleague 
    that embraces or authorizes anything like that. This is nothing in 
    the world but providing for junket trips, pure and simple, and such 
    junket trips to Washington have been turned down by the Comptroller 
    General in the past. I have some of the accounts in my office, 
    certified to by his office, showing where he has turned them down 
    because there is no authority of law. This $35,000 provision is an 
    attempt to get around the Comptroller General of the United States.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Does the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts wish to address the Chair on the point of order?
        Mr. McCormack: Not necessarily on the point of order, but I 
    should like to ask the gentleman from Texas to yield, if he will.
        Mr. Blanton: Certainly I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: I just wish to make this observation: I do not 
    think the gentleman means to let it remain in the Record that these 
    are junket trips. I think what the Attorney General has in mind is 
    something which is a very desirable objective, namely, to create 
    uniformity throughout the country in the offices of the United 
    States district attorneys. I know something about the objective of 
    the Attorney General in this respect. It seems to me that, 
    independent of the point of order, it should not be permitted to go 
    into the Record, without an expression of view to the contrary, 
    that this is nothing but a junket trip.
        Mr. Blanton: I will say to the gentleman that he has not given 
    the attention to this matter that I have. I have gotten some of 
    these accounts in the past from the Comptroller General's office, 
    because it was my duty to look into those things as a member of 
    this committee. I have found out where they have attempted to put 
    these junket trips over and they have been approved by the 
    Department of Justice, but when they reached Comptroller General 
    McCarl he turned them down, and they were not paid out of 
    Government funds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The question to be decided is the interpretation of the phrase, 
    ``special instruction and training'', contained in this 
    appropriation bill, the question being whether that phrase comes 
    under the statutory authorization to the Attorney General in the 
    section referred to by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
    McMillan], section 317 of title 5, in which the Attorney General is 
    authorized to exercise ``general superintendence and direction'' 
    over the attorneys.
        This section has been on the statute books certainly for more 
    than half a century. So far as the records disclose, up to the 
    present time there has been

[[Page 5552]]

    no attempt to organize or operate a school for instructing district 
    attorneys under that authorization. There is very little in the 
    decisions interpreting this phrase of the statute. In the case of 
    Fish v. U.S. (36 Federal Reporter, 680), however, in a decision by 
    the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court, 
    by way of obiter, spoke as follows:

            The section no doubt confers upon the Attorney General 
        power to superintend any criminal prosecution instituted by the 
        district attorney, and to direct the district attorney in 
        regard to the method of discharging his duties in any 
        particular prosecution instituted by him. But it does not, in 
        my opinion, authorize the attorney general to control the 
        action of the district attorney in criminal cases by general 
        regulations. The supervision and direction contemplated by 
        section 362 must, as I think, be a particular instruction, 
        given in a particular case, and based on the facts of the 
        particular case. To hold otherwise would in many instances 
        deprive the court of the aid of counsel, learned in the law, 
        which is contemplated by the statute, and substitute in place 
        of counsel a set of general regulations issued by the Attorney 
        General; and in some cases the ends of justice would be 
        defeated by such a practice. A general regulation of the 
        Department of Justice that all district attorneys should in all 
        cases refuse to consent to any postponement of a trial, should 
        never admit a fact, should always move for the infliction of 
        the extreme penalty of the law, would hardly be upheld. The 
        statute must have some limit; and one proper limitation, as it 
        seems to me, is to require, for the validity of any direction 
        by the Attorney General in criminal cases, that it be made in a 
        particular case, and with reference to the duties of the 
        district attorney in that particular case.

        If this decision is to be followed, there is no authority under 
    present statutes for the Attorney General to operate a school for 
    district attorneys.
        The point of order is sustained.

Civil Rights Commission

Sec. 18.2 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for the Civil Rights Commission for fiscal 1979 was conceded to be 
    unauthorized in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 where the law 
    extending the existence and authorizations for the Commission 
    beyond fiscal 1978 had not yet been enacted (42 USC Sec. 1975c, 
    1975e).

    On June 14, 1978,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 12934), a point of order was 
sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 17629, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Commission on Civil Rights

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the Commission on Civil Rights, 
        including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $10,752,000.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    basis of

[[Page 5553]]

    clause 2, rule XXI, I make a point of order that this is an 
    unauthorized appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (10) the point of order is conceded, 
    sustained, and the paragraph is stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authorization extension had not passed 
either House as of June 14 (see Public Law No. 95-444).

Department of Justice--Annual Authorizations Required

Sec. 18.3 Appropriations in a general appropriation bill for fiscal 
    1979 for the Department of Justice and its related agencies were 
    conceded to be unauthorized (where the authorization bill had been 
    reported in the House but not enacted into law) and were ruled out 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    Pursuant to law (Public Law No. 94-503, Sec. 204), all 
appropriations for the Department of Justice and related agencies and 
bureaus are deemed unauthorized for fiscal 1979 and subsequent fiscal 
years unless specifically authorized for each fiscal year, and the 
creation of any subdivision in that department or the authorization of 
any activity therein, absent language specifically authorizing 
appropriations for a fiscal year, is not deemed sufficient 
authorization. Accordingly, on June 14, 1978,(11) during 
consideration of H.R. 12934 (Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and the Judiciary appropriations for fiscal 1979), points of order were 
made and conceded, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 17622-24, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
        Department of Justice, including hire of passenger motor 
        vehicles; and miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized 
        or approved by the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney 
        General for Administration; $28,500,000, of which $4,837,000 is 
        for the United States Parole Commission and $2,000,000 is for 
        the Federal justice research program, the latter amount to 
        remain available until expended.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    basis of clause 2, rule XXI, I make the point of order that this is 
    an unauthorized appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) the point of order is conceded 
    and sustained. The paragraph is stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5554]]

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                Legal Activities

          salaries and expenses, general legal activities (including 
                               transfer of funds)

            For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
        Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
        miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized or approved by 
        the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for 
        Administration. . . .

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of clause 2, rule 
    XXI, I make the point of order that this is an unauthorized 
    appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. Slack: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained The 
    paragraph is stricken. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

                   salaries and expenses, antitrust division

            For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust, 
        consumer protection and kindred laws. . . .

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of clause 2, rule 
    XXI, I make the point of order that this is an unauthorized 
    appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. Slack: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
    paragraph is stricken. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service. 
        . . .

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    basis of clause 2, rule XXI, that this is an unauthorized 
    appropriation and has not been authorized by law.
        Mr. Slack: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
    paragraph is stricken.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 19. Public Works

Public Buildings Not Approved by Public Works Committee

Sec. 19.1 Language in a general appropriation bill providing an 
    additional amount for the construction of public buildings not yet 
    authorized pursuant to law was held not to be in order.

    On June 7, 1961,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7445), a point of order was raised, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9678, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 19 beginning with line 9 and run

[[Page 5555]]

    ning through line 16, reading as follows:

                 Sites and Expenses, Public Buildings Projects

            For an additional amount for expenses necessary in 
        connection with the construction of public buildings projects 
        not otherwise provided for, as specified under this head in the 
        Independent Offices Appropriation Acts of 1959, 1960 and 1961, 
        including preliminary planning of public buildings projects by 
        contract or otherwise, $25,000,000, to remain available until 
        expended.

        I base the point of order on the ground that the appropriation 
    herein called for is not justified, is not authorized; and I 
    respectfully call the attention of the Chair to the language in the 
    report on page 10 under the title ``Sites and expenses, public 
    buildings projects.''

            This amount is needed for financing the site and expense 
        costs of projects that are now pending or will be submitted to 
        the Public Works Committees this year.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is good; it has not been authorized. But is it needed. They 
    testified to that effect. It has not been authorized, however, and 
    on that basis it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 19.2 Appropriations for certain federal office buildings in the 
    District of Columbia were ruled out as unauthorized where not 
    approved by the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate as 
    required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959 [73 Stat. 479].

    On Apr. 19, 1960,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11776, a bill making appropriations for sundry 
independent executive bureaus. At one point the Clerk read as follows, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 8230, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Construction, Public Buildings Projects

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
    construct public buildings projects and alter public buildings by 
    extension or conversion where the estimated cost for a project is 
    in excess of $200,000 pursuant to the Public Buildings Act of 1959 
    (73 Stat. 479), including equipment for such buildings, 
    $144,836,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
    the foregoing amount shall be available for public buildings 
    projects at locations and at maximum construction improvement costs 
    (excluding funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
        Post office and Federal office building, Camden, Arkansas, 
    $633,250; . . .
        Federal Office Building Numbered Nine, District of Columbia, 
    $20,031,100;
        Federal Office Building Numbered Ten, District of Columbia, 
    $38,326,500; and

[[Page 5556]]

        United States Court of Claims and Court of Customs and Patent 
    Appeals building, $6,375,000: Provided further, That the foregoing 
    limits of costs may be exceeded to the extent that savings are 
    effected in other projects, but by not to exceed 5 per centum.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language beginning with line 9 on page 16 of the 
    bill and running through line 14 to and including the 
    ``$6,375,000'' that it is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, there is no 
    question about it. The point of order is good.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office Construction

Sec. 19.3 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Post Office 
    Department and transfer of not to exceed a certain sum to the 
    General Services Administration for repair, preservation, 
    improvement and equipment of federally owned property used for 
    postal purposes, an amendment providing funds for construction of a 
    post office annex, approved under the Lease-Purchase Act, but for 
    which there had been no legislation authorizing appropriations, was 
    held to be unauthorized.

    On Mar. 4, 1958, (17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11085, a bill making appropriations for the U.S. 
Treasury and the Post Office. During consideration, a point of order 
was sustained against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 3420, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 204. Not exceeding $22 million of appropriations in this 
    title shall be available for payment to the General Services 
    Administration of such additional sums as may be necessary for the 
    repair, alteration, preservation, renovation, improvement, and 
    equipment of federally owned property used for postal purposes, of 
    which not to exceed $20 million shall be available for improving 
    lighting, color, and ventilation for the specialized conditions in 
    space occupied for postal purposes.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Page 14, after 
        line 6, add:
            ``Sec. 205. There is appropriated the sum of $8,209,000 for 
        the construction of a terminal annex at Denver, Colo.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Colorado 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Brooks Hays (Ark.).

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

[[Page 5557]]

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Yes. I contend that the amendment is in 
    order as provided by Public Law 519 dated July 22, 1954, which is 
    commonly referred to as the lease-purchase law. . . .
        Mr. Gary: Mr. Chairman, in the first place, the law cited by 
    the gentleman from Colorado expired on June 30 last year. That is 
    the lease-purchase law. In the second place, the lease-purchase law 
    did not authorize any appropriations whatever. It merely authorized 
    the construction of projects under a lease-purchase contract. In 
    the third place, even if there were an authorization of 
    construction, that comes under General Services Administration and 
    the General Services Administration appropriation is not before 
    this committee. We are considering the appropriation for the Post 
    Office Department. There is absolutely no authorization whatever 
    for the project in question. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is grateful to both the gentleman from Colorado and 
    the gentleman from Virginia for their presentation. The Chair 
    thinks reference to the legislation referred to by the gentleman 
    from Colorado would develop the fact that the lease-purchase 
    procedure is a distinctive type of construction procedure that does 
    not yield to ordinary appropriation treatment. Consequently, the 
    argument advanced by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Gary] appeals 
    to the Chair. For the reason that no prior legislation authorizing 
    this appropriation has been enacted by the Congress, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Airport Services

Sec. 19.4 An appropriation for necessary advisory services to state and 
    other public and private agencies with regard to construction and 
    operation of airports and landing areas was held to be authorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945, (19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, an appropriation bill for the Federal Loan 
Agency and the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary. A point of order was overruled against the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Airport advisory service: For necessary expenses in furnishing 
    advisory services to State and other public and private agencies in 
    connection with the construction and operation of airports and 
    landing areas, including personal services in the District of 
    Columbia and elsewhere, and the operation, repair, and maintenance 
    of passenger automobiles, $300,000.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the words ``and private agencies'' on lines 6 and 7, 
    page 60, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and is not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    authorized under the provisions of Forty-ninth United States Code, 
    section 451, under authority to foster and promote the development 
    of aviation. . . .

[[Page 5558]]

        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Michigan, the 
    chairman of the subcommittee, called to the attention of the Chair 
    certain language which the Chair desires to read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Administrator of Civil Aeronautics is empowered and 
        directed to encourage and foster the development of civil 
        aeronautics and air commerce in the United States and abroad, 
        encourage the establishment of civil airways, landing areas, 
        and other air navigation facilities. The Administrator shall 
        cooperate with the Board in the administration and enforcement 
        of this chapter.

        It seems to the Chair that the language referred to is at least 
    broad enough to authorize the appropriation objected to by the 
    gentleman from Kansas.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Alaskan Highway

Sec. 19.5 An appropriation for construction of a connecting highway 
    between the United States and Alaska was unauthorized by law and 
    not a continuation of a public work in progress.

    On Mar. 10, 1942, (1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2223, 2224, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 4, after 
    line 10, insert ``Alaskan Highway: For prosecuting the construction 
    of a connecting highway from the States to and into Alaska, 
    $5,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: In the first place, I 
    doubt that it requires an authorization for the Corps of Engineers 
    to carry on this work. The paragraph immediately preceding this was 
    a paragraph dealing with the Signal Corps, for which we made an 
    appropriation to carry on the Alaska Communications System.
        Even if this project were one which required authorization by 
    law the rules of the House provide that where a project is under 
    construction and an appropriation is made for continuing 
    construction, the appropriation is in order and is not subject to a 
    point of order.
        I call the Chair's attention to an Associated Press dispatch 
    that appeared throughout the country in the papers of March 7, in 
    which this statement was made:

            An advance crew of American engineers is at Dawson Creek, 
        and dozens of freight cars carrying construction equipment are 
        expected to pass through Alberta in the next few weeks. . . .

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The mere fact that press reports show that certain groups are 
    in Alaska

[[Page 5559]]

    does not constitute in the mind of the Chair that there is really a 
    working performance going on in this project at all.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Appropriation Language Limiting Expenditures to Authorized Projects

Sec. 19.6 A point of order was held not to lie against an amendment 
    proposing to increase a lump-sum appropriation for river and harbor 
    projects where language in the bill limited use of the lump-sum 
    appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''

    On June 19, 1958, (3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12858, a point of order against an 
amendment to the bill was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 11766, 11767, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: On 
    page 4, line 8, after ``expended'', strike out ``$577,085,500'' and 
    insert ``$578,455,- 500.'' . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It appears to be for three 
    projects which have not been authorized by law although a bill did 
    pass the House. Frankly, I do not like the situation where I am 
    obliged to make this point of order, but I feel that I would not be 
    conscientious in the performance of my duty if I did not do so.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Becker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding in trying to 
    evaluate the various points of order in the last 2 days is that it 
    is possible to increase the sum, that is, it is possible to 
    increase the total sum of the appropriation if I do not include any 
    specific authorization. I have not offered any authorization here 
    or legislation on this bill. I am merely increasing the amount and 
    the total sum of the appropriation in order that there will be a 
    sum of money and in order that these three projects can be 
    initiated. I hope the chairman will overrule the point of order. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Becker] offers 
    an amendment, on page 4, line 8, to which the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber] raises a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    to review the ruling of the Chair on yesterday with respect to the 
    language in the bill to which these figures on line 8, page 4, 
    apply. The Chair will point out, as did the Chair on yesterday, 
    that the language to which these figures apply is very specific in 
    that the moneys are to be spent on projects authorized by law. So 
    it would appear to the Chair

[[Page 5560]]

    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Becker] raising the amount of the appropriation would be in order.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the discussion of related rulings 
in Sec. Sec. 7.10 et seq., supra; and see Ch. 25, Sec. 2.17, volume 7, 
supra.

Rivers and Harbors

Sec. 19.7 An appropriation for an ``experimental cut'' in connection 
    with a survey under the Rivers and Harbors Act was held not to be 
    authorized by law inasmuch as conditions set forth in the act had 
    not been met.

    On June 15, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7493, an appropriation for civil functions of the War 
Department. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 5787, 5788, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Florida: Page 7, after 
    line 16, add a new paragraph as follows:
        ``For experimental cut, Big Pass-Clearwater, Fla., in 
    connection with survey authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act 
    approved August 30, 1935, $21,000: Provided, That local interest 
    shall contribute not less than $10,000 toward such project.''. . . 
    .
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order is that the matter covered by the proposed amendment 
    is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Hardin] Peterson of Florida: Mr. Chairman, the Rivers 
    and Harbors Act of 1935 authorized a survey. This provides an 
    appropriation for the purpose of carrying out that survey. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule:
        Section 3 of the act of August 30, 1935, gives to the Secretary 
    of War--

            Authority to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to 
        be made at the following-named localities, the cost thereof to 
        be paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for 
        such purposes: Provided, That no further examination, survey 
        project, or estimate for new works other than those designated 
        in this or some prior act or joint resolution shall be made: 
        Provided further, That after the regular or formal reports made 
        as required by law on any examination, survey, project, or work 
        under way or proposed or submitted no supplemental or 
        additional report or estimate shall be made unless authorized 
        by law. . . .

        The provision (authorizes) preliminary examinations and 
    surveys, and specifically (provides):

            That the Government shall not be deemed to have entered 
        upon any project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor 
        mentioned in this act until the project for the proposed work 
        shall have been adopted by law.

[[Page 5561]]

        No law having been cited by the gentleman from Florida showing 
    that Congress has adopted any program as the result of the 
    recommendations of the Secretary of War by reason of the authority 
    vested in the Secretary and contained in the section to which the 
    Chair has referred, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bureau of Reclamation

Sec. 19.8 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    to the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control, an amendment 
    making part of such appropriation available for studying specified 
    work of the Bureau of Reclamation was held to be unauthorized as 
    well as not germane to the paragraph to which offered.

    On June 13, 1951,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 4386), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 6522, 6523, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas H.] Werdel [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Werdel: On page 7, line 3, strike 
        out the colon and insert ``of which $15,000 shall be utilized 
        for the study of the specifications used by the Bureau of 
        Reclamation in connection with controls for laterals and 
        sublaterals to distribute water from the Friant Kern Canal, and 
        to estimate the cost of correcting specification errors.''

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California, which I will reserve so that the gentleman may speak on 
    his amendment. . . .
        May I be heard, Mr. Chairman? I feel constrained to speak to 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Porter Hardy, Jr. (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, this deals with the Reclamation 
    Department of the Government and not with the Corps of Engineers It 
    involves a project in reclamation, and we are not talking about 
    reclamation projects here at all.
        I insist on the point of order. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment. As far as any argument 
    which he has heard is concerned, there is no reference to any 
    authority which exists in law for this study and there is nothing 
    in this bill on this subject.
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway

Sec. 19.9 An appropriation for the Tennessee-Tombigbee inland

[[Page 5562]]

     waterway was authorized by law.

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3734, a Department of the Army civil functions 
appropriation. A point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3141, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway: For the prosecution of 
    the works of improvement with respect to the Tombigbee and 
    Tennessee Rivers heretofore authorized by law (Public Law 525, 79th 
    Cong.) $3,000,000.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment is not germane at this point in the bill, and therefore 
    not in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Rankin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is germane to this part of 
    the bill and is in order.
        This is the part of the bill that covers projects of this kind. 
    I have prepared this amendment to carry out the mandate of Congress 
    2 years ago and the recommendation of the Army engineers. This 
    amendment merely introduces a new section after line 8 on page 8 
    and provides for funds to begin construction of this great inland 
    waterway, this missing link in our great internal waterway system.
        I submit that it is in order and properly presented at this 
    time.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: The provision for rivers and harbors is entirely 
    included in the paragraph beginning at line 10 on page 5 of the 
    bill and ending on line 8, page 8, and all amendments relating to 
    additional rivers and harbors projects would have to be offered 
    within that paragraph. This goes outside of that and is not germane 
    at this point or elsewhere in the bill.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, that is where it is offered.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from New York advise the Chair 
    as to a more appropriate place that he thinks the amendment should 
    be offered to this bill?
        Mr. Taber: I think it must be offered as an amendment to the 
    figure $176,000,000 on page 6, line 22, where all provisions for 
    rivers and harbors are included.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair invites 
    attention to the fact that the paragraph of the bill now under 
    consideration relates to rivers and harbors, maintenance and 
    improvements of existing river and harbor works. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi offers an amendment which has been reported by the 
    Clerk which seeks to add a new paragraph under the same heading of 
    rivers and

[[Page 5563]]

    harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and harbor 
    work. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    amendment relates to the prosecution of work on improvements with 
    respect to certain rivers as heretofore authorized by law. The 
    Chair is constrained to believe that the amendment is in order as a 
    new paragraph and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Diversion Dam, Missouri Basin

Sec. 19.10 An appropriation for the diversion dam, in the Missouri-
    Souris division of the Missouri River Basin project, was authorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3838, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3525, 3526, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William] Lemke [of North Dakota]: 
    Page 47, line 7, after the word ``Congress'', insert a colon and 
    add the following: ``Provided, That not less than $1,500,000 of the 
    sums hereby appropriated under this head shall be reserved for the 
    diversion dam, Missouri-Souris division, Missouri River Basin 
    project.''
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this particular amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from North 
    Dakota [Mr. Burdick] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This project was 
    authorized in the 1944 Flood Control Act with an appropriation of 
    $200,000,000 for the dams and $200,000,000 for diversion. It is 
    authorized, and there was an appropriation on that authorization.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman cite the law relating to the 
    project in question?
        Mr. Lemke: Public Law 534. . . .
        Mr. Burdick: Mr. Chairman, the matter before us now came into 
    this Congress in a peculiar way. Document 475 came before this 
    Congress authorizing the building of the Garrison Dam by the Army 
    engineers. Senate Document 191 came in authorizing diversion of the 
    waters, to which this amendment alludes. Those two documents, with 
    the consent of the engineers on both sides, resulted in the law 
    which we passed, which was known as Document No. 247. On that 
    document the law was based. That program was authorized. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In light of the information given the Chair, the Chair would 
    invite attention to section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. It 
    would appear from the best examination the Chair has been able to 
    make that the project mentioned in the pending amendment is 
    authorized under that provision. Therefore, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

[[Page 5564]]

Transmission Lines, Bonneville Power

Sec. 19.11 An appropriation for construction of transmission lines from 
    Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane was held authorized by language in the 
    Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935 under ``incidental works necessary 
    to such project.''

    On May 13, 1941,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4590, an Interior Department 
appropriation, a point of order against language in the bill was 
overruled. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 4004, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Bonneville Power Administration

        For all expenses necessary to enable the Bonneville Power 
    Administrator to exercise and perform the powers and duties imposed 
    upon him by the act ``to authorize the completion, maintenance, and 
    operation of the Bonneville project, for navigation, and for other 
    purposes,'' approved August 20, 1937 [50 Stat. 731), including 
    personal services, travel expenses, purchase and exchange of 
    equipment, printing and binding, and purchase and exchange 
    maintenance, and operation of motor-propelled passenger-carrying 
    vehicles, to remain available until expended, $22,858,500, of which 
    amount not exceeding $4,000,000 shall be immediately available, not 
    exceeding $15,000 shall be available for personal services in the 
    District of Columbia and $885,600 shall be available for expenses 
    of marketing and transmission facilities, and administrative costs 
    in connection therewith: Provided, That $2,000,000 of the foregoing 
    amount shall be available only for the construction of additional 
    transmission lines from the Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane, Wash.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 13, beginning in line 
    25, ``that $2,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be available 
    only for the construction of additional transmission lines from the 
    Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane, Wash.,'' that it is not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Washington is 
    recognized on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles H.] Leavy [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, the basic 
    act providing for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam provides in 
    this language:

            For the purpose of controlling floods, improving 
        navigation, regulating the flow of streams of the United 
        States, providing for storage, for the delivering of stored 
        waters thereof, for the reclamation of the public lands and 
        Indian reservations, and other beneficial uses, and for the 
        generation of electrical energy as a means of financially 
        aiding and assisting. . . .

        Then omitting a portion of the language--

            The President, acting through such agents as he may 
        designate, is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and 
        maintain dams, structures, canals, and incidental works nec

[[Page 5565]]

        essary to such projects, and in connection therewith to make 
        and enter into any and all necessary contracts, including among 
        other things, structures, canals, and incidental works 
        necessary in connection therewith.

        In August 1940 the President by Executive order provided that 
    the power generated at Grand Coulee should be distributed by the 
    Administrator for Bonneville, and the responsibility for marketing 
    that power was placed in the Bonneville Administration.
        If by law we can appropriate money for this activity in its 
    entirety, and if we have that responsibility, then certainly by law 
    we can appropriate money for a particular phase of such activity 
    and so designate that appropriation for a particular purpose.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order should be 
    overruled.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman, 
    but the Chair would first like to inquire of the gentleman from 
    Washington where he read the Executive order of the President? Is 
    that in the hearings?
        Mr. Leavy: That is in the hearings on page 159, the first 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: The Chair would be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber] on the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I just want to call attention to the 
    fact that not one single word of the language of the authorization 
    act that was read authorizes the construction of a power line. It 
    authorizes canals, approaches, and incidental structures, but not 
    one single word authorizes the construction of a power dam.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] makes a point of order against the language 
    appearing in line 25, page 13, extending through line 3 on page 14 
    of the pending bill, on the ground that the appropriation there 
    included is not authorized by law.

        The Chair has examined with some degree of care the act to 
    which reference was made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr 
    Leavy], in his discussion on the point of order, which is the 
    Rivers and Harbors Act approved August 30, 1935. The gentleman from 
    Washington very kindly assisted the Chair in citing the language of 
    this act with respect to the Grand Coulee Dam. Without repeating 
    the language quoted by the gentleman from Washington the Chair 
    desires to invite especial attention to the following provision 
    included in the act, which is a part of the language quoted by the 
    gentleman from Washington:

            And incidental works necessary to such projects.

        The Chair is of the opinion that that language, taken with the 
    entire act and the clear purpose of the act as stated, would form a 
    sufficient basis to sustain the appropriation included in this item 
    of the pending bill. Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that 
    this item is authorized by existing law, and the Chair therefore is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.

Tennessee Valley Authority Act

Sec. 19.12 An appropriation for the construction of a dam on the lower 
    Tennessee River

[[Page 5566]]

    was held authorized by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.

    On May 8, 1936,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12624, a deficiency appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 6964, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
        entitled ``The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933'', 
        approved May 18, 1933 (U.S.C., title 16, ch. 12a), as amended 
        by the act approved August 31, 1935 (49 Stat. 1075-1081), 
        including the continued construction of Norris Dam, Wheeler 
        Dam, Pickwick Landing Dam, Guntersville Dam, and Chickamauga 
        Dam (hereafter to be known as McReynolds Dam), and the 
        beginning of construction on a dam on the Hiwassee River, a 
        tributary of the Tennessee River, at or near Fowler Bend, and 
        the continuation of preliminary investigations as to the 
        appropriate location and type of a dam on the lower Tennessee 
        River, and the acquisition of necessary land, the clearing of 
        such land, relocation of highways, and the construction or 
        purchase of transmission lines and other facilities, and all 
        other necessary works authorized by such acts, and for printing 
        and binding, law books, books of reference, newspapers, 
        periodicals, purchase, maintenance, and operation of passenger-
        carrying vehicles, rents in the District of Columbia and 
        elsewhere, and all necessary salaries and expenses connected 
        with the organization, operation, and investigations of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority, fiscal year 1937, $39,900,000: 
        Provided, That this appropriation and any unexpended balance on 
        June 30, 1936, in the ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 
        1936'', and the receipts of the Tennessee Valley Authority from 
        all sources during the fiscal year 1937 (except as limited by 
        sec. 26 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
        amended), shall be covered into and accounted for as one fund 
        to be known as the ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 1937'', 
        to remain available until June 30, 1937, and to be available 
        for the payment of obligations chargeable against the 
        ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 1936.''. . .

         Mr. [Herron C.] Pearson [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pearson: On page 19, line 8, after 
        the word ``river'', insert the words ``and the beginning of 
        construction of a dam on the lower Tennessee River.''

        [Mr. John Taber, of New York, having reserved a point of order 
    (16) against the amendment, the following exchange 
    occurred: (17)]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6968.
17. Id. at p. 6969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) oes the gentleman from New York 
    insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Taber: That it is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    is an item not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, may I ask 
    the gentleman from New York to withhold his point of order?

[[Page 5567]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to have some information 
    from the gentleman from Tennessee. Will the gentleman from 
    Tennessee point out to the Chair any existing law which authorizes 
    the construction contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee?
        Mr. Pearson: The act which created the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority provided for the construction of necessary dams on the 
    river to carry out the projects stated therein--that is, for 
    national defense and navigation.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, in order to make my point of order 
    clear, let me say that this is beyond the scope of the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority. The word ``necessary'' requires the fact to be 
    established in ruling upon the language.
        It was stated by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the hearings 
    that this Gilbertville proposition involved a dam and a canal--a 
    large dam in the Ohio which would cover operation of both the 
    Cumberland and the Ohio as well as the Tennessee. This Tennessee 
    Valley Authority relates only to the dams entirely within their 
    authority covering the Tennessee only. This goes beyond the scope 
    of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama rose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Hill of Alabama: I do. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    clearly in order. I call the Chair's attention to section 2, 
    subsection (j), of Public Law 412, Seventy-fourth Congress, which 
    is the amendatory act of the Tennessee Valley Authority. . .
        I think under the language there can be no question but that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee is in order. 
    The language authorizes construction of any and all dams that may 
    be needed for flood control and navigation of the Tennessee River. 
    All dams from Knoxville to the mouth of the river are authorized. 
    The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee is undoubtedly in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Pearson] inserts, after the word 
    ``river'', line 8, page 19, the words ``and the beginning of 
    construction on a dam on the lower Tennessee River.'' The question 
    as it appears to the Chair is whether or not there is any existing 
    law which authorizes the construction of such a dam. The gentleman 
    from Alabama [Mr. Hill] has referred to Public, No. 412, of the 
    first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress, which the Chair 
    reads--and, by the way, it is an amendment to the original 
    Tennessee Valley Act:

            Sec. 2. That subdivision (j) of said section 4 of said act 
        be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
            ``(j) Shall have power to construct such dams and 
        reservoirs in the Tennessee River and its tributaries, as in 
        conjunction with Wilson Dam, and Norris, Wheeler, and Pickwick 
        Landing Dams, now under construction, will provide a 9-foot 
        channel in the said river and maintain a water supply for the 
        same from Knoxville to its mouth, and will best serve to 
        promote navigation on the Tennessee River and its tributaries 
        and control destructive flood waters in the Tennessee and 
        Mississippi River drainage basins; and shall have power to 
        acquire or construct power-houses, power structures, 
        transmission lines, navigation projects, and incidental

[[Page 5568]]

        works in the Tennessee River and its tributaries, and to unite 
        the various power installations into one or more systems by 
        transmission lines. The directors of the Authority are hereby 
        directed to report to Congress their recommendations not later 
        than April 1, 1936, for the unified development of the 
        Tennessee River system.''

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language just read constitutes 
    an authorization for the appropriation, and the Chair overrules the 
    point of order and holds the amendment to be in order.

Public Buildings, Requirement for Committee Approval

Sec. 19.13 Where existing law (40 USC Sec. 606) specifically prohibits 
    the making of an appropriation to construct or alter any public 
    building involving more than $500,000 unless approved by 
    resolutions adopted by House and Senate Committees on Public Works, 
    an appropriation in a general appropriation bill for public 
    building construction or renovation not previously authorized by 
    both committees is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(a), 
    notwithstanding the ``work in progress'' exception stated in that 
    rule and readopted subsequent to enactment of 40 USC Sec. 606, 
    since the law specifically precludes the appropriation from being 
    made and the ``work in progress'' exception is only applicable 
    where there is no authorization in law.

     On June 8, 1983,(19) a paragraph of a general 
appropriation bill containing funds for the General Services 
Administration for construction of new buildings at two sites and 
repair of two existing projects was conceded to be unauthorized and was 
ruled out on a point of order, since the construction and repair had 
not been authorized by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
as required by statute for projects in excess of $500,000 (40 USC 
Sec. 606), and since the public works in progress exception for 
unauthorized construction and repair does not countervail a statute 
requiring specific authorization before an appropriation can be made. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against four provisions found in title IV in which 
    the paragraph is entitled ``General Services Administration, 
    Federal Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of Revenue.''
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 5569]]

        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            The revenues and collections deposited into the fund 
        pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
        490(f)), shall be available for necessary expenses of real 
        property management and related activities not otherwise 
        provided for, including operation, maintenance, and protection 
        of federally owned and leased buildings, rental of buildings in 
        the District of Columbia . . . repair and alteration of 
        federally owned buildings, including grounds, approaches and 
        appurtenances, care and safeguarding of sites, maintenance, 
        preservation, demolition, and equipment . . . preliminary 
        planning and design of projects by contract or otherwise; 
        construction of new buildings (including equipment for such 
        buildings); and payment of principal, interest, taxes, and any 
        other obligations for public buildings acquired by purchase 
        contract, in the aggregate amount of $2,023,143,000 of which 
        (1) not to exceed $132,510,000 shall remain available until 
        expended for construction of additional projects as authorized 
        by law at locations and at maximum construction improvement 
        costs (including funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
            New Construction: . . .
            Oregon: Portland, Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
        Building, $67,475,000. . . .
            Tennessee: Knoxville, Federal Building, $14,990,000. . . .
            Provided further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund 
        for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be 
        limited to the amount by project as follows, except each 
        project may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 per 
        centum unless advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
        on Appropriations of the House and Senate for a greater amount: 
        . . .
            New York: New York, Federal Office Building, 252 Seventh 
        Avenue, $579,000. . . .
            Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, Post Office, $8,974,000. . . .

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, specifically, on page 18, 
    lines 13 through 17 of the bill, H.R. 3191, under consideration, 
    there appears an appropriation in the amount of $67,475,000 for the 
    construction of the Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
    Building in Portland, Oreg., and $14,990,000 for the construction 
    of a Federal building in Knoxville, Tenn.
        In addition, on page 20, lines 18 and 19, there appears an 
    appropriation in the amount of $579,000 for renovation of the 
    Federal Office Building at 252 Seventh Avenue in New York, N.Y.; as 
    well as on page 20, lines 23 and 24, there appears an appropriation 
    in the amount of $8,974,000 for the repair and alteration of the 
    post office in Pittsburgh, Pa.
        These four appropriations appear to be in violation of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 
    as amended, 40 U.S.C. 606, states:

            In order to insure the equitable distribution of public 
        buildings throughout the United States with due regard for the 
        comparative urgency of need for such buildings, except as 
        provided in Section 4, no appropriation shall be made to 
        construct, alter, purchase, or to acquire any building to be 
        used as a public building which involves a total expenditure in 
        excess of $500,000 if such construction, alteration, pur

[[Page 5570]]

        chase, or acquisition has not been approved by resolutions 
        adopted by the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and 
        House of Representatives, respectively.

        Mr. Chairman, the law is clear that prior to the appropriation 
    of funds for the construction or alteration of a public building 
    which cost shall exceed $500,000, a resolution must be reported by 
    your House Committee on Public Works and Transportation approving 
    such authorization. This action has not occurred to date. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: . . . It is my 
    understanding that the prospectuses for the construction that is in 
    the bill have not been approved; is that correct?
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, they have not been 
    approved by our subcommittee nor by the full committee.
        Mr. Roybal: Since they have not been approved by any of the 
    committees, I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec.  20. Other Purposes

Civil Defense

Sec. 20.1 Language in an appropriation bill making funds available for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    states by loan or grant, for civil defense purposes, was conceded 
    to be without authorization and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Mar. 20, 1957,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6070, a bill making appropriations for 
sundry executive bureaus, a point of order was sustained against 
language therein, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 4046, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Emergency supplies and equipment: For expenses necessary for 
    warehousing and maintenance of reserve stocks of emergency civil-
    defense materials as authorized by subsection (h) of section 201 of 
    the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, and for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    the several States, and the District of Columbia, and the 
    Territories and possessions of the United States, by loan or grant, 
    for training and educational purposes, under such terms and 
    conditions as the Administrator shall prescribe, $3,300,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    following language, beginning in line 19 of page 5, ``for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories 
    and possessions of the United States, by loan or grant, for 
    training and educational

[[Page 5571]]

    purposes, under such terms and conditions as the Administrator 
    shall prescribe,'' on the ground that the distribution of such 
    radiological instruments and detection devices is not authorized in 
    the organic legislation governing the Federal Civil Defense 
    Administration, Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress, 2d session, as 
    amended, and therefore is in violation of rule XXI, paragraph 2, of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Congressional Committee Investigative Staff

Sec. 20.2 An appropriation for employment by the Committee on 
    Appropriations of 50 qualified persons to check upon progress of 
    contracts let by the United States and to report upon any waste, 
    unnecessary additions to cost, or negligence, was not authorized by 
    law.

    On June 16, 1942,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7232, a deficiency appropriation. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 5252, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: Page 2, line 
    22, insert:
        ``For the purpose of enabling the Appropriations Committee to 
    employ the services of not to exceed 50 highly qualified persons to 
    maintain a constant check upon the progress of contracts let by the 
    United States, or any department thereof, and to report upon any 
    avoidable waste, unnecessary additions to cost, negligence, or 
    other matters increasing the cost of such contracts to the United 
    States, $500,000.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it proposes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Will the gentleman from California 
    state to the Chair whether he knows of any legislation authorizing 
    the appropriations proposed in this amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: No; I do not know of any 
    legislation authorizing such expenditures.
        The Chairman: Unless there is legislation authorizing the 
    appropriation, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri.

Congressional Parking Lot

Sec. 20.3 To the legislative appropriation bill, an amendment providing 
    funds for a parking lot for the use of Members and employees of 
    Congress was ruled out because unauthorized by law.

    On May 15, 1952,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5572]]

Whole of the legislative appropriation (H.R 7313), a point of order was 
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 5283, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter F.] Horan [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
         The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Horan:
            On page 15, line 9, after the semi-colon and after the word 
        ``and'', insert the following new language: ``for converting 
        reservations 6-C and 6-E on Canal Street into a parking lot for 
        the use of Members and employees of Congress.''
             On page 15, line 13, strike out the amount ``$218,500'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof the amount ``$69,500.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. I will reserve the point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Horan: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Washington 
    concedes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Expenses of Presidential Committee on Education

Sec. 20.4 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing for expenses 
    of the President's Committee on Education Beyond High School was 
    admitted to be unauthorized and was ruled out on this basis.

    On July 12, 1956, (7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12138, a supplemental appropriation bill. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 102 Cong. Rec. 12555, 12556, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: On page 21, at the end of line 6, add a new paragraph as 
    follows:

       ``President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School, 
                    Executive Office of the President''

        ``For necessary expenses of the President's Committee on 
    Education Beyond the High School, including services authorized by 
    section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates 
    not to exceed $50 per diem for individuals; expenses of attendance 
    at meetings concerned with the purposes of the committee; and 
    actual transportation expenses and an allowance of not to exceed 
    $12 per diem in lieu of subsistence while away from their homes or 
    regular places of business, for persons attending conferences 
    called by the committee: $300,000.''. . .
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on the point of order that this is not authorized by law and that 
    the gentleman's

[[Page 5573]]

    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Fernandez] has offered an amendment which has been reported by the 
    Clerk. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty] has made the 
    point of order that this appropriation is not authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New Mexico in his remarks on his amendment 
    stated that authorization had not been had, and that it was not 
    authorized by law.
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Executive Departments--Travel Expenses

Sec. 20.5 Language in an appropriation bill making all appropriations 
    for the executive departments and independent establishments 
    available under Presidential regulations for expenses of 
    transportation of new appointees and their families from their 
    places of residence to places of employment outside the continental 
    United States and back was held unauthorized by law and legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1984, an independent offices appropriation. When the 
following paragraph was reached in the reading, a point of order was 
raised against it and conceded by the manager of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 964, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Appropriations of the executive departments and independent 
    establishments for the fiscal year 1946 shall be available for 
    expenses of travel of new appointees and of transportation of their 
    immediate families in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
    President, and expenses of transportation of household goods and 
    personal effects in accordance with the act of October 10, 1940 (5 
    U.S.C. 73c-1), from the places of their actual residence at the 
    time of appointment to places of employment outside continental 
    United States, and for such expenses on return of civilian officers 
    and employees from their posts of duty outside continental United 
    States to the places of their actual residence at time of 
    assignment to duty outside the United States.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against subparagraph (c) on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I may state in this connection that 
    the only reason I made the point of order to this paragraph and not 
    to the previous paragraph is because subparagraph (b) is limited to 
    transfer where permanent duty is involved. Subparagraph (c) is not 
    so limited. . . .

[[Page 5574]]

        The Chairman: (10) The point of order made against 
    subparagraph (c) on page 65 is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.6 Language in an appropriation bill making funds available for 
    reimbursements of employees and others, for use by them of their 
    privately owned automobiles on official business, was conceded to 
    be unauthorized and was held not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 964, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            (d) Appropriations of the executive departments and 
        independent establishments for the fiscal year 1946 shall be 
        available for reimbursement, at not to exceed 3 cents per mile 
        (unless otherwise permitted by law), of employees or others 
        rendering service to the Government for use by them of 
        privately owned automobiles for transportation on official 
        business within the limits of their official stations or places 
        of service.

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order. It is legislation, but, Mr. Chairman, it was 
    placed in the bill for the purpose of uniformity. This provision is 
    carried in practically every appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The point of order . . . is 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing for the payment 
    of actual transportation expenses not to exceed $10 per diem in 
    lieu of subsistence for the Council of Personnel Administration was 
    held not to be authorized by existing law.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 439, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For every expenditure requisite for and 
    incident to the work of the Council of Personnel Administration, 
    created by section 7 of Executive Order No. 7916, dated June 24, 
    1938, including personal services in the District of Columbia; 
    traveling expenses, including, when specifically directed by the 
    chairman, not exceeding $800 for expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the furtherance of the work of the council; printing 
    and binding; books of reference and

[[Page 5575]]

    periodicals; and the payment of actual transportation expenses and 
    not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence and other 
    expenses of persons serving while away from their homes, without 
    other compensation from the United States, in an advisory capacity 
    to the council, $25,040.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the section beginning on line 20, page 
    15, and ending on line 9, page 16, that it is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly 
    there is language in this section which changes existing law, 
    particularly the language on page 16 beginning . . . after the word 
    ``periodicals'' and reading as follows:
        and the payment of actual transportation expenses and not to 
        exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence.

        This language unquestionably changes existing law and would 
    make the paragraph subject to a point of order. I concede the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Illinois makes 
    a point of order against the paragraph, and the gentleman from 
    Virginia concedes the point of order. The point of order is 
    therefore sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government Corporation Reserve Fund

Sec. 20.8 A provision of a general appropriation bill requiring a 
    certain amount of the sum authorized therein for administrative 
    expenses of a government corporation to be placed in reserve and 
    used only when and in the amounts required for designated 
    operations of the corporation in excess of budget estimates 
    therefor was ruled out when no authorization was cited in support 
    of the appropriation.

    On May 1, 1952,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7314) the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 4741, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I make 
    my point of order now?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: I make the point of order against title II and 
    specifically against that portion beginning at line 18 on page 45, 
    on the ground that it is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . 
    . The language placing $2,500,000 in a reserve fund is legislation 
    and not an appropriation. As a matter of fact, I think the point of 
    order could be raised against the entire title, because it is an 
    authorization to make expenditures, as appears at line 3 on page 
    45. However, I desire to direct the point of order at this moment 
    to the provision beginning in line 18.

[[Page 5576]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    appropriation for the Commodity Credit Corporation is not in 
    actuality an appropriation, but it is a limitation on how much of 
    their funds they can use for administrative expenses. In the 
    absence of such limitation they could spend all their money for 
    their operations.
        The committee has fixed a limitation at $16,500,000 as the 
    limit of their funds which they can spend; otherwise they could 
    spend all of their funds. . . .
        Mr. Multer: The difficulty with the argument made against the 
    point of order is that this authorization now makes the reservation 
    and then provides that this sum of $2,500,000 shall be expended for 
    sums in excess of the budget estimates. I am now referring to line 
    24, same page. In other words, they take the money out and reserve 
    it, then provide it shall be spent for purposes in excess of budget 
    estimates. That is the real vice of this provision. . . .
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Mississippi cite specific 
    law authorizing the committee to set aside these funds in reserve?
        Mr. Whitten: I do not know of any law that authorizes the 
    committee to do so; no. I had not anticipated this would arise This 
    leaves, if the point of order is sustained, $16,500,000 to carry on 
    the administrative work instead of $14,500,000 as now provided.
        The Chairman: In the absence of any citation on the part of the 
    gentleman, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

NASA--Scientific Consultations

Sec. 20.9 Where legislation authorizing the National Aeronautics and 
    Space Administration to use appropriated funds for scientific 
    consultations had not become law, language in an appropriation bill 
    to permit use of ``not to exceed $10,000 of appropriations in this 
    act . . . for scientific consultations'' was ruled out on a point 
    of order as not yet authorized.

    On Apr. 19, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11776, a bill making appropriations for sundry 
independent executive bureaus. When the Clerk read the following 
paragraph, a point of order was raised as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 8232, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not to exceed $10,000 of appropriations in this Act for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be available 
    for scientific consultations and any emergency or extraordinary 
    expense pursuant to section 1(f) of the legislative authorization 
    for appropriations for the fiscal year 1961.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[[Page 5577]]

        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: The language on page 27, beginning with line 14 
    through line 19, I contend is legislation providing for an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we will have to 
    admit the point of order as good, the entire legislation has not 
    been cleared by both bodies or signed by the President, so if the 
    gentleman wants to make a point of order against any section of it, 
    to be perfectly frank about it, it is good.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order and the Chair sustains the point of order.

National Resources Planning Council

Sec. 20.10 An amendment making an appropriation for the National 
    Resources Planning Council was held not authorized by law.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1362, an independent offices appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 1072, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Magnuson: On page 63, line 14, insert 
    a new title:

                   ``National Resources Planning Council

        ``For all salaries, expenses, including postwar planning 
    research, there shall be appropriated for the National Resources 
    Planning Council the sum of $415,000.''

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order on the paragraph on the ground that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule. . . . 
    No law has been pointed out to the Chair, and the Chair is aware of 
    no statute that would authorize the appropriation. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Office--Substitute Mail Carriers

Sec. 20.11 An appropriation for payment to substitute mail carriers for 
    work on all holidays except Sundays was not authorized by law.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1648, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation. During consideration of the bill, a point of order 
against an amendment was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 742, 743, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Rural Delivery Service: For pay of rural carriers, auxiliary 
    carriers, sub

[[Page 5578]]

    stitutes for rural carriers on annual and sick leave, clerks in 
    charge of rural stations, and tolls and ferriage, Rural Delivery 
    Service, and for the incidental expenses thereof, $92,200,000 of 
    which not less than $200,000 shall be available for extensions and 
    new service.
        Mr. [Butler B.] Hare [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hare: Page 39, line 20, strike out 
        ``$92,200,000'' and insert ``$94,000,000'', and at the end of 
        line 21, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add 
        ``including delivery service by substitute carriers on all 
        holidays except Sundays.''

        Mr. [Emmett] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against the amendment. The second provision of the 
    amendment is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Is there any law at the present 
    time authorizing the payment to substitute carriers on Sunday? Is 
    there any law presently that authorizes that payment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hare: No, except city carriers and clerks, a general 
    authorization under the law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
    reads as follows:

            Strike out ``$92,200,000'' and insert ``$94,000,000'', and 
        at the end of line 21 strike out the period, insert a comma, 
        and add ``including delivery service by substitute carriers on 
        all holidays except Sundays.''

        The Chair knows of no authorization for the payment of such 
    services. The gentleman from South Carolina very frankly concedes 
    that he knows of no such authorization. The burden of proof being 
    upon the gentleman from South Carolina, who offered the amendment, 
    the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is well taken 
    and sustains the point of order.

President's Emergency Fund

Sec. 20.12 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating $5 
    million for the Emergency Fund for the President was held 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(3) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5201, an independent offices appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the paragraph which follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 355, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Emergency Fund for the President

        Emergency fund for the President: Not to exceed $5,000,000 of 
    the appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,'' contained 
    in the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1943, 
    as supplemented and amended, is hereby continued available until 
    June 30, 1947.
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 5579]]

    of order against the paragraph just read on the ground there is no 
    legislative authority for the appropriation proposed.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Idaho?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I will leave 
    that to the discretion of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes a 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that the 
    appropriation is not authorized by law. The Chair has stated to the 
    gentleman in charge of the bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Hendricks], that he would be glad to hear him. In the absence of 
    any statement to the contrary, the Chair is bound by the statement 
    of the gentleman from Idaho and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

President's Wife--Salary

Sec. 20.13 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing for a 
    salary of $10,000 per year for the wife of the President for 
    maintaining the White House was held not authorized by law.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5201), a point of order was made against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 352, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fulton: On page 2, line 15, after 
        the semicolon, insert ``to the wife of the President a salary 
        of $10,000 per year as services for maintaining the White House 
        establishment, not to be expended as the President may 
        determine''; and in line 21 strike out ``$883,660'' and insert 
        ``$893,660.''

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, while I may 
    concede there is some merit to the proposal of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, I make the point of order against the amendment that 
    it is an appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Fulton] offers an amendment in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            On page 2, line 15, after the semicolon, insert ``to the 
        wife of the President a salary of $10,000 per year as services 
        for maintaining the White House establishment, not to be 
        expended as the President may determine''; and in line 21 
        strike out ``$883,660'' and insert ``$893,660.''

        The gentleman from Florida makes the point of order that it is 
    an appropriation not authorized by law. Clearly it is an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5580]]

Public Health Service--Mineral Disease Treatment

Sec. 20.14 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to appropriate 
    funds to the Public Health Service, Division of Venereal Diseases, 
    for the purpose of continuing the operation of the Hot Springs 
    Transient Medical Center Infirmary at Hot Springs, Arkansas, was 
    held not to be authorized by law.

    On Jan. 17, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8947, a U.S. Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. At one point a point of order was raised after the 
Clerk read an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 649, 650, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. McClellan: On page 39, after line 11, 
    insert a new title and paragraph, as follows:
        ``Public Health Service, Division of Venereal Diseases: For the 
    purpose of continuing the operation and maintenance of the Hot 
    Springs Transient Medical Center Infirmary, located at Hot Springs 
    National Park, Ark., $180,000.''. . .
        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by 
    existing law, and in doing so I would like to compliment the 
    gentleman on the splendid fight he has made for his local community 
    and for his very able presentation of his case, but this would be 
    an irregular proceeding. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Arkansas if there has been an authorization 
    heretofore passed with reference to this project?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McClellan [of Arkansas]: Nothing but a relief 
    appropriation, but a bill is now pending for that purpose.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order because it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, there having been no authorization act 
    heretofore passed.

Student Aid

Sec. 20.15 An appropriation to assist students, in such numbers as the 
    Chairman of the War Manpower Commission would determine, who were 
    participating in accelerated college programs in engineering, 
    physics, and other subjects was not authorized by law.

    On June 5, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7181, a Labor Department and Federal Security Agency 
appropriation. At one point the Clerk read the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 4959, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph (2), 
    insert a

[[Page 5581]]

    new paragraph, as follows: ``To assist students (in such numbers as 
    the chairman of the War Manpower Commission shall determine) 
    participating in accelerated programs in degree-granting colleges 
    and universities in engineering, physics, chemistry, medicine 
    (including veterinary), dentistry, and pharmacy and such other 
    technical and professional fields as said chairman may determine to 
    be necessary in connection with the national war effort, by 
    providing part-time employment, $5,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the bill under consideration, which provides an 
    appropriation for the N.Y.A., there is no authority in law setting 
    up the N.Y.A.; and, therefore, in order that this appropriation for 
    that agency might not be thrown out on a point of order it was 
    necessary to have a special rule waiving points of order against 
    that particular appropriation. That rule waived points of order on 
    that clause in the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment undertakes to make another 
    appropriation which is to be administered under the Chairman of the 
    Manpower Commission. It is the opinion of the Chair that there is 
    no authority in law for the appropriation proposed in the amendment 
    and the Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Surgeon General--Entertainment Expenses

Sec. 20.16 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds 
    ``not to exceed $1,000 for entertainment of officials . . . when 
    authorized by the ``Surgeon General'' was held to be unauthorized 
    and to constitute legislative authority.

    On Mar. 29, 1960,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 11390), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 6863, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 
        6864, 6865, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Assistance to States, General

        To carry out the purposes, not otherwise specifically provided 
    for, of section 314(c) of the Act; to provide consultative services 
    to States pursuant to section 311 of the Act; to make field 
    investigations and demonstrations pursuant to section 301 of the 
    Act; to provide for collecting and compiling mortality, morbidity, 
    and vital statistics; not to exceed $1,000 for entertainment of 
    officials of other countries when specifically authorized by the 
    Surgeon General; and to provide traineeships pursuant to section 
    306 of the Act; $22,620,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on

[[Page 5582]]

    page 23 of the bill, line 1, reading as follows: ``not to exceed 
    $1,000 for entertainment of officials of other countries when 
    specifically authorized by the Surgeon General.''

        I make the point of order that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island [Mr. John E. Fogarty] desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I read this language, it is just 
    a limitation in this appropriation bill that they shall not exceed 
    $1,000 for this purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        It would appear to the Chair that this is language intended to 
    permit of the making available of the sum of $1,000 for 
    entertainment of officials of other countries. It is not in essence 
    or in words a limitation on any appropriation made here. In the 
    absence of the citation of any substantive authority for this, the 
    Chair is compelled to sustain the point of order.

Higher Education Programs

Sec. 20.17 Funds claimed by the report of the Committee on 
    Appropriations to be available, inter alia, to expand educational 
    grants to middle income students but not specifically so earmarked 
    in the paragraph, were held to be generally authorized by the 
    Higher Education Act, although separate legislation modifying those 
    grant programs had not yet been enacted into law, since the 
    paragraph in question referred only to programs authorized by law 
    and since authorizations under all sections of law proposed to be 
    modified by that separate legislation had been extended by law for 
    the fiscal year in question.

    On June 8, 1978,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 12929), the following 
proceedings occurred as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 16778, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               student assistance

            For carrying out subparts 1 ($3,373,100,000), 2 
        ($340,100,000), and 3 ($86,750,000) of part A, and parts C 
        ($520,000,000) and E ($328,900,000) of Title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act, and, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
        General Education Provisions Act, $4,675,750,000, of which 
        $4,651,350,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1980: 
        Provided, That amounts appropriated for basic opportunity 
        grants shall be available first to meet any insufficiencies in 
        entitlements resulting from the payment schedule for basic 
        opportunity grants published

[[Page 5583]]

        by the Commissioner of Education during the prior fiscal year: 
        Provided further, That pursuant to section 411(b)(4)(A) of the 
        Higher Education Act, amounts appropriated herein for basic 
        opportunity grants which exceed the amounts required to meet 
        the payment schedule published for any fiscal year by 15 per 
        centum or less shall be carried forward and merged with amounts 
        appropriated the next fiscal year.

        Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. . . .
        . . . [D]uring the discussion of the rule on this bill, I asked 
    if there was money in this portion of the bill for the so-called 
    Middle Income Student Assistance Act. The distinguished chairman of 
    the subcommittee informed me that there indeed was money in the 
    bill for that act.
        I indicated at that time that the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act was not authorized. In fact, the House specifically 
    refused to consider that act and has subsequently passed the 
    Tuition Tax Credit Act. I was informed that was not necessary 
    because this could be done under current law.
        Mr. Chairman, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is not 
    current law. If the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is current 
    law, why did the President propose it as a new program?
        Mr. Chairman, the committee report says that this appropriation 
    is based on the House version of the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act and will expand student aid for middle income 
    students. It will not expand aid for middle income students without 
    increasing the middle income student limitation, and there is no 
    authorization for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the Middle Income 
    Student Assistance Act is or is not in existence and whether it is 
    or is not necessary, and I make the point of order that the $1.4 
    billion in this section that is for expanded aid to middle income 
    students is not authorized. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me 
    just point out that the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which 
    has not yet passed, simply gives direction and makes certain 
    changes in an already existing program. The bill before us today 
    funds programs which are in existing law, and the gentleman's point 
    of order is, therefore, not well taken.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman stated quite accurately that the report of the 
    committee on this appropriation bill indicated that the Middle 
    Income Student Assistance Act H.R. 11274 had not become law. It 
    also says, and I quote, on page 74:

            Even though this legislation is still pending, 
        appropriations can be made under existing authority to expand 
        student aid for middle income students, as expressed in the 
        bill and accompanying report.

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the report on H.R 
    11274 and the basic law. This is Public Law 94-482, 94th Congress, 
    the Education Amendment of 1976.
        Section 121, Part D, Student Assistance Basic Educational 
    Opportunity Grants, extends the authorizations of the basic act to 
    September 30, 1979.
        Considering all of the authorizations for fiscal 1979 under 
    part D--Student

[[Page 5584]]

    Assistance--together, it would appear that the funds in the 
    paragraph in question are authorized.
        Therefore, the Chair believes that the Committee is correct in 
    its view that there is extant authorization justifying this 
    appropriation, and he overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11274, the Middle Income Student 
Assistance Act, had been reported from the Committee on Education and 
Labor but had not passed the House. The report on that bill indicated 
that all of the five existing programs of student financial assistance 
which that bill would modify had been extended through fiscal 1979 by 
Public Law No. 94-482. The purpose of H.R. 11274 was merely to redirect 
emphasis toward assistance for middle income students, but not to 
provide new authorization.

Public Service Jobs--Earmarking

Sec. 20.18 Where existing law authorized appropriations for employment 
    of persons by public employers to provide public services, an 
    amendment appropriating funds for railroad maintenance employment 
    ``pursuant to contracts with railroads'' was held unauthorized 
    where its sponsor failed to cite specific authority for the 
    program.

    On Mar. 12, 1975,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4481 [the Emergency Employment 
Appropriation Act of 1975], a point of order was sustained against an 
amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 6338, 6339, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Page 
        7, line 6, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``; of which amount $250,000,000 shall be available 
        only for use by State and local prime sponsors to provide 
        emergency jobs for unemployed workers to perform needed 
        railroad maintenance of way services pursuant to contracts with 
        railroads located within the geographical jurisdiction of such 
        sponsors.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that there is no 
    authorization for this action and it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
    . . .
        Mr. Devine: . . . I recognized when this amendment would be 
    offered it might be construed as legislation on an appropriation 
    measure, but I have gone back to the act and I have looked at the 
    act. The purpose of the act we passed in 1946, the Employment Act, 
    was consistent with those needs and obligations and other essential 
    considerations of national policy for the purpose of creating and 
    maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free 
    competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under

[[Page 5585]]

    which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities--and I 
    repeat, useful employment opportunities. That is the purpose of the 
    act.
        What we are doing in this amendment is providing useful 
    employment opportunities--not leaf raking and not make work jobs, 
    but useful employment opportunities.
        The whole purpose of the bill is to provide funds for public 
    service jobs. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment, except 
    it earmarks that. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this does not 
    violate the rules and I think the point of order should be 
    overruled. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment specifies that this quarter billion dollars shall 
    be available for use only by State and local prime sponsors to 
    provide emergency jobs for unemployed workers to perform railroad 
    maintenance. The Chair has examined Public Law 93-567, and there is 
    no specific authorization for such purpose. The Chair finds that 
    the proposed amendment further changes the allocation formula 
    contained in Public Law 93-567, which is described on pages 34 and 
    35 of the report, and further interferes with the discretion given 
    the Secretary under section 603(b) of the public law as to the 
    utilization of the final 10 percent of the authorized amounts. In 
    chapter 26, section 6 of ``Deschler's Procedure,'' it provides very 
    clearly that there is ample precedent that such reallocations in 
    appropriation bills are legislation, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Officials' Representation Expenses

Sec. 20.19 A section of a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretaries of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare to use 
    funds in the bill for official reception and representation 
    expenses was conceded to be unauthorized and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 27, 1974,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 15580 (Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriations), a point of order was sustained 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 21686, 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 404. The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare are each authorized to make 
        available not to exceed $7,500 from funds available for 
        salaries and expenses under titles I and II, respectively, for 
        official reception and representation expenses.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 37, beginning with 
    line 21 and running through line 25 as being appropriation not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: It is the entire 
    section 404?

[[Page 5586]]

        Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization

Generally

Sec. 21.1 An amendment proposing to appropriate a sum in addition to 
    that authorized by law for a specific purpose is not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(19) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
During consideration, a point of order against an amendment was 
sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 2346, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: Page 79, 
        line 11, after the period, add the following paragraph:
            ``To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to further carry 
        out the provisions of section 32, as amended, of the act 
        entitled `An act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and 
        for other purposes,' approved August 24, 1935, and subject to 
        all provisions of law relating to the expenditure of funds 
        appropriated by such section, $40,000,000. Such sum shall be 
        immediately available and shall be in addition to, and not in 
        substitution for, other appropriations made by such section or 
        for the purpose of such section.''

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California on the ground that there is no authority of law for 
    making an appropriation in addition to the permanent appropriation 
    made by section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. There is no 
    legislative basis for the amendment which the gentleman offers.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    California wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Voorhis of California: No, Mr. Chairman; I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Increase in Lump Sum Beyond Authorization

Sec. 21.2 An amendment proposing an increase in the amount of an 
    appropriation authorized by law was held to be unauthorized: to the 
    appropriation for compensation of Members of the House, an 
    amendment proposing to increase the total amount beyond that 
    authorized was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

[[Page 5587]]

    On Apr. 19, 1950,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 5392, 5393, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Chapter II, Legislative Branch

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For compensation of Members of the House of 
        Representatives, Delegates from Territories, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from Puerto Rico, $5,492,500. . . .

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: Page 3, line 6, strike out 
        ``$5,492,500'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$7,135,000.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the amendment that there is no 
    authority in law for this increase.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Multer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: No; I do not care to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] cite 
    any authorization of law for the increase proposed by his 
    amendment?
        Mr. Multer: Only the fact that this body has the authority to 
    fix the salary of its Members. I think it does not matter how or in 
    what bill the House does it. It may do so as part of an 
    appropriation bill. This item being the item appropriating for the 
    pay of Members of Congress I think it is subject to amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. McGrath] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the Members 
    of the House are deserving of an increase in compensation, yet my 
    position at this time is of a legislative capacity and I must 
    support the rules of the House.
        I respectfully submit that the point of order lies against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from New York yield for a question?
        Mr. McGrath: I yield.
        Mr. Taber: As I understand, this is an amendment to the gross 
    amount for salaries. It is not in order, of course, because the 
    only authority we have is to appropriate an amount equivalent to 
    the product of the fixed salary times the number of Members. The 
    effect of the amendment would not even be to increase the salary.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported; the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    McGrath] has made a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground that the amount sought to be included by the amendment is 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chair has examined the question to some extent, and it 
    appears that the amount carried in the bill re

[[Page 5588]]

    flects the amount authorized by existing law. Therefore, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would be in excess 
    of existing authority of law.
        The point of order is sustained.

Where Part of Lump Sum is Unauthorized

Sec. 21.3 Instance where a point of order was conceded against a 
    paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that a lump-sum 
    figure therein included funds for one organization in excess of the 
    authorization therefor even though all funds in the lump sum were 
    to be available only as authorized by law.

    On Apr. 12, 1960,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11666, an appropriation for the Departments of State, 
Justice, and the Judiciary. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Missions to International Organizations

        For expenses necessary for permanent representation to certain 
    international organizations in which the United States participates 
    pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific acts of Congress, 
    including expenses authorized by the pertinent acts and conventions 
    providing for such representation; salaries, expenses, and 
    allowances of personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign 
    Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801-1158); hire of 
    passenger motor vehicles; printing and binding, without regard to 
    section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111); and 
    purchase of uniforms for guards and chauffeurs; $1,850,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and 
    running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an 
    appropriation not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    going to be a great deal of tweedledee and tweedledum. It is the 
    fact, and we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has 
    been in existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an 
    authorization for expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the 
    newly created NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian 
    Interparliamentary Union have authorizations for $30,000. The 
    committee felt that the oldest one, the 70-year-old one, should be 
    put on the same basis as the two lately formed ones, and for that 
    reason inserted in the bill $30,000.
        Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of 
    order is

[[Page 5589]]

    well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the bill specified that 
        appropriations in the paragraph were available only for 
        ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts'' providing for 
        United States participation in the organizations. Under a 
        ruling of the Chair on June 18, 1960 (106 Cong. Rec. 11646, 
        86th Cong. 2d Sess.) and similar precedents, the quoted 
        language arguably would have limited the amount which could be 
        used to the amount actually authorized, in which case the point 
        of order would not have lain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Funds Above Authorized Level

Sec. 21.4 A provision in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures 
    in excess of the amount authorized by law was ruled out as in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 7636, 7637, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal 
                                  Expenditures

            For an amount to enable the Joint Committee on Reduction of 
        Nonessential Federal Expenditures to carry out the duties 
        imposed upon it by section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941 (55 
        Stat. 726), to remain available during the existence of the 
        Committee, $29,750, to be disbursed by the Secretary of State.

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language relating to the Joint Committee on 
    Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures which appears on 
    page 9, line 15 through line 2 on page 10, inclusive. There is no 
    authority in the basic law to appropriate such an amount. The joint 
    committee was established by the provisions of section 601 of the 
    Revenue Act of 1941 and appears in volume 55 of the Statutes at 
    Large, on page 726. Subsection (e) of section 601 limits the total 
    appropriations that can be made to this joint committee to the sum 
    of $10,000, or less, and I will quote the subsection as follows:

            There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, the sum of 
        $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to carry out 
        the provisions of this section.

        This joint committee was clearly intended to be a temporary 
    thing of short duration. As a matter of fact, it has not been 
    carried into the United States Code although that is not a matter 
    of great importance to this question, even though it indicates that 
    in the eyes of the people who prepare the code it was to be a 
    temporary thing. I trust that the Chair will sustain the point of 
    order which I have made. . . .

[[Page 5590]]

        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    concede the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman. 
    We have no other point to stand on except the fact that this has 
    been done for many years without protest. If that does not give it 
    life and legality, I know of no way that would give it life and 
    legality as of this moment. I certainly cannot with any logic offer 
    a substitute of only $10,000. That is so far from the realities of 
    the moment that I will just have to let it pass for the moment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Inasmuch as the authorization is for $10,000 and the 
    appropriation is for considerably more than that, the Chair 
    believes the point of order is well taken.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 21.5 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    the Joint Committee on Defense Production in excess of the amount 
    authorized by law was conceded to be subject to a point of order.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 7640, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows--page 10, line 21:

                     Joint Committee on Defense Production

            For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on Defense 
        Production as authorized by the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
        as amended, $90,520.

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph relating to the Joint Committee on 
    Defense Production which appears on page 10, lines 21 to 24, 
    inclusive, on the grounds that the amount proposed to be 
    appropriated, $90,520, exceeds the amount that is authorized to be 
    appropriated in the basic law. In title 50 of the United States 
    Code, section 2162(e), authorization for this committee is limited 
    to not to exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, and I quote subsection 
    (e) as follows:

            The expenses of the committee under this section, which 
        shall not exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, shall be paid from 
        the contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon 
        vouchers signed by the chairman or vice chairman.

        In view of this limitation, the proposed appropriation in the 
    pending bill is, in my opinion, clearly subject to a point of order 
    and I trust the Chair will so rule.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I would have 
    to concede the point of order. The only way I know to meet this 
    situation is to offer an amendment at this point.
        The Chairman: Did I understand correctly that the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma concedes the point of order?.

[[Page 5591]]

        Mr. Steed: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.


                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 22. In General; Burden of Proof


    The sections that follow discuss application of the rule 
prohibiting provisions ``changing existing law'' in general 
appropriation bills. The rule itself, and the broad qualifications on 
its use, are discussed in detail at the beginning of this 
chapter.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 1, supra.
            See supplements to this edition as they appear for 
        discussion of recently adopted rules, including the requirement 
        that the Committee on Appropriations include, in its reports on 
        general appropriation bills, a statement describing the effect 
        of any provision changing the application of existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of contrast, some rulings which belong under part F of this 
chapter, ``Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds,'' are carried in 
parts C, D, and E, which discuss provisions ``changing existing law,'' 
to permit the reader to better understand the subtle distinctions 
between these two lines of precedent.
    As noted in prior sections of this chapter, clause 2 of Rule XXI 
proscribes both (1) appropriations not authorized by law, and (2) 
provisions changing existing law. Some rulings interrelate these two 
separate proscriptions more than is technically necessary, and this 
chapter is intended, in part, to place the proper emphasis on the most 
appropriate portion of Rule XXI clause 2 relied upon by the Chair in 
its ruling.                          -------------------

Availability of Appropriation Contingent on Further Legislative Action

Sec. 22.1 Language in an appropriation bill changing existing law by 
    imposing a new committee approval requirement for the availability 
    of funds is legislation and not in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For contractual research, development, operations, 
        technical services, repairs, alterations, and minor 
        construction, and for supplies, materials, and equipment 
        necessary for the conduct and support of aero

[[Page 5592]]

        nautical and space research and development activities of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including not to 
        exceed $5,000 for representation allowances overseas and 
        official entertainment expenses, to be expended upon the 
        approval or authority of the Administrator; not to exceed $500 
        for newspapers and periodicals; and purchase of thirty-two 
        passenger motor vehicles, of which nineteen shall be for 
        replacement only; $300,000,000, to remain available until 
        expended: Provided, That this appropriation shall also be 
        available for other items of a capital nature only after such 
        items in excess of $250,000 shall first receive the approval in 
        writing of the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Aeronautical and 
        Space Sciences of the Senate: Provided further, That no part of 
        this appropriation shall be available for payment of salaries 
        of National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make the point of order against the language on 
    page 4, lines 16 to 22, inclusive, beginning with the word, 
    ``Provided'' and ending with the word ``Senate'' on the ground that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill and requires additional 
    duties.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, unquestionably the point of 
    order is good. We were merely trying to straighten out some 
    language in that Act, and I send an amendment to the Clerk's desk.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Extending Availability of Funds Beyond That Specified in Existing Law

Sec. 22.2 Language in an appropriation bill making an appropriation for 
    a census of agriculture available beyond the time for which it was 
    originally authorized was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Dec. 7, 1944,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5587, a supplemental appropriation. A point of order 
was raised against a paragraph of the bill providing for a census of 
agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 8995, 8996, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Census of agriculture: For an additional amount for census of 
    agriculture, including the objects specified under this head in the 
    Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1945, $5,500,000, to 
    remain available until December 31, 1946.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph and call attention to the 
    language on page 23, line 3, ``$5,500,000 to remain available until 
    December 31, 1946,'' as not being authorized by law and being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5593]]

        The Chairman: (14) does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: The title of the bill 
    provides for just what the gentleman states. This work is under 
    way, and this is just an additional amount to carry on.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania hold that 
    this amount is authorized?.
        Mr. Snyder: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman cite the authorization?.
        Mr. Snyder: The authorization is the Agricultural Appropriation 
    Act for the current fiscal year.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin further contend 
    that the amount is not authorized?.
        Mr. Keefe: I contend, Mr. Chairman, that the provision making 
    the amount available until December 31, 1946, makes it 
    objectionable, as it carries it beyond any authorization.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be 
    heard further on the point of order?.
        Mr. Snyder: Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amending Dates in Authorization Law

Sec. 22.3 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, an 
    amendment seeking to extend the dates named in the proviso clause 
    of the first paragraph of the UNRRA Act for 90 days was held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On June 27, 1946,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 6885), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 7758, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Neal: On page 4, line 14, after 
        ``1947'', insert ``Provided, That the dates named in the 
        proviso clause of the first paragraph of the United Nations 
        Relief and Rehabilitation Administration Participation Act, 
        1946, are each hereby extended for 90 days.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill not authorized by existing law.
        Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The gentleman makes the point of order that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. The amendment offered applies directly to 
    the legislation referred to in the same paragraph, the 
    Rehabilitation Administration Participation Act, 1946. The 
    provisions of

[[Page 5594]]

    that act are referred to in this paragraph, and the amendment 
    affects one of the parts of the Participation Act. It seems clear 
    to me, since it touches on the very matter referred to in the 
    paragraph, that it is certainly not legislation which is not in 
    conformity with the rest of the paragraph.
        Mr. Taber: The law now provides a period within which certain 
    things may be done. This changes the law so as to make that period 
    90 days longer. There is nothing in the bill at the present time to 
    which this amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule. In 
    the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is clearly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Harold D. Cooley (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conferring Discretion

Sec. 22.4 An amendment to an appropriation bill, providing that no 
    appropriations in the bill be available for contracts for 
    procurements from private contractors except where a federal 
    official determines to the contrary was held to confer new 
    discretionary authority and to be legislation.

    On Apr. 13, 1949,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the military establishment appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4146), a point of order was raised against an amendment 
containing the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 95 Cong. Rec. 4534, 4535, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 90, following line 21, insert a new section, as 
        follows:
            ``Sec. 629. No part of the appropriations made in this act 
        shall be available . . . and no moneys herein appropriated for 
        the Naval Establishment or made available therefor shall be 
        used or expended under contracts hereafter made for the repair, 
        purchase, or acquirement, by or from any private contractor, of 
        any naval vessel, machinery, article, or articles that at the 
        time of the proposed repair, purchase, or acquirement can be 
        repaired, manufactured, or produced in each or any of the 
        Government naval shipyards or arsenals of the United States, 
        when time and facilities permit, and when, in the judgment of 
        the Secretary, such repair, purchase, acquirement, or 
        production would not involve an appreciable increase in cost to 
        the Government, except when the repair, purchase, or 
        acquirement, by or from any private contractor, would, in the 
        opinion of the Secretary, be advantageous to the national 
        defense.''

        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.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the 
    proposed amendment clearly imposes additional duties.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 5595]]

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment today I 
    am not attempting to offer something that has not been in previous 
    appropriation bills. The exact language of the amendment I am 
    offering has appeared in appropriation bills for the military and 
    the naval establishments for the past 25 or 30 years. Without any 
    hearings on this particular section of the bill it was stricken out 
    by the subcommittee handling the bill before use this afternoon. 
    The House has acted upon this very same amendment in the past, and 
    it was considered germane. In a conference between the House and 
    the Senate a year ago this provision was agreed on. I think the 
    amendment is in order at the present time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Rhode Island offers an amendment against 
    which a point of order is made on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. While it would seem to be a limitation of 
    appropriation, the Chair calls the attention of the Committee to 
    the fact that the amendment does confer discretionary authority 
    upon the Secretary. It is the opinion of the Chair that to that 
    extent the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Incorporation of Legislative Language by Reference

Sec. 22.5 The incorporation by reference of a legislative provision in 
    a former appropriation act is not in order in a general 
    appropriation bill: language in the D.C. appropriation bill 
    providing that employment on playgrounds shall be distributed in 
    accordance with corresponding employment provided for in the D.C. 
    appropriation act for a former fiscal year was held to be 
    legislation.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the first clause in the proviso in 
the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Community Center Department

        For personal services of the director, general secretaries, and 
    community secretaries in accordance with the act approved June 4, 
    1924 (43 Stat., pp. 369, 370); clerks and part-time employees, 
    including janitors on account of meetings of parent-teacher 
    associations and other activities; for personal services for public 
    playgrounds adjacent to and in the vicinity of school buildings: 
    Provided, That employments on such playgrounds, except directors 
    who shall be employed for 12 months, shall be distributed as to 
    duration in accordance with corresponding employments provided for 
    in the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 
    1924; for keeping open public-school playgrounds, including 
    playgrounds operated during the summer months and daily after 
    school hours;

[[Page 5596]]

    for general maintenance, repairs, improvements, equipment, 
    supplies, lighting fixtures, and other incidental and contingent 
    expenses, including labor; and including $10,000 for health and 
    physical education teachers to supervise play in schools of the 
    central area bounded by North Capitol Street on the east, Florida 
    Avenue on the north, the Mall on the south, and Twelfth Street on 
    the west, $216,565.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning in line 23, on page 26, 
    down to and inclusive of line 18, on page 27, for the reason that 
    it changes existing law and is, therefore, legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not, Mr. Chairman, 
    except to say that the only provision of the paragraph subject to 
    the point of order is the proviso.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma make the point 
    of order against the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I modify my point of order and 
    direct it to that portion of the paragraph beginning in line 4, 
    page 27, which is the proviso.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The proviso on page 27, beginning at line 4 and continuing 
    through the figures ``1924'' in line 9, is the language against 
    which the point of order is made. The appropriation act of 1924 was 
    law for that year and did not become permanent law. This provision 
    would incorporate into this bill the legislative provision of the 
    act of 1924, and is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 22.6 A provision making restrictions and conditions imposed on 
    similar programs in other appropriation acts applicable to the 
    funds being appropriated in the bill under consideration was 
    conceded to be legislation and was ruled out as in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 15, 1957,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7441), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 7012, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order with regard to the language beginning with the words 
    ``Provided further,'' on line 8, at page 10, down to and including 
    the word ``Service'' on line 14, the language being as follows:

            Provided further, That provisions of the act of August 1, 
        1956 (70 Stat. 890-892), and provisions of a similar nature in 
        appropriation acts of the Department of State for the current 
        and subsequent fiscal years which facilitate the work of the 
        Foreign

[[Page 5597]]

        Service shall be applicable to funds available to the Foreign 
        Agricultural Service.

        I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that 
    this language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, the committee concedes the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point 
    of order. The point of order is sustained.

House Resolution Made Permanent Law

Sec. 22.7 Language in a general appropriation bill prescribing that the 
    provisions of a House-passed resolution ``shall be the permanent 
    law with respect thereto'' was conceded to be legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2 and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On June 4, 1971,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8825), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 18040, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Postage Stamp Allowances

        Postage stamp allowances for the second session of the Ninety-
    second Congress, as follows: Clerk, $1,120; Sergeant at Arms, $840; 
    Doorkeeper, $700; Postmaster, $560; each Member, the Speaker, the 
    majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips, and 
    each standing committee, as authorized by law; $321,090: Provided, 
    That the provisions of House Resolution 420, Ninety-second 
    Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect thereto.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 7, line 7, which 
    states as follows:

            Provided, That the provisions of House Resolution 420, 
        Ninety-second Congress shall be the permanent law with respect 
        thereto.

        I make a point of order against that language on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will inquire of the 
    gentleman from Alabama if he wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Again we were following the 
    intent of the House and a custom which is established.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman concede the point of order?
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: We do.
        The Chairman: The point of order against the proviso is 
    sustained, and the Clerk will read.

[[Page 5598]]

Reference to Legislative Provision Elsewhere in Bill

Sec. 22.8 To a bill appropriating emergency funds for the President, an 
    amendment to make the provisions of another section of the bill 
    [which contained legislation subject to a point of order] 
    applicable to the appropriation was held to be legislation.

    On May 25, 1959,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the general government matters appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7176), a point of order was raised against an amendment to 
the following section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 9006, 9007, 9011, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Emergency Fund for the President, National Defense

        For expenses necessary to enable the President, through such 
    officers or agencies of the Government as he may designate, and 
    without regard to such provisions of law regarding the expenditure 
    of Government funds or the compensation and employment of persons 
    in the Government service as he may specify, to provide in his 
    discretion for emergencies affecting the national interest, 
    security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during the 
    current fiscal year, $1,000,000: Provided, That no part of this 
    appropriation shall be available for allocation to finance a 
    function or project for which function or project a budget estimate 
    of appropriation was transmitted pursuant to law during the Eighty-
    sixth Congress, and such appropriation denied after consideration 
    thereof by the Senate or House of Representatives or by the 
    Committee on Appropriations of either body. . . .
        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hardy: On page 5, line 6, strike 
        the period, insert a colon and the following: ``Provided 
        further, That section 209 of this Act shall be fully applicable 
        to this appropriation.''. . .

        [Note: Section 209 of the bill provided: ``No part of any 
    appropriation contained in this Act, or of the funds available for 
    expenditure by any individual, corporation, or agency included in 
    this Act, shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes 
    designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
    Congress.'']
        Mr. [Ivor D.] Fenton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman:  (6) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fenton: I do, Mr. Chairman. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Hardy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how it can be said 
    that this

[[Page 5599]]

    is legislation on an appropriation bill when it refers to a section 
    of the bill itself.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that 
    section may have legislation in it and the fact that the amendment 
    refers to a section of the bill is not an answer to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Hardy: That may be true, Mr. Chairman, but I would 
    certainly have to express the feeling to ask how is it improper 
    anywhere in a piece of legislation to say that a section of the 
    legislation is applicable to the rest of it.
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, any language in an 
    appropriation bill or any amendment to an appropriation bill which 
    contains legislation is subject to a point of order. Therefore, the 
    point of order is sustained.

Exceeding Limitation in Permanent Law

Sec. 22.9 Where a limitation on the amount of an appropriation to be 
    annually available for expenditure by an agency has become law, 
    language in a subsequent appropriation bill seeking to change this 
    limitation on such funds was held to change existing law and 
    therefore to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2305, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Foreign Service Buildings Fund: For the purpose of carrying 
        into effect the provisions of the act of May 25, 1938, entitled 
        ``An act to provide additional funds for buildings for the use 
        of the diplomatic and consular establishments of the United 
        States'' (22 U.S.C. 295a), including the initial alterations, 
        repair, and furnishing of buildings acquired under said act, 
        $1,466,000, notwithstanding the amount [of the] limitation in 
        the act of May 25, 1938 (22 U.S.C. 295a), to remain available 
        until expended: Provided, That expenditures for furnishing made 
        from appropriations granted pursuant to the act of May 7, 1926, 
        and subsequent acts providing funds for buildings for the use 
        of diplomatic and consular establishments of the United States 
        shall not be subject to the provisions of section 3709 of the 
        Revised Statutes.

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning in line 14, page 16, down to 
    and including line 3, page 17, on the ground it is a violation of 
    the basic law.
        Appropriation is asked notwithstanding the amount (of the) 
    limitation in the act of May 25, 1938 (22 U.S. Code, sec. 295a), as 
    follows:
        Sections 292 et seq. authorized the acquisition of properties 
    abroad for the State Department, and section 295a authorized ``to 
    be appropriated, in addition to the amount authorized by such act, 
    an amount not to exceed $5,000,000, of which not more than 
    $1,000,000 shall be appropriated for any 1 year,'' and so forth.

[[Page 5600]]

        No necessity or reason is shown for the lifting of that 
    $1,000,000 yearly limitation on these appropriations, and the 
    present proposal amounts to, and is, permanent and repealing 
    legislation on an appropriation act.

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Rabaut] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order 
    might apply to the language appearing in lines 20 and 21. That is 
    because of the excesses.
        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to understand the gentleman. The 
    gentleman concedes that the language in lines 20 and 21 is bad and 
    subject to a point of order?
        Mr. Rabaut: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees] insist 
    on his point of order against the entire paragraph? . . .
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: I insist on the point of order to the 
    entire paragraph, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that certain language in the 
    paragraph is conceded to be subject to a point of order, the entire 
    paragraph is subject to a point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 22.10 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to change a 
    limitation on expenditures carried in a previous appropriation bill 
    was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(9) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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:

            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 adminis

[[Page 5601]]

    trative 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.
        . . . [T]his 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.
        I respectfully insist, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in 
    order and the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from New York 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 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.

Striking Out Language in Legislation Permitted to Remain

Sec. 22.11 An amendment merely striking out descriptive language in an 
    appropriation bill may not be subject to a point of order as being 
    legislation, if germane and if it does not broaden the 
    appropriation beyond its authorized purpose.

    On May 25, 1959, (11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the general government matters appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7176), a point of order was raised against an amendment to 
the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 105 Cong. Rec. 9013, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5602]]

            Sec. 202. Unless otherwise specified and during the current 
        fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this or 
        any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
        officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
        (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
        owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
        duty is in continental United States unless such person (1) is 
        a citizen of the United States, (2) is a person in the service 
        of the United States on the date of enactment of this Act who, 
        being eligible for citizenship, had filed a declaration of 
        intention to become a citizen of the United States prior to 
        such date, (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the United 
        States, or (4) is an alien from the Baltic countries lawfully 
        admitted to the United States for permanent residence: 
        Provided, That for the purpose of this section, an affidavit 
        signed by any such person shall be considered prima facie 
        evidence that the requirements of this section with respect to 
        his status have been complied with. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: On page 9, 
        lines 5 and 6, after ``alien'' strike out the words ``from the 
        Baltic countries''.

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary: Mr. Chairman, that is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment simply strikes out certain language in the bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

Construing the Use of Funds To Be in Conformity With Existing Law

Sec. 22.12 A provision in a general appropriation bill making 
    appropriations therein available for purchase of station wagons 
    without such vehicles being considered as passenger motor vehicles 
    was held to constitute legislation.

    On May 2, 1951, (13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill (H.R. 3709), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 4737, 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                 general provisions--department of the interior

            Sec. 102. Appropriations made in this act shall be 
        available for the purchase of station wagons without such 
        vehicles being considered as passenger motor vehicles.

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this section on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Washington 
    concedes the point of

[[Page 5603]]

    order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.13 Where an appropriation bill placed a limit on administrative 
    expenses, a provision defining certain expenses now or hereafter 
    incurred as ``non-administrative,'' for purposes of making the 
    computation under any applicable limitation was held to be 
    legislative and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7922), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 439, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Electric Home and Farm Authority, salaries and 
        administrative expenses: Not to exceed $600,000 of the funds of 
        the Electric Home and Farm Authority, established as an agency 
        of the Government by Executive Order No. 7139 of August 12, 
        1935, and continued as such agency until June 30, 1941 by the 
        act of March 4, 1939 (Public Act No. 2, 76th Cong.), shall be 
        available during the fiscal year 1941 for administrative 
        expenses of the Authority, including personal services in the 
        District of Columbia and elsewhere; travel expenses, in 
        accordance with the Standardized Government Travel Regulations 
        and the act of June 3, 1926, as amended (5 U.S.C. 821-833); not 
        exceeding $3,000 for expenses incurred in packing, crating, and 
        transporting household effects (not exceeding 5,000 pounds in 
        any one case) of personnel when transferred in the interest of 
        the service from one official station to another for permanent 
        duty when specifically authorized in the order directing the 
        transfer; printing and binding; law books and books of 
        reference; not to exceed $200 for periodicals, newspapers, and 
        maps; procurement of supplies, equipment, and services; 
        typewriters, adding machines, and other labor-saving devices, 
        including their repair and exchange; rent in the District of 
        Columbia and elsewhere; and all other administrative expenses: 
        Provided, That all necessary expenses (including legal and 
        special services performed on a contract or fee basis, but not 
        including other personal services) in connection with the 
        acquisition, care, repair, and disposition of any security or 
        collateral now or hereafter held or acquired by the Authority 
        shall be considered as nonadministrative expenses for the 
        purposes hereof.

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

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

        I make the point of order merely against the proviso, Mr. 
    Chairman, not against the paragraph.

[[Page 5604]]

        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Change in Contract Authorization

Sec. 22.14 Language in an appropriation bill seeking to change a 
    contract authorization contained in a previous appropriation bill 
    passed by another Congress was held to be legislation and not a 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill for fiscal year 1948 (H.R. 3123), the following point of order was 
raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve the point of order first in order that I may get some 
    information before I make the point of order finally, and that is 
    with respect to the language which appears at the bottom of page 
    51, which reads as follows:

            Provided further, That the contract authorization of 
        $15,000,000 contained in the Interior Department Appropriation 
        Act, fiscal year 1946, is hereby reduced to $9,750,000.

        My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that that is legislation 
    amending a previous act and not within the purview of this bill 
    making appropriations for fiscal 1948. It constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill for it destroys existing legislation.
        Before I make the point of order, may I ask the chairman of the 
    committee what the reason is for carrying that language? I feel 
    that the development of the synthetic liquid fuel program is very 
    essential to national defense and is probably the cheapest money we 
    can spend in that direction.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: The purpose of this language is 
    to limit the amount to be expended further on this project to the 
    authorization provided in the basic act. In other words, the amount 
    remaining after this appropriation will be the amount of 
    $9,750,000, and will tie the entire appropriation to the basic 
    authorization.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: What was the reason, then, for the 
    increase of the authorization to $15,000,000 in the act of 1946 and 
    establishment of contract authority?
        Mr. Jones of Ohio: That was to tie the appropriations to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, having introduced a 
    bill which seeks to accomplish about that very thing, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order and do make the point of 
    order.

[[Page 5605]]

        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Ohio 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the only purpose of the 
    language is to limit the amount appropriated over all to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization. It seems to me it is merely a 
    restatement of the basic law and clearly in order under the Holman 
    rule because on its face it saves money.
        The Chairman: This language changes a contract authorization 
    contained in a previous appropriation bill passed by another 
    Congress. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Delegation of Statutory Authority

Sec. 22.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the head of 
    the department or establishment concerned may delegate to such 
    officials his authority to authorize payment of expenses of travel 
    and of transportation of household goods and immediate families of 
    civilian officers and employees on change of official station was 
    held legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 965, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            (e) During the fiscal year 1946 the head of the department 
        or establishment concerned may delegate to such officials as he 
        may designate his authority to authorize payment of expenses of 
        travel and of transportation of household goods and immediate 
        families of civilian officers and employees on change of 
        official station.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph, particularly the words ``may 
    designate,'' that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, I 
    believe it is a matter that ought to be covered by general 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.

Bestowing Discretion to Waive Law

Sec. 22.16 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    additional court facilities and waiving provisions of existing law 
    where this is ``determined to be necessary by the judicial council 
    of the appropriate circuit'' was conceded to be legislation and was 
    ruled out on a point of order.

[[Page 5606]]

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the two provisions in the 
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Additional Court Facilities

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to provide, 
    directly or indirectly, additional space, facilities and courtrooms 
    for the judiciary, including alteration and extension of 
    Government-owned buildings and acquisition of additions to sites of 
    such buildings; rents; furnishings and equipment; repair and 
    alteration of rented space; moving Government agencies in 
    connection with the assignment and transfer of space; preliminary 
    planning; preparation of drawings and specifications by contract or 
    otherwise; and administrative expenses; $1,000,000, to remain 
    available until expended: Provided, That buildings constructed 
    pursuant to the Public Buildings Purchase Contract Act of 1954 (40 
    U.S.C. 356) shall be considered to be Government-owned buildings 
    for the purposes of this appropriation: Provided further, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for the provision of court 
    facilities in places which are otherwise subject to the 
    restrictions of section 142 of title 28, United States Code, but 
    only if such facilities are determined to be necessary by the 
    judicial council of the appropriate circuit.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 11 from line 6 on down 
    to the bottom of the page, including line 25. It is legislation It 
    changes existing legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I cannot do 
    anything but concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Texas concedes 
    the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delegating Authority to Suspend Existing Law

Sec. 22.17 To a general appropriation bill an amendment providing that 
    in reducing personnel the determination as to which individual 
    employees shall be retained shall be made by the head of the agency 
    concerned was held to be legislation.

    On June 28, 1952,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8370), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 8503, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham A.] Ribicoff [of Connecticut] 
    to the amendment offered by Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: After 
    (b), No. 3, add a new paragraph as follows:
        ``4. That 90 days after the enactment of this act, the number 
    of civilian em

[[Page 5607]]

    ployees who are United States citizens, receiving compensation or 
    allowances from the administrative expense appropriations provided 
    by this act, employed in the United States and overseas by or 
    assigned to the Mutual Security Agency, or employed by or assigned 
    to the Department of State or the Department of Defense for 
    carrying out programs the appropriations for which are provided by 
    this act, and the military personnel assigned to such programs, 
    shall be in the aggregate at least 15 percent less than the number 
    so employed or assigned on June 1, 1952, except for such personnel 
    of the Department of Defense engaged in the manufacturing, repair, 
    rehabilitation, packing, handling, crating, or delivery of 
    materiel: Provided further, That after the Director has determined 
    the reduction to be effected in each agency, the determination as 
    to which individual employees shall be retained shall be made by 
    the head of the agency concerned.''. . .
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    make his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Yes. Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand the amendment, it leaves the discharge of employees 
    entirely to the Administrator, which contravenes existing laws with 
    reference to veterans' preference and also the civil-service laws. 
    It is legislation; it contravenes existing legislation.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order comes too late; the amendment had been debated.
        Mr. Gary: I will say to the gentleman from New York that I 
    reserved the point of order at the time the amendment was offered.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Part of the language 
    of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, after 
    the proviso, reads:

            That after the Director has determined the reduction to be 
        effected in each agency, the determination as to which 
        individual employees shall be retained shall be made by the 
        head of the agency concerned.

        This portion of the amendment does, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, alter the civil-service laws and laws relating to veterans' 
    preferences, and therefore constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained.

Funding Through Different Department

Sec. 22.18 Where a law authorizes an appropriation to one department 
    for the purpose of prosecuting a certain activity itself or through 
    another department it was held that an amendment proposing to 
    appropriate money directly to the latter department for the purpose 
    of prosecuting such activity changed existing law and was, 
    therefore, not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 25, 1937,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5608]]

Whole of a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
Department of Labor (H.R. 5779), a point of order was raised against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 2775-77, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 103, line 8, after the word ``labor'', insert ``to 
        enable the Division of Labor Standards in the Department of 
        Labor to engage in a program to formulate and promote the 
        furtherance of standards of apprenticeship and apprentice 
        training, $50,000.''

        Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead] has offered an amendment 
    to insert a new paragraph, as follows:

            To enable the Division of Labor Standards in the Department 
        of Labor to engage in a program to formulate and promote the 
        furtherance of standards of apprenticeship and apprentice 
        training, $50,000.

        To this amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bacon] has 
    made the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the 
    paragraph to which it is offered, and the further point of order 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Unquestionably the amendment is not germane to the paragraph to 
    which it is offered, and on that ground the Chair could sustain the 
    point of order. It is the understanding of the Chair, however, that 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead] under these circumstances 
    would desire to return to the appropriate paragraph by unanimous 
    consent of the Committee and again offer the amendment, and for 
    this reason the Chair desires to state that, after an examination 
    of the authorities and the precedents existing and of the act of 
    February 23, 1917, which the gentleman from New York has cited, the 
    Chair feels that the rules and precedents of the House have well 
    established that a general statement of the purpose for which a 
    department is established, as the Department of Labor, as set forth 
    in its organic act, is not to be construed as an authorization for 
    an appropriation which is not definitely and specifically provided 
    for either in that act or in subsequent legislation creating 
    bureaus within such Department. No authority has been cited to the 
    Chair, other than the new suggestion made by the gentleman from New 
    York with reference to the Vocational Education Act, which would 
    take this particular amendment out of the ruling cited by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bacon) made by Chairman Garner in the 
    Committee of the Whole House some years ago. The Vocational 
    Education Act, insofar as it applies to the point raised by the 
    gentleman from New York, reads as follows:

            When the Interior Department deems it advisable, such 
        studies, investigations, and reports concerning trades and 
        industries for purposes of trade and industrial education may 
        be made in cooperation with or through the Department of Labor.

        The act, however, makes such investigations, studies, and so 
    forth, de

[[Page 5609]]

    pendent upon the determination of the Department of Interior for 
    which the pending bill does not purport to make any appropriation.
        Without desiring to bind any future occupant of the chair who 
    may preside over the Interior Department appropriation bill as to 
    the germaneness of such an amendment as the gentleman from New York 
    offers today, the Chair feels it is entirely beyond the scope of 
    the present bill and that it would be definite legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, transferring from the Interior Department to 
    the Department of Labor these particular activities which would be 
    obnoxious to the rules of the House. For this reason the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Granting Discretion to Approve Expenditure

Sec. 22.19 Language in a paragraph of a general appropriation bill 
    providing for the expenditure of funds therein ``on the approval or 
    authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payment may be 
    made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military 
    purposes'' was held to change existing law and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2 when the Committee on Appropriations 
    failed to cite statutory authority for that method of payment.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11575), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 38821, 38822, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
        operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
        law; as follows: for Strategic forces, $1,124,154,000; for 
        General purpose forces, $1,014,091,- 000; for Intelligence and 
        communications, $532,343,000; for Airlift and sealift, 
        $179,240,000; for Central supply and maintenance, 
        $2,318,938,000; for Training operations and other general 
        personnel activities, $517,736,000; for Medical activities, 
        $377,398,000; for Administration and associated activities, 
        $211,467,000; and for the Support of other nations, 
        $256,733,000; in all: $6,532,100,000: Provided, That of the 
        total amount of this appropriation, not to exceed $2,343,000 
        can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
        expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
        Air Force, and payment may be made on his certificate of 
        necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided further, 
        That not less than $215,000,000 of the total amount of this 
        appropriation shall be available only for the maintenance of 
        real property facilities. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 5610]]

    of order on the language commencing on page 8, line 15, ``to be 
    expended on the approval of authority of the Secretary of the Air 
    Force, and payment may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
    confidential military purposes:''.
        The point of order is based on rule XXI, clause 2, in that such 
    language is a provision in an appropriation bill for an existing 
    law and is not contained in the authorization legislation and for 
    other reasons. It is in violation of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Minshall of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I cannot cite 
    the actual legislative authority, but we do have general 
    legislative authority for just this provision in the bill. It has 
    been in the bill for many, many previous years.
        The Chairman: Did the gentleman from Ohio state that he cannot 
    cite any authority for this language?
        Mr. Minshall of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I said I could not, right 
    at this moment. It has been in the previous bill for many, many 
    year.
        The Chairman: The language to which the point of order is 
    directed is the language the gentleman from Texas cited on line 15, 
    as follows:

            To be expended on the approval or authority of the 
        Secretary of the Air Force and payment may be made on his 
        certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes.

        If there is no authority in law for this language, the Chair 
    holds that it must be construed as legislation in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sufficiency of Vouchers for Expenditure

Sec. 22.20 In a paragraph appropriating funds for general operating 
    expenses for the District of Columbia, a proviso stating that 
    certificates of the Commissioner and Chairman of the City Council 
    shall be sufficient vouchers for expenditure from that 
    appropriation was conceded to be legislation in violation of Rule 
    XXI clause 2 and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 7, 1972,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 15259), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from Missouri will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3, 
    line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificate of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this 
        appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony 
        expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary:

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order 
    against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line 
    13.

[[Page 5611]]

        This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill 
    without authorization
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has 
    raised his point of order was previously read prior to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall) is correct, and we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1973 
        [H.R. 8658].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Various Grounds for Objection

Sec. 22.21 An entire title in an appropriation bill for the Atomic 
    Energy Commission which included, in part, provisions for (1) the 
    employment of aliens; (2) rental of space upon a determination of 
    need by the Administrator of General Services; (3) use of 
    unexpended balances of previous years; (4) transfer of sums to 
    other agencies; (5) a sum to remain available until expended; (6) 
    reappropriation of funds for plant and equipment; and (7) a power 
    reactor project not authorized by law, was held to be in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On July 24, 1956,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second supplemental appropriation bill, a 
point of order was raised against a title containing provisions as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 14289, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and now be 
    open to points of order and amendments to any part of the bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title 
    I and also the item for the Bureau of Reclamation on page 7.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman making a point of order against 
    the entire title I?

[[Page 5612]]

        Mr. Cannon: Title I and the material indicated as well as on 
    page 7.

        The Chairman: Let us pass on one point of order at a time, 
    please. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] against title I?
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: On what basis is the point 
    of order made?
        Mr. Cannon: Not authorized by law and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Judd: A lot of it is authorized by law.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the items in 
    title I, with the exception of the several provisos, are entirely 
    within the statute and are authorized. I thought I had an 
    understanding that the only item to go out was the $400 million 
    item, but as long as the point of order is made on that, I will 
    offer an amendment to cover everything except that last proviso 
    after the point of order is disposed of.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, title I, in its entirety, is subject 
    to a point of order. Part of the paragraph being subject to a point 
    of order, the entire paragraph is subject to a point of order.
        Title I is subject to a point of order on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Missouri makes the point of order against title I of the pending 
    bill on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    or contains appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair has 
    gone through title I and has observed that every paragraph in it 
    either contains legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in 
    violation of the rules of the House, or contains appropriations 
    which are not authorized by law, which is also in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Change in Policy by Negative Restriction on Use of Funds

Sec. 22.22 While a limitation may not involve a permanent change of 
    existing law, the allegation that it may result in a change of 
    administrative policy would not itself render it subject to a point 
    of order if only a negative limitation on use of funds.

    On May 11, 1960,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117), a point of order was raised against the following 
section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.

[[Page 5613]]

        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, section 408 provides that 
    none of the funds appropriated by H.R. 12117, making appropriations 
    for the Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration, 
    shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
    Department--except the Secretary--who serves as a member of the 
    Board of Directors of CCC, or as an officer of CCC, in addition to 
    other regular duties with the Department.
        This reverses a decision made by the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the Congress in 1949, when the CCC Charter Act was 
    amended to strike out a similar restriction which had been enacted 
    in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and the mere fact it is put 
    in the form of a limitation on the use of funds appropriated by the 
    bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, volume 7, of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it 
        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would also have to 
    recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers of the 
    Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protection of 
    the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government money. On 
    the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at additional 
    expense to the Government.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten: Mr. Chairman, the section clearly 
    provides a limitation on the use of funds that are appropriated in 
    this bill. It does not change the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    charter. It does not change any basic law. It just simply limits 
    what the money in this bill can be used for. It has been my 
    experience and observation during the years here that the Chair has 
    many times said that it is a negative limitation on the use of 
    money and that it is clearly in order, and on that I rest the 
    committee's position.

[[Page 5614]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown] makes a point of order 
    against the language in section 408 of the bill on the ground that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There are other recent rulings in which the 
Chair has chosen to rely on the headnote in 7 Cannon's Precedents

Sec. 1694 rather than on

Sec. 1691 in permitting limitations on use of funds. See 118 Cong. Rec. 
    30749, 30750, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1972; 120 Cong. Rec. 
    20601, 20602, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1974; 120 Cong. Rec. 
    34716, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1974.

Changing Limitation in Prior Law

Sec. 22.23 A limitation in an appropriation bill having become law, a 
    provision in a subsequent appropriation bill for that fiscal year 
    seeking to change this limitation was conceded to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 17899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in the bill on page 7, beginning on line 
    11, running through line 4 on page 8, as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The language referred to is as follows:

                      Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

                             Salaries and expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses,'' 
        including allowances and benefits similar to those provided by 
        title IX of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as 
        determined by the Commission . . . hire of passenger motor 
        vehicles

[[Page 5615]]

        abroad; insurance on official motor vehicles abroad; and 
        advances of funds abroad; $145,000: Provided, That the 
        limitation under this head in the General Government Matters 
        Appropriation Act, 1961, on the amount available for expenses 
        of travel, is increased from ``$10,000'' to ``$20,000''.

        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Iowa is right. This is the first time that these people have 
    operated overseas and they asked for a little oversea allowance The 
    Bureau of the Budget recommended it. We did not feel that we wanted 
    to be the least bit oppressive on it. Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Iowa is sustained.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 7128, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 6, 1965 
        [H.R. 7091].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Applicable ``Hereafter''

Sec. 22.24 Language in an appropriation bill imposing duties upon an 
    executive not contemplated by law is legislation and 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. 4067, 4068, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 20 of the bill at line 
    18 running through line 1, on page 21.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the proviso beginning on 
    page 20 of H.R. 5240 at line 18 and running through line 1, on page 
    21, as follows: ``Provided, That the clause under this head in the 
    `Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1955,' relating to the 
    Administrator's general supervision and coordination 
    responsibilities, is amended to read as follows: `and the 
    Administrator's general supervision and coordination 
    responsibilities under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1947 shall 
    hereafter carry full authority, where applicable, to promote 
    economy, efficiency, and fidelity in the operations of the Housing 
    and Home Finance Agency,' '' is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill in that--
        First. It changes existing law--see House Report No. 304, page 
    17--by amending permanent legislation enacted in the Independent 
    Offices Appropriation Act, 1955, and by amending Reorganization 
    Plan No. 3 of 1947.
        Second. It imposes new duties on an administrative official. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Obviously, the 
    language

[[Page 5616]]

    against which the point of order is made is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.

Proponent of Amendment Has Burden if Point of Order Is Raised

Requiring New Execution Determination

Sec. 22.25 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill to show that a proposed executive 
    determination is required by existing law, and the mere recitation 
    that the determination is to be made pursuant to existing law and 
    regulations, absent a citation to the law imposing that 
    responsibility, is not sufficient to overcome a point of order that 
    the amendment constitutes legislation.

    On Sept. 16, 1980,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 8105, the Defense Department 
appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained against an amendment 
offered to a provision of the bill as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 25606, 25607, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That no funds herein appropriated shall be 
    used for the payment of a price differential on contracts hereafter 
    made for the purpose of relieving economic dislocations: Provided 
    further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be 
    used except that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be 
    awarded on a formally advertised competitive bid basis to the 
    lowest responsible bidder.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: 
        Page 41, line 23, strike out ``Provided further'' and all that 
        follows through ``economic dislocations:'' on page 42, line 1, 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``Provided further, That no funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for the payment of a price 
        differential on contracts hereafter made for the purpose of 
        relieving economic dislocations other than contracts made by 
        the Defense Logistics Agency and such other contracts of the 
        Department of Defense as may be determined by the Secretary of 
        Defense pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
        inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
        considerations:''. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and therefore in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        I respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 11.2 which states:

            It is not in order to make the availability of funds in a 
        general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive 
        determination by an executive official which he is not 
        otherwise required by law to make.

        I also respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to 
    section 843 of the House Manual, which states in part:

[[Page 5617]]

            The fact that a limitation on the use of funds may . . . 
        impose certain incidental burdens on executive officials does 
        not destroy the character of the limitation as long as it does 
        not directly amend existing law and is descriptive of functions 
        and findings already required to be undertaken under existing 
        law.

        The amendment prohibits the payment of price differentials on 
    contracts except ``as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense 
    pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
    inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
    considerations.''
        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense which is not now required under current 
    law.
        Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to existing 
    laws and regulations'', there is no existing law at the present 
    time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute the 
    existing law, and require this new determination. . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, the amendment prohibits the payment of price 
    differentials on contracts except--and I quote:

            As may be determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant 
        to existing laws and regulations as not to be inappropriate 
        therefor by reason of national security considerations.

        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense which is not now required under the 
    current law. Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to 
    existing laws and regulations,'' there is no existing law at the 
    present time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute 
    the existing law and require this new determination.
        I would urge that the Chair rule that this amendment is out of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would appear to call for a determination by the 
    Secretary of Defense as to appropriateness by reason of national 
    security considerations. Unless the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) can cite to the Chair those provisions of existing law 
    requiring such determinations with respect to defense contracts, 
    the Chair must conclude that the amendment would impose new duties 
    upon the Secretary and would constitute legislation.
        Mr. Addabbo: I accept the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has sustained the point of order.

Amendment's Proponent Carries Burden of Showing No Change in Existing 
    Law

Restrictions on Apportionment of Funds as Distinguished From Limitation 
    on Amount, Purpose, or Object of Funds

Sec. 22.26 The proponent of an amendment to a general appropriation 
    bill has the burden of proving that the amendment does not change 
    existing law and, if in the form of a limitation, falls

[[Page 5618]]

    within the category of permissible limitations described by 
    precedents arising under Rule XXI clause 2; and if the amendment is 
    susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is incumbent on the 
    proponent to show that it is not in violation of the rule.

    On July 28, 1980,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 7631), an amendment was 
offered and ruled upon as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 19924, 19925, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: Page 45, after line 23, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 413. No more than an amount equal to 20 percent of the 
        total funds appropriated under this Act for any agency for any 
        fiscal year and apportioned to such agency pursuant to section 
        3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C. 
        665) may be obligated during the last two months of such fiscal 
        year. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Myers] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered an amendment to limit 
    the appropriations to a specific time; but I respectfully suggest 
    that the fact the gentleman has added the words, ``No more than'' 
    is still not, in fact, a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are limiting here, not 
    directing, but limiting the authority to the last 2 months how much 
    may be spent takes away the discretionary authority of the 
    Executive which might be needed in this case. It clearly is more 
    than an administrative detail when you limit and you take away the 
    right of the Executive to use the funds prudently, to take 
    advantage of saving money for the Executive, which we all should be 
    interested in, and I certainly am, too; but Mr. Chairman, rule 843 
    provides that you cannot take away that discretionary authority of 
    the Executive.
        This attempt in this amendment does take that discretionary 
    authority to save money, to wisely allocate money prudently and it 
    takes away, I think, authority that we rightfully should keep with 
    the Executive, that you can accumulate funds and spend them in the 
    last quarter if it is to the advantage of the taxpayer and the 
    Executive. . . .
        Mr. Harris: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me first address the last 
    point, probably because it is the weakest that the gentleman has 
    made with respect to his point of order.
        With respect to the discretion that we are in any way limiting 
    the President, we cannot limit the discretion which we have not 
    given the President directly through legislation. There is no 
    discretion with regard to legislation

[[Page 5619]]

    that we have overtly legislated and given to the President.
        Mr. Chairman, section 665(c)(3) of title 31 of the United 
    States Code, which states the following:

            Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed as may be deemed appropriate by the officers 
        designated in subsection (d) of this section to make 
        apportionments and reapportionments.

        Clearly grants agency budget officers the discretionary 
    authority to apportion the funds in a manner they deem appropriate. 
    My amendment would not interfere with this authority to apportion 
    funds. On the contrary, my amendment reaffirms this section of the 
    United States Code, as Deschler's Procedures, in the U.S. House of 
    Representatives, chapter 26, section 1.8, states:

            The provision of the rule forbidding in any general 
        appropriation bill a ``provision changing existing law'' is 
        construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists, or a 
        proposition for repeal of existing law. Existing law may be 
        repeated verbatim in an appropriation bill, but the slightest 
        change of the text causes it to be ruled out.

        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, 
    specifically restates by reference the existing law, which in no 
    way gives discretion as to spending, but gives discretion as to 
    apportionment.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the budget execution cycle 
    has many steps. Whereas the Chair's earlier ruling related to the 
    executive branch authority to apportion, my amendment addresses the 
    obligation rate of funds appropriated under the fact. As OMB 
    circular No. A-34 (July 15, 1976) titled ``Budget Execution'' 
    explains:

            Apportionment is a distribution made by OMB.
            Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts 
        awarded, services received, and similar transactions.

        Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes some additional duties, but 
    only a very minimal additional duty upon the executive branch.
        Deschler's chapter 26, section 11.1 says:

            The application of any limitation on an appropriation bill 
        places some minimal extra duties on Federal officials, who, if 
        nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds 
        falls within that prohibited by the limitation. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . In the first instance, the Chair would 
    observe that it is not the duty of the Chair or the authority of 
    the Chair to rule on the wisdom or the legislative effect of 
    amendments.
        Second, the Chair will observe that the gentleman from 
    Virginia, in the way in which his amendment has been drafted, 
    satisfies the requirements of the Apportionment Act, which was the 
    subject of a prior ruling (4) of the Chair in connection 
    with another piece of legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 51.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair agrees with the basic characterization made by the 
    gentleman from Indiana that the precedents of the House relating to 
    limitations on general appropriation bills stand for the 
    proposition that a limitation to be in order must apply to a 
    specific purpose, or object, or amount of appropriation. The 
    doctrine of limita

[[Page 5620]]

    tions on a general appropriation bill has emerged over the years 
    from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole, and is not 
    stated in clause 2, rule XXI itself as an exception from the 
    prohibition against inclusion of provisions which ``change existing 
    law.'' Thus the Chair must be guided by the most persuasive body of 
    precedent made known to him in determining whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) ``changes 
    existing law.'' Under the precedents in Deschler's Procedure, 
    chapter 26, section 1.12, the proponent of an amendment has the 
    burden of proving that the amendment does not change existing law.
        The Chair feels that the basic question addressed by the point 
    of order is as follows: Does the absence in the precedents of the 
    House of any ruling holding in order an amendment which attempts to 
    restrict not the purpose or object or amount of appropriation, but 
    to limit the timing of the availability of funds within the period 
    otherwise covered by the bill require the Chair to conclude that 
    such an amendment is not within the permissible class of amendments 
    held in order as limitations? The precedents require the Chair to 
    strictly interpret clause 2, rule XXI, and where language is 
    susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is incumbent upon 
    proponent of the language to show that it is not in violation of 
    the rule (Deschler's chapter 25, section 6.3).
        In essence, the Chair is reluctant, based upon arguments 
    submitted to him, to expand the doctrine of limitations on general 
    appropriation bills to permit negative restrictions on the use of 
    funds which go beyond the amount, purpose, or object of an 
    appropriation, and the Chair therefore and accordingly sustains the 
    point of order.

Committee Has Burden of Defending Provisions of Bill

Sec. 22.27 Provisions in a general appropriation bill described in the 
    accompanying report pursuant to Rule XXI clause 3 as directly or 
    indirectly changing the application of existing law are presumably 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(c), in the absence of 
    rebuttal by the committee.

    On May 31, 1984,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 5172), a point of order was made and 
sustained, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a point of order.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                       Administration of Foreign Affairs

                             salaries and expenses

            For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
        Foreign Service, not otherwise provided for, including 
        obligations of the United

[[Page 5621]]

        States abroad pursuant to treaties, international agreements, 
        and binational contracts (including obligations assumed in 
        Germany on or after June 5, 1945) and notwithstanding section 
        602 of this Act for administering the contribution to the 
        United States India Fund for Cultural, Educational, and 
        Scientific Cooperation; expenses authorized by section 9 of the 
        Act of August 31, 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721), and 
        section 2 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
        1956, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2669). . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I refer to the committee report in which this 
    particular section is listed as a change in the application of 
    existing law. Therefore, that would be in violation of rule XXI and 
    therefore I think my point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Iowa wish 
    to be heard any further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Chair that since the 
    committee report concedes that this is a change in existing law, 
    the point of order should be upheld, and the point of order is 
    upheld.

Language Requiring Official to Apply Standards Held Unconstitutional by 
    Competent Court

Sec. 22.28 Rule XXI clause 2 prohibits an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill which changes existing court-made as well as 
    statutory law; an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    containing funds for the Internal Revenue Service, to deny use of 
    funds therein to formulate or carry out any regulation which would 
    cause loss of tax-exempt status to private religious schools, 
    unless in effect prior to Aug. 22, 1978, was ruled out of order as 
    legislation, since a federal court had enjoined the Internal 
    Revenue Service from applying the regulations in effect on Aug. 22, 
    1978, and the amendment had the effect of requiring the Internal 
    Revenue Service to apply interpretations of the Internal Revenue 
    Code no longer in accordance with the law.

    On Aug. 19, 1980,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5622]]

Whole of the Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriation 
bill, a point of order was sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 21978-80, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. See also the note in 
        Sec. 77.10, infra, as to the effect of rulings under clause 
        5(b) of Rule XXI, which provides that no bill or joint 
        resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure shall be reported 
        by any committee not having jurisdiction to report tax and 
        tariff measures, nor shall an amendment in the House or 
        proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure be in 
        order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
        reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: On 
        page 8, after line 22, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 103. None of the funds made available pursuant to 
        the provisions of this Act shall be used to formulate or carry 
        out any rule, policy, procedure, guideline, regulation, 
        standard, or measure which would cause the loss of tax-exempt 
        status to private, religious, or church-operated schools under 
        section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 unless 
        in effect prior to August 22, 1978.''. . . .

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the proposed amendment on the grounds that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of 
    rule XXI.
        Chapter 26, section 11.1 of Deschler's Procedure states:

            When an amendment . . . explicitly places new duties on 
        officers of the government, or implicitly requires them to make 
        investigations, compile evidence or make judgments and 
        determinations not otherwise required of them by law then it 
        assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
        of order.

        This amendment would impose additional executive duties. Under 
    the provisions of this amendment the Commissioner and employees of 
    IRS would be required to make a determination as to whether or not 
    ``any policy, procedure, guideline, regulation, standard, or 
    measure'' that the IRS proposed to ``formulate or carry out'' would 
    cause the ``loss of tax exempt status'' of private schools. It 
    would require Federal officials to make new determinations as to 
    the current tax-exempt status of each private school, what that 
    tax-exempt status was on August 22, 1978 and whether the proposed 
    action would cause the loss of that tax exemption. This amendment 
    places new duties on executive officials to make judgments and 
    determinations not required under existing law.

        In addition, Mr. Chairman, rule XXI, clause 2 specifically 
    states that no ``amendment changing existing law'' shall be in 
    order. The proposed amendment does change existing law. The 
    application of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service 
    Code (title 26 of the U.S. Code) has been modified over the years 
    by court decision.
        For example, in Green against Connally in 1971 the Supreme 
    Court held that a segregative private school is not entitled to 
    tax-exempt status even though that section of the code says 
    absolutely nothing directly or indirectly about racial 
    discrimination or segregative schools. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, 
    that the Federal courts, through their interpretation of the 
    Constitution, have the authority under the Constitution to change 
    the application of existing law through judicial interpretation. I 
    would maintain that section 501(c)(3) as it was applied on August 
    22, 1978 has now been changed by Federal court interpretation of 
    that section. I refer specifically to the recent Federal court 
    order Green against Mil

[[Page 5623]]

    ler, which is referred to as Green II, decided on May 5, 1980. I 
    need not go into the specific details relative to that case, but it 
    is certainly apparent, Mr. Chairman, I think, that this decision 
    has changed the application of section 501(c)(3). Thus, the 
    proposed amendment by the gentleman from Ohio would require that 
    the Internal Revenue Service return to the law as it was 
    interpreted on August 22, 1978. This then would be a change from 
    the interpretation now given that section.
        A recent precedent, Mr. Chairman, is the ruling by the Chair on 
    an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service appropriation bill for 
    1979 which can be found on page H5096 in the Congressional Record 
    of June 7, 1978. That amendment attempted to prohibit the Internal 
    Revenue Service from determining whether or not an individual is an 
    employee ``other than under the audit practices, interpretations, 
    regulations and Federal court decisions in effect on December 31, 
    1975.'' The Chair ruled that the amendment would ``require a return 
    to the law as it existed prior to'' that date and therefore changed 
    existing law and was not in order.
        For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment to be 
    in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, and urge the approval of the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . As we all know, there are three primary 
    tests of germaneness in the House rules. They are:
        First, subject matter. ``An amendment must relate to the 
    subject matter under consideration.'' This amendment deals with the 
    exercise of authority by the IRS, the funding for which is included 
    in H.R. 7583. There is no holding by the Parliamentarian that, in a 
    similar case, would find the amendment to be nongermane. . . .
        ``The primary tests of germaneness are not exclusive though; an 
    amendment and the matter to which it is offered may be related to 
    some degree under the tests of subject matter, purpose, and 
    jurisdiction, and still not be considered under the precedents.'' 
    Neither of the precedents cited in either the rules and Deschler's 
    would indicate that the Ashbrook amendment is nongermane. . . .
        On the point he made regarding changing existing law, I would 
    call the Chair's attention to Revenue Procedure 7550. It clearly 
    cites the decision that he had indicated that is preserved by this 
    particular ruling, and that ruling is in effect prior to the time 
    that is listed in my amendment. My amendment does not require IRS 
    to make any new judgments not already being made or able to be made 
    pre-August 1978.
        Probably the best argument for defeating the point of order on 
    this amendment is that it has been adopted by the House in the 
    fiscal year 1980 Treasury appropriations bill and the fiscal year 
    1980 supplemental appropriations bill. Likewise, controversial 
    amendments restricting the use of funds appropriated in an 
    appropriations bill have been consistently adopted in the past, the 
    most well known of these, of course, being the Hyde amendment to 
    restrict Federal funds on abortion, and several amendments to 
    restrict the use of Federal funds to support the busing of school 
    children. . . .
        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: I would like to speak in 
    support

[[Page 5624]]

    of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a 
    limitation on the use of money but actually is legislation. What it 
    does in fact do is to nullify an administrative law court decision 
    after the date that is in the amendment, and it also restricts the 
    IRS from issuing rulings that would allow charitable organizations 
    to allow their contributors to deduct these charitable deductions 
    that are made. So what it actually does is nullify existing law, 
    and by doing that, it nullifies a Federal court decision. In 
    addition to that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment interferes with the 
    non-discretionary authority of the executive branch of Government. 
    As pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Stokes), the courts did not tell the IRS what they could or could 
    not do but mandated by giving guidelines that they must remove the 
    tax exemptions from institutions that were racially discriminating 
    against groups of people.
        In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates the 
    separation of powers. There is no question that the judiciary has 
    the obligation, the constitutional responsibility, to review 
    legislation enacted by this Congress and to give their opinions, 
    and if in fact we dislike any opinion given by the court, whether 
    it is the Green case, one or two, or any other judiciary decision, 
    we have the authority to legislate, but we cannot do that with an 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] makes the point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Ashbrook] is legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI. . . .
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has cited precedents 
    relating to germaneness. The Chair is of the opinion that this is 
    not a germaneness question.
        The Chair is aware that in a currently binding Federal court 
    order and permanent injunction in the case of Green against Miller, 
    the Internal Revenue Service has been enjoined and restrained from 
    according tax-exempt status to, and from continuing the tax-exempt 
    status now enjoyed by, all Mississippi private schools or the 
    organizations that operate them which have been determined to 
    discriminate racially. This is the uncontroverted status of the law 
    as interpreted by the courts with respect to the authority of the 
    IRS in according tax-exempt status.
        As indicated on page 533 of the House Rules and Manual, on June 
    7, 1978, an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Panetta) denying the use of funds for the Treasury Department to 
    apply certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than 
    under regulations and court decisions in effect on a prior date was 
    held to be legislation, since requiring an official to apply 
    interpretations no longer current or legal in order to render the 
    appropriation applicable. In the opinion of the Chair, the pending 
    amendment falls within the same category and is, therefore, 
    legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5625]]

Where Amendment Is Challenged as Changing Law, Proponent Has Burden of 
    Refuting

Sec. 22.29 The proponent of an amendment against which a point of order 
    has been raised and documented as constituting legislation on an 
    appropriation bill has the burden of proving that the amendment 
    does not change existing law.

    Precedents are few on the burden of proof where an amendment is 
challenged as being legislative, but by analogy to precedents under 
Rule XXI clause 2, requiring the committee or Member offering an 
amendment to show an authorization for a proposed appropriation, it may 
be concluded that the proponent of the amendment must prove to the 
satisfaction of the Chair that language which has been challenged is 
not legislative, after an initial argument has been made, pursuant to a 
point of order, that it does change existing law. The Chair so 
concluded in a ruling on July 17, 1975,(9) in sustaining a 
point of order against an amendment to H.R. 8597 (Treasury, Postal 
Service, and general governmental appropriations for fiscal 1976). The 
proceedings are discussed in Sec. 51.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 23239, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Provision in Bill Challenged as Legislation, Committee Has Burden

Sec. 22.30 Where a point of order is raised against a provision in a 
    general appropriation bill as constituting legislation in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2, the burden of proof is on the Committee on 
    Appropriations to show that the language constitutes a valid 
    limitation under the precedents which does not change existing law.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(10) a provision in a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein by the Office 
of Management and Budget to ``interfere with'' the rulemaking authority 
of any regulatory agency was ruled out as legislation which would 
implicitly require that agency to make determinations not required by 
law in evaluating and executing its responsibilities mandated by law. 
In the course of its ruling, the Chair stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 28063, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee on Appropriations has not sustained the burden of 
    show

[[Page 5626]]

    ing that the proposed language would not change and augment the 
    responsibilities imposed by law on the Office of Management and 
    Budget and, therefore, [the Chair] sustains the point of order.

    The proceedings are discussed in

Sec. 52.43, infra.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 23. Incorporating or Restating Existing Law

Reference as Merely Descriptive

Sec. 23.1 It is in order in a general appropriation bill to include 
    language descriptive of authority provided in law for the operation 
    of government corporations and agencies funded in the bill so long 
    as the description is precise and does not change that authority in 
    any respect.

    On June 15, 1973,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8619), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 19843, 19844, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Corporations

        The following corporations and agencies are hereby authorized 
    to make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and borrowing 
    authority available to each such corporation or agency and in 
    accord with law, and to make such contracts and commitments without 
    regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 104 of the 
    Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, as may be necessary 
    in carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for the 
    current fiscal year for such corporation or agency, except as 
    hereinafter provided:
        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language found in line 13, through line 22, on 
    page 20, on the basis that it is legislation in an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Vanik) makes a point of order against the language found on page 
    20, line 13 through line 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard?
        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. It clearly says, ``The following corporations,'' meaning the 
    Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, ``are authorized to make expenditures.''
        This is the work of the legislative committee, and I contend 
    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and that this 
    ought to be handled by the legislative committee rather than made a 
    part of the appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), desire to be heard?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the point 
    that the

[[Page 5627]]

    point of order should not lie. We have language in the original act 
    to make this authorization, and by reason of repeating it in this 
    act, that does not change the basic law. It is already authorized.
        In this situation the committee is setting a ceiling rather 
    than creating an authority. While we use the same words and repeat 
    the same words, the committee has, in effect, set a ceiling, so I 
    submit that it is not subject to a point of order, because it 
    merely repeats the law which is already authorized.
        The Chairman: The Chair has gone to the original source--the 
    Government Corporation Control Act--to which reference is made on 
    page 20 in this appropriation bill.
        The Chair discovers that the budget programs transmitted by the 
    President to the Congress under this act shall be considered and 
    legislation shall be enacted making necessary appropriations as may 
    be authorized by law for expenditures of such corporations.
        Clearly there is no question as to the right of the Congress to 
    include in this annual appropriation bill funds for these 
    Government corporations, several of which are included in the bill.
        It appears to the Chair that this is descriptive or 
    introductory language only and that the language does not 
    constitute change in existing law. Therefore it is in order, and 
    for those reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.

Descriptive Language Not Derived From Existing Law

Sec. 23.2 An amendment proposing to insert the words ``known as `Rankin 
    Dam' '' following an appropriation for Pickwick Landing Dam was 
    held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On May 8, 1936,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 12624), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 6964-67, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 19, line 2, after the words ``Pickwick Landing Dam'', 
        insert the following: ``(known as `Rankin Dam').''

        Mr. [John J.] McSwain [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order on the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It is evidently an attempt to change the name 
    and call it ``Rankin Dam.'' It is in the teeth of legislation that 
    has been attempted time and time again. There are bills before the 
    Committee on Military Affairs to change the name of this dam to 
    ``Rankin Dam.''
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: I should like to ask the 
    gentleman if it is not customary to wait until the man is dead 
    before they name a dam for him?
        Mr. McSwain: Yes; it is.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 5628]]

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair 
    will permit.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    legislation. It is language merely descriptive, and such amendments 
    have been repeatedly held not to be legislation.
        I recall two decisions on this point. They were made by one of 
    the greatest parliamentarians who has served in the House, James R. 
    Mann, of Illinois.
        The first was made in 1905 when an amendment was offered, I 
    think, to the Naval bill.
        The language provided that ships or armament should be of 
    ``native manufacture.''. . . Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, held 
    that those words were merely descriptive and that it was not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield with pleasure to the 
    distinguished leader on the other side of the House.
        Mr. Snell: If the words are merely descriptive, why will they 
    have the effect of changing the name of the dam?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: They do not change the name of the dam. 
    It is not proposed to change the name of the dam.
        Mr. Snell: But is not that the intention? I call it 
    legislation. Is not that the intention of the amendment?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman from New York, being one 
    of the ablest parliamentarians in the House, knows that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not speculate as to the 
    intention of an amendment. He must predicate his decision on the 
    amendment before him in the language in which it is written. He 
    cannot go back of what is on the face of it to surmise what is the 
    purpose of a Member in offering an amendment. This amendment merely 
    further describes the Pickwick Landing Dam; it does not propose a 
    change in the name; it merely adds the descriptive language ``known 
    as the Rankin Dam.''. . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair entirely 
    agrees with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], with 
    reference to the use of descriptive words. Therefore, the question 
    in the mind of the present occupant of the chair is whether the 
    amendment is descriptive or whether it constitutes legislation. 
    Without regard to whether or not it brings about a change in the 
    name of the dam from ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' to ``Rankin Dam'', it 
    is the opinion of the Chair, with profound respect for the opinion 
    of the gentleman from Missouri, one of the outstanding 
    parliamentarians of all time, that the amendment does not 
    constitute descriptive language; that it constitutes legislation It 
    is an addition to the language used in this bill. The Chair would 
    rule the same whether or not the legislation referred to by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McSwain] contained the words 
    ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' or not, because that name is included in 
    the bill now before the House.
        Profoundly respecting the views of the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and with considerable hesitation in disagreeing with him, it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order is well taken, and the 
    Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5629]]

Presumption of New Legislative Effect--Authority to Enter Into 
    Contracts

Sec. 23.3 Although under existing law it may be in order to appropriate 
    money for entering into contracts it is not in order to grant 
    authority to enter into contracts to carry out the provisions of a 
    legislative act.

    On Jan. 18, 1940,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7922), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 508, 509, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            In addition to the contract authorizations of $115,000,000 
        contained in the Third Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal 
        year 1937, and $230,000,000 in the Independent Offices 
        Appropriation Act, 1940, the Commission is authorized to enter 
        into contract for further carrying out the provisions of the 
        Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, in an amount not to 
        exceed $150,000,000.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. I refer to the paragraph beginning in 
    line 22, page 71, and ending in line 3, page 72.
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to be heard upon the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there is something to say on the point 
    of order. Almost every one of the sections that has been read 
    specifically says ``out of available funds.'' The general situation 
    is that these contracts cannot be entered into without specific 
    authority, and those things are not provided for in the general 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes the point of 
    order that the paragraph now under consideration is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. Of course, it is well known that the United 
    States Maritime Commission has authority under the law to enter 
    into contracts. Assuming that to be true, what would be the purpose 
    in that Commission having authority under an appropriation bill to 
    enter into contracts, unless it was for some new purpose?
        An almost similar proposition of this kind came up on the 
    second deficiency bill on April 28, 1937, at which time the 
    Committee of the Whole was presided over by Mr. Vinson of Kentucky, 
    when an amendment was offered dealing with the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority. The Chair, at that time, construed it to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. The present occupant of the chair so 
    construes it, and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to section 401(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-344) which prohibits 
the inclusion of new contract spending or borrowing au

[[Page 5630]]

thority in legislative bills unless such authority is limited to the 
extent or in amounts provided in appropriation acts, the inclusion of 
proper limiting language in a general appropriation bill, if 
specfically permitted by law, would not render that language subject to 
a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, since it would no longer 
``change existing law.''

-- Incorporating or Mandating Full Funding Levels

Sec. 23.4 Language in a general appropriation bill requiring that the 
    mandatory funding levels prescribed by existing law shall be 
    effective during the fiscal year was ruled out as legislation, in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, on the theory that if the language 
    were an exact restatement of the law it was unnecessary and that 
    its inclusion in the appropriation act indicated that it was 
    presumed to have a legislative effect beyond that in existing law.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15931), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language on page 57, lines 9 through 16, which reads as 
    follows:

            Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic 
        Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory 
        funding levels, including newly authorized programs for 
        alcoholic counseling and recovery and for drug rehabilitation, 
        shall be effective during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970: 
        Provided further, That of the sums appropriated not less than 
        $22,000,000 shall be used for the family planning program.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. . .
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    seek recognition on this point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment simply restates 
    existing law in the authorizing legislation, and if that is indeed 
    the case, I do not think it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that if this restates existing 
    law, there is no point in its being in the bill, and the fact that 
    it is in the bill on its face would indicate there must be 
    legislation in it in addition to that contained in existing law. 
    The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5631]]

-- Granting Authorization for Project

Sec. 23.5 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Director of 
    Selective Service to destroy records accumulated under the 
    Selective Training and Service Act was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1955,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5240), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 101 Cong. Rec. 4070, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Appropriations for the Selective Service System may be used 
        for the destruction of records accumulated under the Selective 
        Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, which are hereby 
        authorized to be destroyed by the Director of Selective Service 
        after compliance with the procedures for the destruction of 
        records prescribed pursuant to the Records Disposal Act of 
        1943, as amended (44 U.S.C. 366-380): Provided, That no records 
        may be transferred to any other agency without the approval of 
        the Director of Selective Service.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the first 7 words in line 18, page 27, ``which 
    are hereby authorized to be destroyed'' is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, because it authorizes the Director to destroy 
    records.
        The Chairman: (20) That is the specific language to 
    which the gentleman makes his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] desire 
    to be heard on this point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, we ask for the ruling of the 
    Chair. We doubt that this is legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard very briefly on that? Apparently the Chair feels this is 
    legislation, but this follows the Records Disposal Act of 1943 Does 
    it become legislation if it is a repetition of a statute?
        The Chairman: Why is it necessary to have it if it is already 
    in the law? The Chair thinks it is clearly legislation and sustains 
    the point of order.

Language Either Legislation or Not Necessary

Sec. 23.6 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that funds 
    for the construction of Indian health facilities could be expended 
    ``through the Department of Interior at the option'' of the 
    Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

[[Page 5632]]

    On Mar. 29, 1960,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 11390), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 6863, 6864, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    Construction of Indian Health Facilities

            For construction, major repair, improvement, and equipment 
        of health and related auxiliary facilities, including quarters 
        for personnel; preparation of plans, specifications, and 
        drawings; acquisition of sites; purchase and erection of 
        portable buildings; purchase of trailers; and provision of 
        domestic and community sanitation facilities for Indians; 
        $8,964,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
        such expenditures may be made through the Department of the 
        Interior at the option of the Secretary of the Department of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language on page 28, line 22, which reads 
    ``Provided, That such expenditures may be made through the 
    Department of the Interior at the option of the Secretary of the 
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare' on the ground that 
    that, too, is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will be pleased to hear 
    the gentleman from Minnesota on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry we do not have here the text 
    of the law which transferred the medical care of our Indian 
    population to the Public Health Service. As the author of the 
    original bill, I am sure that it had language which authorized the 
    Public Health Service to carry on medical care for the Indians 
    through the Department of the Interior and its existing agencies 
    when that could be done to greater advantage and without greater 
    cost. Whether that language in the original bill was retained in 
    the final law, I do not recall, and we do not have the text of it 
    here.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that the language is obviously 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore sustains the 
    point of order; making the observation with respect to the 
    arguments raised by two of the gentlemen that if the language is in 
    existing law then it is not necessary in this bill.

Sec. 23.7 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of the Navy to enter into contracts for new construction of 
    aircraft and equipment, including expansion of public or private 
    plants, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 13, 1949,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5633]]

Whole of the military establishment appropriation bill (H.R. 4146), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 4521, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For new construction and procurement of aircraft and 
        equipment, spare parts and accessories therefor, including 
        expansion of public plants or private plants (not to exceed 
        $500,000), and Government-owned equipment and installation 
        thereof in public or private plants, and for the employment of 
        personnel in the Bureau of Aeronautics necessary for the 
        purposes of this appropriation, to remain available until 
        expended, $523,070,000, of which $418,000,000 is for 
        liquidation of obligations incurred under authority heretofore 
        granted to enter into contracts for the foregoing purposes; and 
        in addition, the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter 
        into contracts for the purposes of this appropriation in an 
        amount not to exceed $576,546,000.

        Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coudert: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order with 
    respect to the last three lines of that paragraph--lines 8, 9, and 
    10, on page 65, as legislation on an appropriation bill. . . . In 
    other words, Mr. Chairman, my point of order is to the following 
    language: ``and in addition, the Secretary of the Navy is 
    authorized to enter into contracts for the purposes of this 
    appropriation in an amount not to exceed $576,546,000.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, of course there 
    is authorization by law for the procurement and contracts of 
    procurement of munitions, armaments and airplanes. It seems to me 
    that there is ample justification for the provision contained in 
    this bill. I insist, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order is not 
    well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes the point of order to the 
    language appearing on page 65, line 8, after the word ``purposes'' 
    down to and including the figure on line 10 on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that if in existing law the Secretary of the Navy were 
    authorized to enter into such contracts, this language in the bill 
    would not be necessary; if the Secretary of the Navy is without 
    that power, this language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Restriction of Discretion

Sec. 23.8 Where existing law established priorities to be followed by 
    an executive official in the distribution of funds authorized 
    thereby (but did not explicitly preclude distribution of some funds 
    for lower priority projects), an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    requir

[[Page 5634]]

    ing that those appropriated funds shall be distributed in 
    accordance with such priorities may be regarded as constituting a 
    stronger mandate as to the use of those funds and as a modification 
    of the authorizing law, and therefore out of order.

    On June 15, 1972,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, a point of order was raised 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 21131, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: at page 22, line 4, change 
        the period to a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided 
        that the funds herein appropriated for bilingual education 
        under the Bilingual Education Act shall be distributed in 
        accordance with the authority contained in Section 703(b) of 
        said Act requiring that the Commissioner shall give highest 
        priority to states and areas within states having the greatest 
        need for programs under the Act, and that such priority shall 
        take into consideration the number of children of limited 
        English-speaking ability between the ages of three (3) and 
        eighteen (18) in each state;''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order to the amendment on the ground it is obviously 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The amendment applies to a 
    specific provision of the act, and any time you do that, that is 
    patently, obviously, and clearly legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is indulging in 
    double talk. I do not quite understand what his point of order is. 
    This is a repetition of the statute itself and is therefore 
    completely clear.
        Mr. Flood: There is a deviation.
        Mr. Yates: There is not a deviation. It is an actual quotation.
        Mr. Flood: There was a slight change, which was ruled on by the 
    Chair in ruling on the point of order, and it is out of order for 
    that reason.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    language of the gentleman's amendment states that the Commissioner 
    shall give the highest priority to States and areas within the 
    States having the greatest need for the program under the act. But 
    the amendment goes further and also states that the funds in the 
    pending bill shall be distributed in accordance with the authority 
    contained in Section 703 of the act. While the statute states 
    priorities, the amendment is mandatory and directs the Commissioner 
    to follow those priorities. It thus goes beyond the law, is a 
    modification of existing law, and is, therefore, legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair indulge me and permit 
    me to read what the act states?
        The Chairman: The Chair has just read the act. The gentleman 
    may read it again.

[[Page 5635]]

        Mr. Yates: Here is what the act states. I read from section 
    703:

            In determining distribution of funds under this title, the 
        Commissioner shall give highest priority to States and areas 
        within States having the greatest need for programs under this 
        title. Such priority shall take into consideration the number 
        of children of limited English-speaking ability between the 
        ages of 3 and 18 in each state.

        I incorporated that language in my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and 
    I am not deviating from it. I am following the act and asking that 
    the funds be allocated in accordance with the authority of that 
    section
        The Chairman: The gentleman's language is different from the 
    language in the act although it is similar. There is a mandate in 
    the gentleman's language that the funds shall be distributed in 
    accordance with the priorities stated in the act, and the statute 
    only says the Commissioner shall give the highest priority to 
    States and areas within the States having the greatest need for 
    programs pursuant to this title. Therefore, the Chair finds that 
    the amendment carries a stronger mandate than that in the statute 
    and is, therefore, legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 23.9 To an appropriation for the purchase of reindeer, an 
    amendment limiting the purchase to an average price of $4 per head 
    was held to be a limitation restricting the availability of funds 
    and in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner as 
    the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable and without 
    regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the Revised Statutes, reindeer, 
    abattoirs, cold-storage plants . . . and communication and other 
    equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, as authorized by the act 
    of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . Provided, That 
    under this appropriation not exceeding an average of $4 per head 
    shall be paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative owners: 
    Provided further, That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to 
    the purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak Island.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill unauthorized by law. In fact, 
    the language clearly indicates that it repeals the specific 
    provisions of existing law as incorporated in sections 3709 and 
    3744 of the Revised Statutes.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: No; I concede the point of 
    order.

[[Page 5636]]

        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following 
    amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 60, line 
        23, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such 
        manner as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable, 
        of reindeer . . . as authorized by the act of September 1, 1937 
        (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . Provided, That under this 
        appropriation not exceeding an average of $4 per head shall be 
        paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative owners: Provided 
        further, That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to the 
        purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak Island.''

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, unauthorized by law, and it delegates to the 
    Department additional authority which it does not now have. . . .
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is 
    unnecessary to make an extended argument, as I am sure the Chair is 
    fully advised and ready to rule. Certainly there is no question but 
    that this item is clearly authorized by existing law. Authority 
    will be found in the act of September 1, 1937, Fiftieth Statutes, 
    page 900. It plainly authorizes an appropriation of $2,000,000. I 
    call the attention of the Chair to section 16 which reads as 
    follows:

            The sum of $2,000,000 is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated for the use of the Secretary of the Interior in 
        carrying out the provisions of this act.

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: What more authority do you 
    want? That is enough.
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Carter: The opening sentence of the amendment reads:

            For the purchase in such manner as the Secretary of the 
        Interior shall deem advisable.

        Now, certainly there is nothing in the statute that gives the 
    Secretary of the Interior that much discretion. In addition to 
    that, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the proviso in the amendment which reads as the proviso in the 
    bill, which is clearly legislation. Therefore I say the point of 
    order must be sustained against the proposed amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The act of September 
    1, 1937, on which the appropriation contained in this paragraph is 
    based, reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized 
        and directed to acquire, in the name of the United States, by 
        purchase or other lawful means, including exercises of power of 
        eminent domain, for and on behalf of the Eskimos and other 
        natives of Alaska, reindeer, reindeer range, equipment, 
        abattoirs, cold-storage plants, warehouses and other property, 
        real or personal, the acquisition of which he determines to be 
        necessary to the effectuation of the purposes of this act.

        This seems to be a broad, all-inclusive grant of power. The 
    language used

[[Page 5637]]

    in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma merely 
    restates, in slightly different words, the authorization contained 
    in the act of September 1, 1937.

        The proviso to which the gentleman from California [Mr. Carter] 
    refers appears to the Chair to be nothing more than a limitation, 
    in the strictest sense of the word.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules both points of order.

Sec. 23.10 Where existing law authorized the expenditure of funds for 
    the benefit and existence of Indians, under broad supervisory 
    powers given to the Secretary of the Interior, provisions in an 
    appropriation bill which imposed further conditions affecting both 
    the exercise of those powers and the use of funds were ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On May 14, 1937,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support 
        among the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, 
        grains, and other crops, $165,000, which sum may be used for 
        the purchase of seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, 
        and other equipment necessary, and for advances to Indians 
        having irrigable allotments to assist them in the development 
        and cultivation thereof, in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, to enable Indians to become self-supporting: 
        Provided, That the expenditures for the purposes above set 
        forth shall be under conditions to be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States on 
        or before June 30, 1943, except in the case of loans on 
        irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in 
        which the period for repayment may run for not exceeding 20 
        years, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior: 
        Provided further, That not to exceed $25,000 of the amount 
        herein appropriated shall be expended on any one reservation or 
        for the benefit of any one tribe of Indians: Provided further, 
        That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his 
        discretion and under such rules and regulations as he may 
        prescribe, to make advances from this appropriation to old, 
        disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, for their support, to 
        remain a charge and lien against their lands until paid: 
        Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 may be advanced to 
        worthy Indian youths to enable them to take educational 
        courses, including courses in nursing, home economics, 
        forestry, and other industrial subjects in colleges, 
        universities, or other institutions, and advances so made shall 
        be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 years, under such rules and 
        regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropria

[[Page 5638]]

    tion bill and it imposes discretionary duties upon the Secretary of 
    the Interior. The language at the bottom of the bill, beginning 
    with ``Provided further'', line 22, and the last proviso are 
    entirely the same. They provide that the Secretary of the Interior 
    shall make rules and regulations and there is no question but what 
    it imposes additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all 
    the way through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, the Committee 
    feels that this provision is in order. It provides only a method by 
    which the appropriation might be expended. I have no further 
    comment to make.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision in 
    existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has been 
    in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire further of the 
    gentleman with reference to the language appearing in lines 7 and 
    8, page 27, reading as follows:
        And advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 
    years under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
    Interior may prescribe.
        Will the gentleman advise the Chair as to any provision of 
    existing law upon which this language is based?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is the exact 
    language that has been used for several years and the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma knows of no specific basis of law for it.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and gen

[[Page 5639]]

        eral administration of Indian problems. Further for general and 
        incidental expenses in connection with the administration of 
        Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New York.

Restatement of Law Applying to Other Funds

Sec. 23.11 Where the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 contained a 
    prohibition against the furnishing of assistance to countries 
    supplying or shipping certain items to North Vietnam, a similar but 
    not identical provision in a general appropriation bill was ruled 
    out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 4, 1970,(11) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 116. No assistance shall be furnished under the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country that 
        sells, furnishes or permits any ships under its registry to 
        carry to North Vietnam any of the items mentioned in subsection 
        107(a) of this Act.

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frelinghuysen: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    against section 116 in that it constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriation bill. I would like to add, furthermore, it is almost 
    word for word part of a prohibition which is already contained in 
    existing law, and that is section 620(n) of the Foreign Assistance 
    Act. The fact is the existing law is stronger and broader in its 
    restriction than the language in this appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    ruling on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The language is similar and almost like the language contained 
    in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. However, it is clearly 
    legislation on an appro

[[Page 5640]]

    priation bill, and the point of order is sustained.

Sense of Congress That Existing Law Should Apply

Sec. 23.12 Language in a foreign aid appropriation bill expressing the 
    sense of Congress in opposition to discrimination by foreign 
    nations on the basis of race or religion against American citizens 
    traveling abroad, and requiring negotiations with such nations to 
    be conducted in accordance with that congressional policy, was 
    conceded to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 4, 1970,(13) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 106. It is the sense of Congress that any attempt by 
    foreign nations to create distinctions because of their race or 
    religion among American citizens in the granting of personal or 
    commercial access or any other rights otherwise available to United 
    States citizens generally is repugnant to our principles; and in 
    all negotiations between the United States and any foreign state 
    arising as a result of funds appropriated under this title these 
    principles shall be applied as the President may determine.
        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against section 106, lines 17 
    through 25 on page 8 on the ground that it constitutes legislation 
    in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to add further that the essential 
    wording of this section is already in existing law, and has been so 
    for many years. I refer to section 102 of the Foreign Assistance 
    Act. That section reads as follows:

            The Congress further declares that any distinction made by 
        foreign nations between American citizens because of race, 
        color or religion in the granting of, or in the exercise of 
        personal or other rights available to American citizens, is 
        repugnant to our principles.

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    (Mr. Passman) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman: Yes, Mr. Chairman; we concede the point 
    of order. . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 23.13 A provision in a general appropriation bill, restating, but 
    not in identical language, a declaration of the sense of Congress 
    on a matter of foreign policy [a

[[Page 5641]]

    declaration found originally in the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1962], was held to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On Sept. 20, 1962,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
13175), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 20181, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against section 112 on page 8.
        The language of that section is as follows:

            Sec. 112. It is the sense of Congress that in the 
        administration of these funds great attention and consideration 
        should be given to those nations which share the view of the 
        United States on the world crisis.

        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frelinghuysen: Mr. Chairman, that language is already 
    embodied in the basic act (17) and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Public Law No. 87-565, Sec. 101, which stated in part: ``It is 
        the sense of Congress that in the administration of these funds 
        great attention and consideration should be given to those 
        countries which share the view of the United States on the 
        world crisis and which do not, as a result of United States 
        assistance, divert their own economic resources to military or 
        propaganda efforts, supported by the Soviet Union or Communist 
        China, and directed against the United States or against other 
        countries receiving aid under this Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey.

Limiting Discretion Bestowed by Law

Sec. 23.14 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that none 
    of the funds therein should be used unless certain procurement 
    contracts were awarded on a formally advertised basis to the lowest 
    responsible bidder was held to be legislation where existing law 
    provided an exception from such procedure.

    On June 28, 1961,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the defense appropriation bill (H.R 7851), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 11502, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the legislation contained in lines 15 
    to 19 on page 38, reading as follows:

[[Page 5642]]

            That none of the funds appropriated in this act shall be 
        used except that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be 
        awarded on a formally advertised competitive bid basis to the 
        lowest responsible bidder.

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order, as I understand, is against the following language:

            That none of the funds appropriated in this act shall be 
        used except that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be 
        awarded on a formally advertised competitive bid basis to the 
        lowest responsible bidder.

        This is a provision in the act which has been, I believe, in 
    the act since about 1953, but there is a slight change in the 
    wording of the proviso this year in line 18.
        This language more or less repeats existing law. I refer to 
    chapter 137 under ``Procurement Generally,'' volume 10, United 
    States Code 2304(a):

            Purchases of and contracts for property or services covered 
        by this chapter shall be made by formal advertising. However, 
        the head of an agency may negotiate . . . if . . . (10) the 
        purchase or contract is for property or services for which it 
        is impracticable to obtain competition.

        So we call for the formally advertised bids wherever practical. 
    It seems to me this is a restatement of the law. It has a tendency 
    to reduce the funds in the bill, and I believe it is not subject to 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt] makes a point 
    of order to the language appearing on page 38, lines 15 to 19 
    inclusive on the ground that it is legislation in an appropriation 
    act.
        The Chair has listened with attention to the gentleman from 
    Texas and would say to him that if this is a restatement of 
    existing law the language in this bill is not necessary. But in 
    line with the argument advanced by the gentleman from Texas, that 
    it is a restatement setting out existing law, in the opinion of the 
    Chair it imposes affirmative obligations on an executive branch of 
    the Government and is, therefore, legislation on an appropriation 
    act.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Restrictive Modification of Authority in Law; Rural Electrification

Sec. 23.15 Where existing law authorized the use of funds for the Rural 
    Electrification Administration for a certain purpose, a restriction 
    in an appropriation bill making funds therein for the REA available 
    ``only'' for that purpose was held a limitation as containing only 
    the language of existing law.

    On Mar. 24, 1944,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5643]]

ering H.R. 4443, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 3105-07, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Page 
    78, line 5, add the following: ``Provided, That the moneys 
    appropriated or otherwise authorized under this caption (`Rural 
    Electrification Administration') and expended or loaned under the 
    authority conferred by section 4 of the act approved May 20, 1936, 
    shall be used only to finance the construction and operation of 
    generating plants, electric transmission and distribution lines, or 
    systems, for the furnishing of electric energy to persons in rural 
    areas who are not now receiving central station service: Provided 
    further, That none of the moneys appropriated or otherwise 
    authorized under this caption (`Rural Electrification 
    Administration') shall be used to finance the construction and 
    operation of generating plants, electric transmission and 
    distribution lines, or systems in any area of the United States 
    included within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough 
    having a population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants.''
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (21) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that, rather 
    than being a limitation on the appropriation, this is a change in 
    the substantive law that authorized the Rural Electrification 
    Administration; and I call the attention of the Chair to a ruling 
    that was handed down on April 19, 1943, when substantially the same 
    amendment was offered, the only difference being that the word 
    ``exclusively'' has now been changed to ``only.'' I submit those 
    words have exactly the same meaning and that the ruling applied at 
    that time would be applicable at this time. . . .
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the proposed amendment 
    merely reaffirms existing law. It does not change existing law. It 
    does not change existing law or the substantive law that created 
    the Rural Electrification Administration or that governs its 
    organization and I submit that the proposals are limiting to the 
    appropriation in that the sole purpose and object of the proposals 
    are to prevent the use of this particular money outside the 
    provisions of existing law. That is, that they cannot use the 
    particular money involved in the appropriation in line 5, page 78, 
    to buy out electrical systems in towns in excess of a population of 
    1,500.
        Mr. Chairman, to support my contention that this is existing 
    law I want to say that the language of the first proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 4 of the R.E.A. Act approved May 20, 1936, 
    section 4 of which reads as follows:

            Sec. 4. The Administrator is authorized and empowered, from 
        the sums hereinbefore authorized, to make loans to persons, 
        corporations, States, Territories, and subdivisions and 
        agencies thereof, municipalities, peoples, utility districts 
        and cooperatives, nonprofit, or limited-dividend associations 
        organized under the laws of any State or Territory of the 
        United States, for the purpose of financing the construction 
        and operation of generating plants, electric

[[Page 5644]]

        transmission and distribution lines or systems for the 
        furnishing of electric energy to persons in rural areas who are 
        not receiving central station service.

        That language is the language that is in the act of May 20, 
    1936, substantially word for word.
        The Chairman: If the Chair may interrupt the gentleman, if it 
    is existing law what is the necessity for it being in the 
    amendment?
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, the Chair anticipates the point of my 
    discussion in justifying the amendment. The reason is that so far 
    as appropriations are concerned, they have issued opinions down 
    there by a circuitous route and have managed to go ahead and buy 
    electrical systems in towns with a population in excess of 1,500. 
    They have done it in connection with other appropriations. So I 
    want to pick up this particular $20,000,000 and say that this 
    $20,000,000 shall not be expended in that illegal fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, the language of the second proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 13 of the R.E.A. Act approved May 20, 1936. 
    Section 13 reads as follows:

            Sec. 13. As used in this act the term ``rural area'' shall 
        be deemed to mean any area of the United States not included 
        within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough having a 
        population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants, and such term shall 
        be deemed to include the farm and nonfarm population thereof.

        Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I served on the committee 
    which created the R.E.A. and I was a member of the subcommittee 
    that created it. I have a thorough familiarity with the act and 
    with the amendments that have been made to the act since its 
    original creation. I know what was in the mind of the committee 
    when this organization was created. But in spite of that, they are 
    spending this money to buy electrical plants in towns with a 
    population as high as 10,000 people. I want to limit the use of 
    this appropriation so that they cannot buy out existing facilities 
    in cities having populations of ten or twenty thousand.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order is not 
    substantiated by the facts in this case. First, this is a 
    limitation and, second, the language used has been lifted verbatim 
    from the substantive act creating this organization. . . .
        Mr. Poage: . . . The amendment states, as I understand it, that 
    this money shall be used only for these purposes. When you refer to 
    the existing law the word ``only'' is not in existing law. I wonder 
    if the gentleman will tell us whether the word ``only'' has been 
    inserted in the proposed amendment? . . .
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, just one final word in explanation of 
    my position. In the first instance, we inserted the word ``only'' 
    which is a limiting word only. They have been doing it not for this 
    purpose but for other purposes.
        The Chairman: Does the word ``only'' appear in the statute, in 
    response to the question asked by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Poage)?
        Mr. Boren: The word ``only'' does not appear in the statute 
    That is in the second proviso. Neither do the words ``shall not be 
    used for other purposes'' but I make the contention that is the 
    thing that makes it limiting. . . .

[[Page 5645]]

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Would the gentleman's 
    amendment expand the basic law and authorize expenditures for 
    anything not authorized in the basic law?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It is solely limiting.
        Mr. Case: In the use of the word ``only,'' does that word 
    ``only'' limit the appropriation to expenditures for only a 
    particular purpose?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It does not preclude any of the 
    purposes in the substantive law.
        Mr. Case: I wonder if the gentleman would explain this. My 
    understanding of a limitation is that it restricts the 
    appropriation to a portion of the original purposes. You cannot 
    expand an appropriation but you can restrict it. If the use of the 
    word ``only'' limits to only a certain part of the basic 
    appropriation, then it is a restriction and a limitation.
        Mr. Boren: My amendment does not in any iota expand or take in 
    any new purposes. It limits the practice that is going on.
        The reason I answered the gentleman as I did is, I am 
    unwilling, in my own judgment, to hold that the other practices 
    outside of this limitation are justified by law, but it does limit 
    them in some of the practices they are carrying on that they are 
    claiming come under the law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Reference has been made to similar amendments that have been 
    heretofore presented. It has also been stated that the language of 
    the amendment offered is identical with an amendment presented on 
    April 19, 1943, but an examination of the amendment offered at that 
    time will show that the language was considerably and materially 
    different than the language of the proposed amendment. Aside from 
    that, the Chair is more anxious to be correct than perhaps 
    consistent.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I do not want it to be understood that 
    I said that the wording of these amendments were identical.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not so state that the gentleman or 
    any other Member said that. That was brought to the attention of 
    the Chair a few minutes ago. As the Chair stated, he is more 
    interested in being correct than consistent.
        Inasmuch as it is conceded that the language of the first 
    proviso is the language of the substantive law except for the word 
    ``only,'' the first proviso is a limitation, and in view of the 
    fact the second proviso is also a limitation, the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ruling referred to by Mr. Poage, of 
Apr. 19, 1943, and the amendment that was ruled out as legislation, 
were as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Under consideration was H.R. 2481, the Agriculture Department 
        appropriation bill of 1944. The Chairman on that occasion also 
        was William M. Whittington (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] in 
    the following words:

[[Page 5646]]

            Provided, That these loans shall be exclusively for the 
        purpose of financing the construction and operation of 
        generating plants, electric transmission and distribution lines 
        or systems for the furnishing of electric energy to persons in 
        rural areas who are not receiving central station service.

        The Chair is unable to see where there is any limitation in the 
    language used and concludes it is legislation, therefore sustains 
    the point of order.

Renegotiation Act Made Applicable to Contracts Under the Appropriation

Sec. 23.16 To the appropriation for the Tennessee Valley Authority, an 
    amendment proposing to make contracts entered into by the Authority 
    and by the Atomic Energy Commission subject to the Renegotiation 
    Act was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in 
    order.

    On Dec. 15, 1950,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 9920), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 16672-74, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: Page 11 
        after line 12, insert a new section, as follows:

                          ``Renegotiation of Contracts

            ``Sec. 602. (a) All negotiated contracts for procurement in 
        excess of $1,000 entered into during the current fiscal year by 
        or on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority, and all subcontracts thereunder in excess of 
        $1,000, are hereby made subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948 in the same manner and to the same extent as if such 
        contracts and subcontracts were required by such act to contain 
        the renegotiation article prescribed in subsection (a) of such 
        act. Each contract and subcontract made subject to the 
        Renegotiation Act of 1948 by this section shall contain an 
        article stating that it is subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948. . . .''

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the distinguished and able gentleman from 
    South Dakota, is a lengthy, complicated, and far-reaching one. . . 
    . It operates as an amendment of the renegotiation law. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from South Dakota 
    [Mr. Case] has offered an amendment which has been reported. The 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gore] has made a point of order 
    against the amendment, on the ground that it contains legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order, and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5647]]

Exception From Limitation Applying Standard of Existing Law

Sec. 23.17 To a paragraph in a general appropriation bill denying use 
    of funds in the bill for direct assistance to several designated 
    countries, an amendment permitting availability of those funds for 
    assistance to some of those countries in accordance with the 
    requirements of section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act (which 
    prohibits assistance under part I thereof to all countries engaging 
    in patterns of violations of internationally recognized human 
    rights unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy 
    people in such country) was held a proper exception from a 
    limitation which did not add legislation since the amendment would 
    allow assistance only pursuant to determinations already required 
    by existing law as to the qualifications of all recipient 
    countries.

    On Aug. 3, 1978,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12931), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 24249, 24250, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Page 11, 
        strike out the period on line 17 and insert in lieu thereof'', 
        except that funds appropriated or made available pursuant to 
        this Act for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961 (other than funds for the Economic Support Fund or 
        peacekeeping operations) may be provided to any country named 
        in this section (except the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) in 
        accordance with the requirements of section 116 of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I do make a 
    point of order against the Harkin amendment. . . .
        The gentleman's amendment clearly would place substantial 
    additional new duties on officers of the Government. Mr. Chairman, 
    in chapter 26, section 11.1, of ``Deschler's Procedures,'' the 
    following is stated:

            But when an amendment, while curtailing certain uses of 
        funds carried in the bill, explicitly places new duties on 
        officers of the government or implicitly requires them to make 
        investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
        determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it 
        assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
        of order.

        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment intends that aid should 
    be provided to certain countries if such assistance will directly 
    benefit the needy people in such countries. Several legislative 
    provisions currently exist that presently provide for such deter

[[Page 5648]]

    minations, but these provisions do not apply to all the funds 
    appropriated in this bill.

        In addition, the gentleman's amendment would require officials 
    to make judgments and determinations that they are not required to 
    make at the present time. We presently have no AID programs or AID 
    missions in any of these countries. In two of the countries we do 
    not have diplomatic relations, Vietnam and Cambodia. In one country 
    we have no U.S. Government representative, and that country is 
    Uganda. The gentleman's amendment would not only allow direct 
    assistance to flow to these countries, which is not now possible, 
    but also would require some U.S. Government official to determine 
    if the assistance is reaching the needy. This would require a U.S. 
    Government official to travel to these countries to make an onsite 
    inspection since there are no AID missions in any of these 
    countries and no U.S. Government representation present in three of 
    the countries. The gentleman's amendment definitely places 
    substantial additional duties on U.S. Government officials.
        Also current law prohibits any direct assistance to Vietnam, 
    Laos, Cambodia, Uganda, Mozambique, or Angola. The gentleman's 
    amendment would allow direct assistance to flow to these countries 
    if the assistance would benefit the needy people. This in effect 
    changes the existing law. The amendment is legislative in nature 
    and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, by the fact that I have included 
    section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, by that very 
    inclusion those four countries so named and listed are then put in 
    the category of being gross violators of human rights, and because 
    of the inclusion, then, of section 116, which I have laid out in my 
    amendment, there are no new duties imposed in my amendment--only 
    the requirements of existing law. . . .
        Mr. Long of Maryland: I would simply say that we do not have 
    missions in these countries, and the duties that would be required, 
    to find out whether needy people would get the money, would require 
    us to send people there. That clearly imposes duties on the 
    Government which are not implied in the current legislation.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        According to the amendment, the only funds that the amendment 
    refers to are funds provided for in the bill, and the only 
    exception would be to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; but funds 
    are to be provided in accordance with the requirements of law and 
    the law cited is, on its face, applicable to the countries covered 
    by the amendment; so the Chair does not see that there are any new 
    duties imposed on anyone by the amendment. Therefore, the Chair 
    respectfully overrules the point of order.

Restriction of Funds--But Requiring Finding of Intent Not Required by 
    Law

Sec. 23.18 An amendment to the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    denying use of funds to grant business licenses to persons who 
    offer

[[Page 5649]]

    for sale in the course of business drug paraphernalia, as defined 
    in a Model Drug Paraphernalia Act which required findings of intent 
    that certain articles for sale be intended for use in drug 
    preparation or use, was ruled out as legislation requiring new 
    duties and judgments of government officials.

    On Sept. 22, 1981,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation for 
fiscal year 1982 (H.R. 4522), a point of order against an amendment was 
sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 21576, 21577, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: 
        Page 20, after line 25, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 124. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
        used to grant a business license to any person who, after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, offers drug paraphernalia (as 
        defined in the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act drafted by the 
        United States Department of Justice, August 1979) for sale in 
        the course of the business for which such license is required.

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman violates clause 
    2 of rule XXI of the House in that it would impose additional 
    duties on the District's licensing officials who have to either 
    inspect all places that are doing business to determine whether 
    they are selling such items; but probably more importantly, they 
    would have to determine the intent for which such items would be 
    used. . . .
        Mr. Bennett: . . . [T]he amendment does not impose any 
    additional duties, because the term drug paraphernalia is very 
    specifically defined in the DEA's Model Act, which has been adopted 
    already by 23 States and, of course, it would not create additional 
    duties, because the District already employs license inspectors who 
    routinely visit establishments of vendors who have such a license.
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The question is a difficult 
    one, but after consultation with the Parliamentarian and in 
    reviewing precedents, the Chair finds, and quotes directly from 
    page 537 of the House Rules and Manual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William R. Ratchford (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Where an amendment to or language in a general 
        appropriation bill implicitly places new duties on officers of 
        the government or implicitly requires them to make 
        investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
        determinations not otherwise required of them by law, such as 
        to judge intent or motives, then it assumes the character of 
        legislation and is subject to a point of order.

        The Model Act incorporated by reference in the amendment 
    requires a determination that the drug equipment being sold be 
    intended for use in connection with drug preparation or use.
        The Chair, therefore, rules that the point of order is well 
    taken and the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 5650]]

Restricting Discretion and Requiring Determinations--Where Legal 
    Rrequirement for Such Duties Is Not Explicit

Requiring New Determination ``In Accordance With Existing Law''--Burden 
    of Citing Law

Sec. 23.19 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill to show that a proposed executive 
    determination is required by existing law, and the mere recitation 
    that the determination is to be made pursuant to existing law and 
    regulations, absent a citation to the law imposing that 
    responsibility, is not sufficient to overcome a point of order that 
    the amendment constitutes legislation.

    On Sept. 16, 1980,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8105), a point of order against an amendment was sustained as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 25606, 25607, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . No funds herein appropriated shall be used for the 
    payment of a price differential on contracts hereafter made for the 
    purpose of relieving economic dislocations: Provided further, That 
    none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used except 
    that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be awarded on a 
    formally advertised competitive bid basis to the lowest responsible 
    bidder.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: 
        Page 41, line 23, strike out ``Provided further,'' and all that 
        follows through 'economic dislocations:' on page 42, line 1, 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``Provided further, That no funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for the payment of a price 
        differential on contracts hereafter made for the purpose of 
        relieving economic dislocations other than contracts made by 
        the Defense Logistics Agency and such other contracts of the 
        Department of Defense as may be determined by the Secretary of 
        Defense pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
        inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
        considerations:''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and therefore in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        I respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 11.2 which states:

            It is not in order to make the availability of funds in a 
        general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive 
        determination by an executive official which he is not 
        otherwise required by law to make.

        I also respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to 
    section 843 of the House Manual, which states in part:

            The fact that a limitation on the use of funds may . . . 
        impose certain

[[Page 5651]]

        incidental burdens on executive officials does not destroy the 
        character of the limitation as long as it does not directly 
        amend existing law and is descriptive of functions and findings 
        already required to be undertaken under existing law. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the payment of price 
    differentials on contracts except--and I quote:

            As may be determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant 
        to existing laws and regulations as not to be inappropriate 
        therefor by reason of national security considerations.

        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense which is not now required under the 
    current law. Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to 
    existing laws and regulations,'' there is no existing law at the 
    present time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute 
    the existing law and require this new determination. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would appear to call for a determination by the 
    Secretary of Defense as to appropriateness by reason of national 
    security considerations. Unless the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) can cite to the Chair those provisions of existing law 
    requiring such determinations with respect to defense contracts, 
    the Chair must conclude that the amendment would impose new duties 
    upon the Secretary and would constitute legislation.

Restriction on Use of Funds

Language Implying Cooperation With Other Government Agencies ``Where 
    Authorized by Law''

Sec. 23.20 A provision in an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    containing funds for an FTC collection of line-of-business data 
    from not more than 250 firms including data presently made 
    available to the Bureau of Census, Securities and Exchange 
    Commission and other government agencies where authorized by law 
    was held not to change existing law relating to agency authority 
    for collection of such data.

    On June 21, 1974, (10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 15472 (Department of Agriculture, 
environment and consumer appropriation bill), an amendment was held in 
order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 20601, 20602, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of 
        Mississippi]: Page 47, line 6, after the word ``data'' add the 
        following: ``Provided, That none of these funds shall be used 
        for collecting line-of-business data from not [sic] more than 
        250 firms, including

[[Page 5652]]

        data presently made available to the Bureau of the Census, the 
        Securities and Exchange Commission and other government 
        agencies where authorized by law.''. . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of order 
    is under House Rule XXI, clause 2, second sentence. . .
        Now, under existing law and without the limitations reported to 
    be added in this bill the Federal Trade Commission could and had 
    intended--and, of course, what it actually intended is not material 
    here, because the question is what it could have done--it could 
    have used the funds as appropriated here for either 250 firms or 
    500 firms or any other number of firms. So what is done by this 
    amendment is to restrict the Federal Trade Commission with respect 
    to powers and duties and authorities which it would have but for 
    this limitation.
        The authorities on this point appear in volume VII of Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1675, which reads:

            A proper limitation does not interfere with executive 
        discretion or require affirmative action on the part of the 
        Government officials. . . .

        It would also require liaison with the Bureau of Census, the 
    Securities and Exchange Commission, and other Government agencies 
    which are not here designated but which would cover the whole gamut 
    of such agencies.
        So it both provides a limitation on executive discretion and 
    affirmative acts on the part of Government officials. . . .
        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: . . . Public Law 93-153 
    authorizes line-of-business data to be collected by independent 
    regulatory agencies subject to certain procedures. It did not limit 
    or restrict the collection of this data to any specific number of 
    firms, as the gentleman's amendment would; he would change this 
    policy by arbitrarily limiting the collection of the data 
    specifically to 250 firms.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 93-153 does not authorize 
    the collection of line-of-business data from the Bureau of the 
    Census of the Security and Exchange Commission. This authority was 
    placed in an ``independent regulatory agency.''. .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First, let the Chair state that this subject contains a very 
    vexing point, and it is one that has required a lot of attention of 
    the Chair, even prior to the arguments here.
        The words in contest on this point of order are the following 
    words added by the amendment:

            . . . provided that none of the funds shall be used for 
        collecting line-of-business data from not more than 250 firms, 
        including data presently made available by the Bureau of the 
        Census, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other 
        government agencies where authorized by law.

        It is clear to the Chair that the words ``provided that none of 
    these funds shall be used for collecting line of business data of 
    not more than 250 firms'' may clearly be added as an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill, and it is in order. The Committee on 
    Appropriations could have refused to bring in any appropriation at 
    all for

[[Page 5653]]

    this agency, and the committee seeks by this amendment to put a 
    limitation upon the use of funds available to the FTC. The 
    limitation is drafted as a restriction on the use of funds, and not 
    as an affirmative restriction on the scope of the FTC 
    investigation, as was the case in the language stricken from the 
    bill on the preceding point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 51.18, infra, for discussion of the earlier point of order 
        referred to by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The remainder of the amendment raises some question, but in the 
    opinion of the Chair, these words are clearly limited by ``where 
    authorized by law,'' and do not permit the Census Bureau or the SEC 
    to initiate line of business investigations, so the Chair is going 
    to rule that the amendment is in order and that the points of order 
    are overruled.

Restriction of Funds Based on Determinations Already Required by Law

Sec. 23.21 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to pay salaries of federal employees who 
    assess civil penalties on small farmers for violations of the 
    Occupational Health and Safety Act which are neither willful, 
    repeated, nor serious was held not to require new determinations 
    and not to violate Rule XXI clause 2, where it was shown that 
    existing law (29 USC Sec. 666) already required those precise 
    determinations to be made in assessing penalties under that act.

    On June 24, 1976,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, a point of order against an 
amendment was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 20373, 20374, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: In lieu of 
        the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Skubitz, insert the following: ``: Provided, That none of 
        the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be used to 
        pay the salary of any employee of the Department of Labor who 
        proposes the assessment of monetary penalties for any violation 
        which, under the provisions of section 17 of the Occupational 
        Safety and Health Act of 1970 is neither (1) willful, (2) 
        repeated, nor (3) serious, to any employer who is engaged in a 
        farming operation and employs 5 or fewer employees.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: I make a point of order that 
    the amendment is not in order. It does not fall within the Holman 
    rule, and I would like to be heard on the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the amendment. It was clear to 
    me that

[[Page 5654]]

    this would require that a determination be made, first of all, that 
    a violation is willful; second, that a violation is repeated; 
    third, that a violation is serious. One of the conditions of the 
    Holman rule is that it not impose a burden upon the administration. 
    If this language does not impose a burden upon the administration, 
    I do not know what would. . . .
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: . . . With all due respect to the 
    gentleman who is an expert on the amendment procedure, I am afraid 
    he did not fully hear the amendment as read, because what the 
    amendment says is that no employee of the Department of Labor who 
    proposes the assessment of monetary penalties for any violation--
    any violation--which under the provisions of section 17 of the 
    Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is defined as--and the 
    determination is already made by that section of the act. There is 
    no duty imposed on the Secretary that is in any way different from 
    the duty imposed presently by the statutory law that we are 
    appropriating this money for. We do not impose any new duty. He did 
    not draw any new definitions. It is simply a question of whether he 
    will assess monetary damages against a person who is accused of a 
    violation that falls within the purview of any one of these section 
    17 definitions. . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . . If we are going to 
    talk about additional duties imposed, then certainly if this 
    amendment is out of order, the original amendment ought to be out 
    of order because we have a letter from the U.S. Department of Labor 
    which outlines some of the additional duties required in fact by 
    the original amendment. Under the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz) they would have to issue new 
    regulations, they would have to draw up new forms, they would have 
    to monitor recordkeeping by farmers, they would have to change the 
    inspector instruction manual, they would have to verify employment 
    records, and a number of other duties. So I certainly think the 
    same latitude extended to the original amendment ought to be 
    extended to the substitute.
        The Chairman: (14) May the Chair inquire of the 
    gentleman from Michigan, did the Chair understand the gentleman 
    from Michigan to declare that section 17 of the Occupational Safety 
    and Health Act of 1970 in its present form already requires the 
    determinations on the part of the Administrator as to willfulness, 
    repetition, or seriousness of offenses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford: That is correct.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Basing the Chair's assumption upon the interpretation of 
    existing law as described by the gentleman from Michigan, the Chair 
    finds that there would be no additional duties imposed upon the 
    Administrator, no additional determinations required of him, and 
    the amendment merely describes determinations already required by 
    existing law and is essentially, therefore, a limitation upon the 
    appropriation.
        Under the rules the Chair would overrule the point of order.

[[Page 5655]]

Denial of Funds to Implement Executive Order

Limitation May Contain Language Conforming to Legal Authority it Seeks 
    to Restrict

Sec. 23.22 As it is in order by way of a limitation on an appropriation 
    bill to deny the use of funds therein for implementation of an 
    Executive order, an amendment precisely describing the contents of 
    the Executive order does not for that reason violate Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On Mar. 16, 1977,(15) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for salaries or 
expenses connected with dismissal of any pending indictments, or 
termination of any pending investigation of violations of the Military 
Selective Service Act, or to permit persons to enter the United States 
who committed or apparently committed violations of that act--the exact 
determinations required by an Executive order issued pursuant to law by 
the President to implement his pardon program for draft evaders--was 
held in order as a limitation, not requiring new determinations by 
federal officials, which merely denied the availability of funds to 
implement the Executive order. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 7748, 7749, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: On 
        page 72, after line 27, add the following new section:

            ``Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available in this Act shall be obligated or expended for 
        salaries or expenses in connection with the dismissal of any 
        pending indictments for violations of the Military Selective 
        Service Act alleged to have occurred between August 4, 1964 and 
        March 28, 1973, or the termination of any investigation now 
        pending alleging violations of the Military Selective Service 
        Act between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973, or permitting 
        any person to enter the United States who is or may be 
        precluded from entering the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1182 
        (a)(22) or under any other law, by reason of having committed 
        or apparently committed any violation of the Military Selective 
        Service Act.'' . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that [the amendment] is legislation in an 
    appropriations bill, obviously legislation in an appropriations 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. John T. Myers . . . This is a limiting amendment. This 
    Congress has adopted similar language a great many times limiting 
    how the funds so appropriated may be used. I do not by any means 
    wish to challenge or question the authority the Executive has in 
    issuing a pardon. That is a constitutional responsibility or right 
    that the Executive has. But this Congress has the constitutional 
    responsibility and right to appropriate money. All this

[[Page 5656]]

    amendment does is limit how that money shall be spent again by an 
    exercise that this Congress has used a great many times.
        It is a negative restriction of funds. It is consistent exactly 
    with the language that was used in the Executive order relating to 
    the program of pardon. This amendment does not change existing law 
    nor does it impose additional duties. The language of the amendment 
    conforms exactly to the language of that Executive order. . . .
        The constitutional argument is a moot one, I feel. Whatever the 
    constitutional powers of the President may be, there is no 
    obligation upon the Congress, there never has been, that we have to 
    appropriate the money. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) . . . The Chair is constrained to 
    rule that the amendment does not directly impose additional duties 
    upon the Executive, the amendment may have the effect of 
    restricting Executive discretion by a simple negative use of the 
    appropriation but the determinations to be made are already 
    required by law and the Executive order and are not new 
    determinations. The point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Exception to Limitation if President Makes a Determination Already 
    Required by Law

Sec. 23.23 Where existing law (50 USC App. 2403(c), 2406(g)) permitted 
    the President to impose export controls, specifically on 
    agricultural commodities not in short domestic supply, unless he 
    and the Secretary of Agriculture determined that the absence of 
    controls would be detrimental to the foreign policy or national 
    security of the United States, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for export 
    controls on agricultural commodities unless subsequently imposed 
    solely for those reasons was allowed; the amendment's impact on 
    discretionary authority with respect to commodities in short supply 
    was, however, subsequently cited in debate and, if cited earlier, 
    might have led to modification of the Chair's ruling.

    On July 23, 1980,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7584 (Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriation bill), the following 
amendment was held in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 19295, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman [of Missouri] 
        to the amendment offered by Mr.

[[Page 5657]]

        [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: (18) after the word 
        ``commodity'' in the last line insert: ``unless on or 
        subsequent to October 1, 1980, the President imposes a 
        restriction on the export of any such commodity solely on the 
        basis that such export would prove detrimental to the foreign 
        policy or national security of the United States''. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The Andrews amendment provided: ``None of the funds appropriated by 
        this Act may be used to carry out or enforce any restriction on 
        the export of any agricultural commodity.'' See 126 Cong. Rec. 
        19087, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that it exceeds the 
    limitation and imposes additional duties upon the President of the 
    United States. . . .
        Mr. Coleman: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not well 
    taken because my amendment does not establish any new additional 
    duties. It simply says that if the President of the United States 
    subsequent to October 1, 1980, imposes an embargo then none of 
    these funds shall be used to fund that embargo. It imposes 
    absolutely no new duties. It simply states that if the President on 
    his own takes some action, that none of these funds shall be used 
    to support that action. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Coleman) on the grounds that it imposes an additional duty, and 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. Ordinarily, such 
    Presidential determination language on an appropriation bill would 
    constitute legislation, but the amendment only repeats verbatim the 
    determination authority contained in the section of existing law 
    (section 4(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979) which has 
    been called to the Chair's attention.
        Therefore, the amendment does not constitute new legislation in 
    any way discernible to the Chair.

Limitation Restating Language in Authorization Bill

Sec. 23.24 While a limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill does not constitute a violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2 if it merely restates identical language in existing law, 
    the legislation in question must have been signed into law.

    On Aug. 4, 1978,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
12931), a point of order against the following amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 24436, 24437, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: 
        On page 13 of the bill after line 16, insert the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 116. Funds appropriated or made available in this 
        act for inter

[[Page 5658]]

        national narcotics control shall not be used for the 
        eradication of marijuana through the use of the herbicide 
        paraquat, unless the paraquat is used in conjunction with 
        another substance or agent which will effectively warn 
        potential users of marijuana that paraquat has been used on 
        it.'' . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because it is not a proper 
    limitation on an appropriation bill but is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It requires additional duties of some person or 
    persons in the Government, not only to determine whether or not the 
    herbicide named is being used but to go beyond that and also 
    determine whether it is being used in conjunction with another 
    substance as a warning, and so on. None of this is authorized by 
    law. It is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, the authorization bill has similar 
    language that would provide for this kind of restriction in the use 
    of the money and I would consider it an essential point of what we 
    are trying to accomplish in the appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the authorization bill has similar language that 
    would provide for this kind of restriction of the use of money I 
    would consider it an essential part of what we are trying to 
    accomplish in the appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will inform the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Waxman) that the authorization bill is not as yet law. Were it law, 
    the gentleman's amendment might be authorized and in order, but at 
    this point the Chair will, very respectfully, sustain the point of 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 24. Construing Existing Law; Repealing Existing Law

    Generally, language in an appropriation bill proposing to repeal 
existing law is legislation and not in order. Similarly, an amendment 
in the form of a limitation but construing or interpreting existing law 
is legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.
    It is important to note, however, that some amendments have been 
permitted which resulted in an application or use of funds different 
from that contemplated in existing law. This may occur where the 
language of the amendment is drafted strictly as a negative limitation 
or restriction on the use of funds, and does not explicitly change a 
formula for distribution or allocation of funds that is prescribed in 
existing law.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For discussion of criteria applicable in determining whether a 
        provision comprises language of ``negative limitation,'' see 
        Sec. 64, infra.
            Also of interest is a ruling on Mar. 4, 1954, discussed in 
        Sec. 74.3, infra. In that instance the Chair ruled that, where 
        an amendment to an appropriation bill provided that no part of 
        any appropriation in the bill be used for compensation of any 
        officer or employee of a designated bureau who for the purposes 
        of the Hatch Act, ``shall not be included within the 
        construction of the term ``officer'' or ``employee,'' the 
        language was in order as a limitation. The determinations of 
        employment status were, it should be noted, already required by 
        law.

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

[[Page 5659]]

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

General Rule

Sec. 24.1 Language in an appropriation bill proposing to repeal 
    existing law is legislation and not in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1936,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 10630), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 1308, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Roy E.] Ayers [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ayers: Page 48, line 14, insert a 
        paragraph, as follows:
            ``That portion of section 1 of the act approved August 12, 
        1935 (49 Stat. 571-584), known as the Second Deficiency 
        Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, providing $806,000 for 
        construction, enlargement, or improvement of public-school 
        buildings as authorized by and in conformity with numerous acts 
        of the Seventy-fourth Congress, approved June 7, 1935, fiscal 
        year 1936, is hereby amended so as to repeal the provisions for 
        recoupment by the United States, on account of expenditures 
        thereunder, and the amounts appropriated for assistance of the 
        said public-school districts are hereby declared to be an 
        outright grant to the various public-school districts mentioned 
        therein.''

        Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on two grounds; first, it is 
    clearly legislation and has no business in this bill; and, 
    secondly, it is not germane, because we have considered and passed 
    the provision in the bill where it should have been offered.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Ayers] 
    proposes to repeal legislation; therefore the point of order is 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limit on Number of Housing Units

Sec. 24.2 To an appropriation bill an amendment repealing a provision 
    of existing law (contained in a prior appropriation bill) which had 
    placed a limit upon the number of dwelling units which the Public 
    Housing Administration could authorize to be constructed in certain 
    years was held to be legislation.

[[Page 5660]]

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 4128, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of Illinois]: On 
    page 29, at line 12, insert a new section:

            ``That part of Public Law 176 of the 83d Congress (an 
        appropriation measure), reading: `Provided further, That 
        notwithstanding the provisions of the United States Housing Act 
        of 1937, as amended, the Public Housing Administration shall 
        not, with respect to projects initiated after March 1, 1949, 
        (1) authorize during the fiscal year 1954 the commencement of 
        construction of in excess of 20,000 dwelling units or (2) after 
        the date of approval of this act, enter into any new 
        agreements, contracts, or other arrangements, preliminary or 
        otherwise, which will ultimately bind the Public Housing 
        Administration during fiscal year 1954 or for any future years 
        with respect to loans or annual contributions for any 
        additional dwelling units or projects unless hereafter 
        authorized by the Congress to do so, and during the fiscal year 
        1954 the Housing and Home Finance administrator shall make a 
        complete analysis and study of the low-rent public housing 
        program and, on or before February 1, 1954, shall transmit to 
        the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate his 
        recommendations with respect to such low-rent public program,' 
        is hereby repealed.''

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment, that the Chair has already ruled against similar 
    amendments twice on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I make the same point now. It changes existing 
    law, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The language of 
    the amendment is obnoxious to the rule prohibiting legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It seeks to repeal existing legislation, and 
    therefore the amendment is itself legislation.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Ending Future Authorization

Sec. 24.3 In an appropriation bill, where an appropriation is 
    authorized by a law which would remain effective in the future, 
    words designating an appropriation as ``a final appropriation'' for 
    ``completing'' acquisition of certain land under authority of such 
    law were held to constitute legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8538), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 4128, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5661]]

            Land acquisition, National Capital park, parkway, and 
        playground system: As a final appropriation under authority of 
        the act of May 29, 1930 (46 Stat. 482), as amended, for 
        necessary expenses for the National Capital Planning Commission 
        for completing acquisition of land for the park, parkway, and 
        playground system of the National Capital, to remain available 
        until expended, $545,000, of which (a) $135,000 shall be 
        available for the purposes of section 1 (a) of said act of May 
        29, 1930, (b) $126,000 shall be available for the purposes of 
        section 1(b) thereof, and (c) $284,000 shall be available for 
        the purposes of section 4 thereof: Provided, That not exceeding 
        $26,450 of the funds available for land acquisition purposes 
        shall be used during the current fiscal year for necessary 
        expenses of the Commission (other than payments for land) in 
        connection with land acquisition.

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I desire to interpose a 
    point of order to the language contained in line 17 on page 35: 
    ``as a final appropriation''; and on line 20 against the word 
    ``completing.'' . . .
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: I will concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Rescission of Contract Authority

Sec. 24.4 Language in an appropriation bill rescinding a contract 
    authorization carried in a prior appropriation act is legislation 
    and not in order.

    On May 1, 1951,(9) 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 provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 4662, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For construction and improvement of facilities under the 
    jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines, to remain available until 
    expended, $1,250,000: Provided, That the unused balance of the 
    contract authorization of $15,000,000 granted in the Interior 
    Department Appropriation Act, 1946, under the head ``Synthetic 
    liquid fuels,'' is hereby rescinded.
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language contained in line 19, page 25, beginning with the word 
    ``Provided,'' and continuing through lines 19, 20, 21, and 22, 
    inclusive, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rescissions or deferrals of budget au

[[Page 5662]]

thority contained in general appropriation bills of previously 
appropriated funds remain legislative despite jurisdiction conferred 
upon the Appropriations Committee in Rule X to report separate 
rescission bills under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The rules 
change in 1974, which gave the Appropriations Committee jurisdiction 
over rescissions of appropriations would not affect cases like the 1951 
ruling above, involving rescission of a contract authorization.

Waiver of Previous Limitation

Sec. 24.5 A limitation in an appropriation bill having become law, a 
    provision in a subsequent appropriation bill for that fiscal year 
    seeking to waive this limitation was conceded to be legislation and 
    was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 19728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Executive Office of the President

                          Council of Economic Advisers

                             Salaries and Expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses,'' 
        $170,000: Provided, That the appropriations under this head 
        shall be available during the current fiscal year without 
        regard to the limitation on salaries appearing under this head 
        to the General Government Matters, Department of Commerce, and 
        Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1962.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, lines 14 to 22 
    inclusive, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the further 
    point of order against the language that it, in effect, amends 
    previous law by waiving limitations. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I hope my colleagues will not 
    force us to offer an amendment. But we will accept it, if you 
    insist on it.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Texas concedes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Repealing Restriction in Prior Appropriation Law

Sec. 24.6 An amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill, proposing 
    to repeal a provision of a prior appropriation act and having the 
    effect of

[[Page 5663]]

    changing restrictions on the use of funds under that prior act, was 
    held to be legislation and was ruled out as in violation of Rule 
    XXI clause 2.

    On Dec. 2, 1971,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
11955), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 44316, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steed of Oklahoma.
            On Page 15 after line 17 add the following sentence: The 
        first proviso in the second paragraph of title I of Public Law 
        92-48 is amended by striking the first proviso therein.

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: My point is that the amendment refers to a 
    provision that was in an appropriations act but is now a public 
    law. Therefore, the gentleman is trying to amend a public law, and 
    that would be legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendment deals with an 
    office which is included in the bill and involves funds that are 
    under the jurisdiction of the provisions of this bill. It is a 
    limitation and deals with a limitation.
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask to be 
    heard on the point of order. The provisions which the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma is now offering to strike was carried in the 
    Education Appropriation Act. An effort was made to strike the 
    provision out of the Education Appropriation Act on the ground it 
    was legislation on an appropriation. That point of order was 
    overruled. I do not see how an amendment offering to strike that 
    provision from the Education Appropriation bill could possibly be 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        Clearly, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    would repeal a provision in existing law and would thereby 
    constitute a change in the restrictions on the availability of 
    funds imposed by that law. The Chair holds that the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, and sustains the point of order.

Repealing Expenditure Limit on Salaries and Expenses for Current Year

Sec. 24.7 A provision in an appropriation bill repealing a legislative 
    provision in a prior appropriation law that certain expenditures 
    during the fiscal year 1939 by the Na

[[Page 5664]]

    tional Bituminous Coal Commission ``shall not exceed an amount 
    equal to the aggregate receipts covered into the Treasury under the 
    provisions of'' a specified statute was held to be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 22, 1939,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 5219), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 3123, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The paragraph in the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, 
        fiscal year 1938, under the caption ``National Bituminous Coal 
        Commission,'' is hereby amended by striking out the following 
        proviso: ``Provided, That expenditures during the fiscal year 
        1939 under this head and under the head `Salaries and expenses, 
        office of the Consumers' Counsel, National Bituminous Coal 
        Commission,' shall not exceed an amount equal to the aggregate 
        receipts covered into the Treasury under the provisions of 
        section 3 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937.''

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is conceded by the gentleman from 
    Virginia, and is therefore sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sums Appropriated ``Without Regard to'' Specified Statutes

Sec. 24.8 In an appropriation for purchases related to the reindeer 
    industry in Alaska, a provision appropriating sums for the 
    purchase, in such manner as the Secretary of the Interior shall 
    deem advisable and without regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the 
    Revised Statutes, of specified items, was conceded to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner as 
    the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable and without 
    regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the Revised Statutes, reindeer, 
    abattoirs, cold-storage plants . . . and communication and other 
    equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, as authorized by the act 
    of

[[Page 5665]]

    September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . Provided, That 
    under this appropriation not exceeding an average of $4 per head 
    shall be paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative owners: 
    Provided further, That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to 
    the purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak Island.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill unauthorized by law. In fact, 
    the language clearly indicates that it repeals the specific 
    provisions of existing law as incorporated in sections 3709 and 
    3744 of the Revised Statutes.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: No; I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.



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

Descriptive Term

Sec. 25.1 An amendment proposing to insert the words ``known as `Rankin 
    Dam''' following an appropriation for Pickwick Landing Dam was held 
    to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On May 8, 1936,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R 12624), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 6965-67, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Aaron L.] Ford of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 19, line 2, after the words ``Pickwick Landing Dam'', 
        insert the following: ``(known as `Rankin Dam').''

        Mr. [John J.] McSwain [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order on the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It is evidently an attempt to change the name 
    and call it ``Rankin Dam.'' It is in the teeth of legislation that 
    has been attempted time and time again. There are bills before the 
    Committee on Military Affairs to change the name of this dam to 
    ``Rankin Dam.''
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: I should like to ask the 
    gentleman if it is not customary to wait until the man is dead 
    before they name a dam for him?
        Mr. McSwain: Yes; it is
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5666]]

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    legislation. It is language merely descriptive, and such amendments 
    have been repeatedly held not to be legislation.
        I recall two decisions on this point. They were made by one of 
    the greatest parliamentarians who has served in the House, James R. 
    Mann, of Illinois.
        The first was made in 1905 when an amendment was offered, I 
    think, to the Naval bill.
        The language provided that ships or armament should be of 
    ``native manufacture.'' . . . Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, held 
    that those words were merely descriptive and that it was not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield with pleasure to the 
    distinguished leader on the other side of the House.
        Mr. Snell: If the words are merely descriptive, why will they 
    have the effect of changing the name of the dam?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: They do not change the name of the dam. 
    It is not proposed to change the name of the dam.
        Mr. Snell: But is not that the intention? I call it 
    legislation. Is not that the intention of the amendment?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman from New York, being one 
    of the ablest parliamentarians in the House, knows that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not speculate as to the 
    intention of an amendment. He must predicate his decision on the 
    amendment before him in the language in which it is written. He 
    cannot go back of what is on the face of it to surmise what is the 
    purpose of a Member in offering an amendment. This amendment merely 
    further describes the Pickwick Landing Dam; it does not propose a 
    change in the name; it merely adds the descriptive language ``known 
    as the Rankin Dam.''. .  .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair entirely 
    agrees with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], with 
    reference to the use of descriptive words. Therefore, the question 
    in the mind of the present occupant of the chair is whether the 
    amendment is descriptive or whether it constitutes legislation. 
    Without regard to whether or not it brings about a change in the 
    name of the dam from ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' to ``Rankin Dam'', it 
    is the opinion of the Chair, with profound respect for the opinion 
    of the gentleman from Missouri, one of the outstanding 
    parliamentarians of all time, that the amendment does not 
    constitute descriptive language; that it constitutes legislation. 
    It is an addition to the language used in this bill. The Chair 
    would rule the same whether or not the legislation referred to by 
    the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McSwain] contained the words 
    ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' or not, because that name is included in 
    the bill now before the House.
        Profoundly respecting the views of the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and with considerable hesitation in disagreeing with him, it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order is well taken, and the 
    Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5667]]

Appropriation Carrying Waiver of Limitations Contained Elsewhere in 
    Same Bill

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5668]]

Army Publications; Exception From Valid Limitation

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5669]]

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

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

Defining Expenses as Non-administrative

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 5670]]

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

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

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

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

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

Exceptions to Limitations

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5671]]

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

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

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

[[Page 5672]]

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

Education; Language Defining the Scope of Busing Limitation

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

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

[[Page 5673]]

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

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

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

Definition of ``Person'' in Agriculture Appropriation Bill

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

[[Page 5674]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5675]]

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

Public Buildings Administration--Teletype Service

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Public Buildings Administration

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

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

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

[[Page 5676]]

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

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

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

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

Grant of Authority Based on Determination of National Defense Needs

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

    On July 12, 1956,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
12138), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 12551, 12552, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5677]]

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

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

Construing Language in Exception to Limitation

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

[[Page 5678]]

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

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rees of Kansas: On page 62, line 
        5, after the colon following the word ``inclusive'', insert the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no payment or payments 
        hereunder to any one person or corporation shall be in excess 
        of the total sum of $500: And provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not be construed to deprive any share renter 
        of payments not exceeding the amounts to which he would 
        otherwise be entitled.''

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5679]]

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

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

Defining Terms in Limitation; Reference to President's Budget

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

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

[[Page 5680]]

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

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

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

Defining Terms in Price Support Program Limitation

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

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

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

[[Page 5681]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5682]]

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

Limitation Containing Statement of Purpose

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 5683]]

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

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

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

Definition of Term in Abortion Limitation; Requiring Finding of Intent

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 5684]]

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

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

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

Directions on Interpretation of Bill

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 5685]]

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

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



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 26. Authorizing Statute as Permitting Certain Language in 
    Appropriation Bill

Conferral of Discretion as Contemplated by Existing Law

Sec. 26.1 Appropriations for traveling expenses, including expenses of 
    attendance at meetings considered necessary by the National 
    Bituminous Coal Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, for 
    the efficient discharge of its responsibilities were held 
    authorized by a law permitting inclusion of such language in a 
    general appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 14, 1939, (10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 2739, 2740, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    National Bituminous Coal Commission in performing the duties 
    imposed upon said Commission by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 
    approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72), including personal services 
    and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; traveling 
    expenses, including expenses of attendance at meetings which, in 
    the discretion of the Commission, are necessary for the efficient 
    discharge of its responsibilities . . . $2,900,000. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make a point of order against the paragraph on the 
    ground it delegates additional power and discretion to the 
    Commission, and I call particular attention to lines 23, 24, and 25 
    of page 9, which also contain the words ``in the discretion of the 
    Commission.''
        It seems to me this makes an appropriation and leaves the 
    amount of the appropriation which shall be spent to the discretion 
    of the Commission or gives the Commission power to determine 
    whether the appropriation should be made. It is the same thing as 
    delegating authority to the Commission to make an appropriation, 
    and is clearly legislation.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard in opposition to the point of order.

[[Page 5686]]

        If the distinguished gentleman from New York will read title V, 
    section 83, he will find full and ample authority for the language 
    to which he objects. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair rules that 
    the inclusion of the words ``in the discretion of the Commission'' 
    is probably covered by the citation given by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson]. Title V, section 83, of the United States 
    Code provides:

            That no money appropriated by any act shall be expended for 
        membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the 
        United States in any society or association, etc., or for the 
        expenses or attendance of any person at any meeting or 
        convention of members of any society or association unless such 
        fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid by specific 
        appropriations for such purpose and are provided for in express 
        terms in some general appropriation.

        The language in the paragraph under consideration seems to 
    comply with that provision, and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This statutory authority is now contained 
in 5 USC Sec. 5946, and 5 USC Sec. 4110 also specifically authorizes 
appropriations for attendance at any meetings necessary to improve an 
agency's efficiency. Thus, new discretionary authority is not conferred 
by this language, since the law provides for its inclusion in a general 
appropriation bill.

Explicit Waiver of Law; Restrictions on Newspaper Advertisements

Sec. 26.2 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that an appropriation shall not be available for costs of 
    advertisements in newspapers published outside the District of 
    Columbia ``notwithstanding the requirement for such advertising 
    provided by existing law'' was held not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3105, 3106, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general advertising, authorized and required by law, 
        and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in 
        regulations, $7,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
        not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers 
        published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding 
        the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law.

        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the proviso beginning on line 11, page 13:

[[Page 5687]]

            Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available 
        for the payment of advertising in newspapers published outside 
        of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the requirement 
        for such advertising provided by existing law.

        I make the point of order that that is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the law 
    provides that all purchases over $1,000 shall be advertised in 
    newspapers outside the District of Columbia. The purpose of this 
    amendment is to save the District a little money, and if the 
    gentleman from Maryland does not want to do that, it suits me.
        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, it is not that the gentleman from 
    Maryland does not want to save the District any money. This is a 
    question of whether or not we are going to permit the Committee on 
    Appropriations to come in here and change laws that are now on the 
    statute books. If we are going to permit that in the case of the 
    District of Columbia, we might as well wipe out all legislative 
    committees in this House. That is the question involved.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair inquires of the 
    gentleman from Maryland whether his point of order is made to the 
    proviso, beginning on line 11 and extending through line 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Palmisano: It is.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is of 
    opinion that especially the last part of the proviso, beginning 
    with the word ``notwithstanding'' clearly weighs the provisions of 
    existing law, and therefore changes existing law and would be 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, which is prohibited by 
    the rules of the House. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Waiver of Law; Cultural Relations Program

Sec. 26.3 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of State, 
    an amendment providing an appropriation for an information and 
    cultural program to be disseminated in foreign countries was held 
    to be unauthorized.

    On May 14, 1947,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 5291, 5292, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary: Page 2, line 18, after the 
        semicolon insert ``acquisition, production, and free 
        distribution of informational materials for use in connection 
        with the operation, independently or through individuals, 
        including aliens, or public or private agencies (foreign or 
        domestic), and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
        Statutes, of an information program outside of the continental 
        United States, including the purchase of radio time . . . and 
        the purchase,

[[Page 5688]]

        rental . . . and operation of facilities for radio transmission 
        and reception, the acquisition of land and interests in land . 
        . . for radio broadcasting and relay facilities, and the 
        acquisition or construction of buildings and necessary 
        improvements on such lands; purchase and presentation of 
        various objects of a cultural nature suitable for presentation 
        (through diplomatic and consular offices) to foreign 
        governments, schools, or other cultural or patriotic 
        organizations . . . not to exceed $13,000 for entertainment.''

        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stefan: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order this is not 
    authorized by law and it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gary: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. It is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment does propose legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, the functions therein referred to not being 
    authorized by law.
        The point of order is sustained

Consultant Salaries; Setting Limit on Per Diem Permitted by Law

Sec. 26.4 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing 
    expenditures of funds provided in the bill for temporary services 
    of consultants at rates not in excess of $100 per day was held to 
    be in order as a limitation.

    On Apr. 24, 1951,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 4307, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Administrative Provisions

        Appropriations of the Bonneville Power Administration shall be 
    available to carry out all the duties imposed upon the 
    Administrator pursuant to law, including not to exceed $40,000 for 
    services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 
    (5 U.S.C. 55a), including such services at rates not to exceed $100 
    per diem for individuals; purchase of not to exceed 16 passenger 
    motor vehicles of which 12 shall be for replacement only; and 
    purchase (not to exceed 2) of aircraft. . . .
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in the bill beginning with 
    line 24, page 5, and continuing through to line 12, page 6, on the 
    ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) For the information of the 
    gentleman from Kansas the Chair will read from the United States 
    Code, title 5, on page 79, section 35a:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Temporary employment of experts or consultants; rate of 
        compensation:

[[Page 5689]]

            The head of any department, when authorized in an 
        appropriation or other act, may procure the temporary (not in 
        excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants or organizations thereof, including stenographic 
        reporting services, by contract and in such cases such service 
        shall be without regard to the civil service and classification 
        laws (but as to agencies subject to sections . . . at rates not 
        in excess of the per diem equivalent of the highest rate 
        payable under said sections, unless other rates are 
        specifically provided in the appropriation or other law) and 
        except in the case of stenographic reporting services by 
        organizations without regard to section 5 of title 41. . . .

        As the Chair understands, there is no per diem ceiling fixed in 
    the provision to which the Chair has alluded. The gentleman from 
    New York mentions a ceiling, and then the authority of the 
    committee to place a limitation under that ceiling. Does the 
    gentleman from New York know of some ceiling provided in law for 
    per diem pay?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I do not, but there is 
    legislation to fix the rate of pay, and the authority contained in 
    the legislation would not give the Committee on Appropriations 
    jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the committee is governed 
    by the rules of the House. You cannot change the rules of the House 
    by legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct that you 
    cannot change the rules of the House by legislation, but the 
    language referred to by the Chair seems to authorize beyond any 
    doubt the per diem payment by this service to individuals. There 
    does not appear to be any ceiling fixed upon what the payment per 
    day may be. So it appears to the Chair that the language contained 
    in the bill in line 4 through ``individuals'' in line 5 on page 6 
    is actually in the form of a limitation. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Kansas.

Restrictions on Authority of Executive

Sec. 26.5 In an appropriation bill provisions limiting certain housing 
    starts, prohibiting the use of an appropriation unless certain 
    regulations are adopted, requiring that expenditures of such 
    appropriation be subject to audit, and requiring the performance of 
    duties by local housing authorities were held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 100 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Annual contributions: For the payment of annual 
        contributions to public housing agencies . . . 
        $63,950,000: Provided, That except for payments required on 
        contracts entered into prior to April 18, 1940, no part of this 
        appropriation shall be available for payment to any public 
        housing agency for expenditure in

[[Page 5690]]

        connection with any low-rent housing project, unless the public 
        housing agency shall have adopted regulations prohibiting 
        [occupancy by] any person other than a citizen of the United 
        States . . . Provided further, That all expenditures of this 
        appropriation shall be subject to audit and final settlement by 
        the Comptroller General of the United States under the 
        provisions of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as 
        amended: Provided further, That unless the governing body of 
        the locality agrees to its completion, no housing shall be 
        authorized by the Public Housing Administration, or, if under 
        construction continue to be constructed, in any community where 
        the people of that community, by their duly elected 
        representatives, or by referendum, have indicated they do not 
        want it, and such community shall negotiate with the Federal 
        Government for the completion of such housing, or its 
        abandonment . . . and shall agree to repay to the Government 
        the moneys expended prior to the vote or other formal action 
        whereby the community rejected such housing project for any 
        such projects not to be completed . . . Provided further, That 
        the record of expenditure of the Public Housing Administration 
        and of the local housing authority on any public housing 
        project shall be open to examination by the responsible 
        authorities of any community in which such project is located, 
        or by the local public housing authority, or by any firm of 
        public accountants retained by either of the foregoing . . . 
        Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions of the 
        United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Public 
        Housing Administration shall not, with respect to projects 
        initiated after March 1, 1949, authorize during the fiscal year 
        1955 the commencement of construction of in excess of 20,000 
        dwelling units. . . .

        [Points of order were heard.]
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from 
    California desire to be heard on these points of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I take 
    them up in the order in which they were made.
        The effect of the point of order made against the proviso on 
    page 31, line 12, is this, as the committee understands it. It is 
    to remove the limitation and leave the opinion of the Comptroller 
    General to stand that there could then be built no more than 33,000 
    or 34,000 houses--whatever the exact number is --that were 
    contracted for prior to the adoption of the appropriation bill of 2 
    years ago for the fiscal year 1953. We concede the point of order. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has in mind Public Law 176 of the 83d Congress which 
    has been referred to, and the sections which have been quoted here. 
    The Chair also has in mind the provisos and will pass upon the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    and the points of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Multer] beginning on page 29, line 12 and extending to the end of 
    the paragraph. In the opinion of the Chair, the language is purely 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the 
    points of order.

Waiver of Law; Requiring Testimony of Congressmen

Sec. 26.6 To an amendment to a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing

[[Page 5691]]

    that notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the 
    Constitution or court decisions, no Member of Congress shall refuse 
    to respond to demands for information by executive agencies or 
    private persons or groups was held to be legislation.

    On June 22, 1972,(20) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 22107, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead: At end of that 
        amendment, insert: ``Provided further, Notwithstanding the 
        provisions of any other law, the Constitution, or any precedent 
        of the courts, no Member of the Congress shall refuse to answer 
        and appropriately respond to any demand for his presence, his 
        papers, or his records, made by any agency, commission, 
        Department or person of the executive branch, or any proper 
        citizen oriented organization or interested person, making such 
        demand.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment to the amendment, and I do not think I 
    need to argue it.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I defer to my very 
    eloquent and intelligent colleague, and I think he makes a good 
    point.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Waiver of Provision of Procurement Law

Sec. 26.7 Language in a general appropriation bill waiving the 
    provisions of existing law was held to constitute legislation where 
    the law being waived did not specifically permit exceptions 
    therefrom to be contained in appropriation bills.

    On Nov. 13, 1975,(2) it was held that, while 41 USC 
Sec. 5 provides that ``unless otherwise provided in the appropriation 
concerned or other law, purchases and contracts for supplies or 
services for the government may be made or entered into only after 
advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals'', language in a 
general appropriation bill authorizing the Congressional Budget Office 
to contract without regard to that provision constituted legislation in 
violation of Rule XXI clause 2 based upon a prior ruling of the Chair 
and also upon the language of the statute itself permitting an

[[Page 5692]]

appropriation or other law, but not a bill, to waive its provisions. 
The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 37.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 36271, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 28. Provisions Affecting Funds Held in Trust

Diverting From Highway Trust Fund

Sec. 28.1 The appropriation for a new purpose not authorized by law of 
    funds held in trust in the Treasury for a different purpose, is 
    legislation, changing the nature of the trust fund and not in order 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On May 28, 1959,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7349), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 9351, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 5721]]

           Forest Highways (Trust Fund) (Liquidation of Contract 
                               Authorization)

        For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
    provisions of title 23, United States Code, section 204, pursuant 
    to contract authorization granted by title 23, United States Code, 
    section 203, to remain available until expended, $37,100,000, to be 
    derived from the ``Highway trust fund'', which sum is composed of 
    $33,350,000, the remainder of the amount authorized to be 
    appropriated for the fiscal year 1959, and $3,750,000, a part of 
    the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1960: 
    Provided, That the unexpended balances as of June 30, 1959, of 
    appropriations heretofore granted under the head ``Forest 
    highways'' or ``Forest highways (liquidation of contract 
    authorization)'' are rescinded and shall be credited to 
    miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury: Provided further, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for the rental, purchase, 
    construction, or alterations of buildings and sites necessary for 
    the storage and repair of equipment and supplies used for road 
    construction and maintenance, but the total cost of any such item 
    under this authorization shall not exceed $15,000.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language in the bill beginning on line 22, page 12, and ending with 
    line 17, page 13, on the ground that the paragraph contains 
    language which proposes to change existing law and is therefore 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        I direct the Chairman's attention to this particular language 
    on page 13, line 3: ``to be derived from the highway trust fund.'' 
    There is no authorization for expenditure from the highway trust 
    fund for the purposes proposed in this paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order is well taken. We concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    In a similar case, on May 20, 1958,(7) language in an 
appropriation bill appropriating funds for the federal aid highway 
trust fund for expenses of forest roads and trails, had been held to be 
unauthorized and not in order. On that day, during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 12540), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 9065, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Forest highways (trust fund)

         For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for 
    carrying out the provisions of section 23 of the Federal Highway 
    Act of November 9, 1921, as amended (23 U.S.C. 23, 23a), to remain

[[Page 5722]]

    available until expended, $30 million, to be derived from the 
    highway trust fund; which sum is composed of $22,250,000, the 
    remainder of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year 1958, and $7,750,000, a part of the amount authorized 
    to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1959: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for the rental, purchase, 
    construction, or alterations of buildings and sites necessary for 
    the storage and repair of equipment and supplies used for road 
    construction and maintenance, but the total cost of any such item 
    under this authorization shall not exceed $15,000.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language contained on line 16 
    immediately following the language ``$30 million to be derived from 
    the `highway trust fund' '' as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and therefore subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Briefly, Mr. 
    Chairman. The reason this language was included in the bill is that 
    it was requested by the Bureau of the Budget, and for the reason 
    further that 95 percent of all forest highways are part of the 
    Federal aid system. The committee felt, since that was true, it was 
    a logical step to put the whole thing under the Federal aid system 
    rather than make a direct appropriation for forest highways and 
    public lands highways.
        I do concede that the point of order is well taken; it is 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the question and finds 
    that the language is subject to a point of order and therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Forest Roads and Trails

Sec. 28.2 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating funds in the 
    federal aid highway trust fund for expenses of forest roads and 
    trails was held not in order where no authorization existed for the 
    expenditure from the highway trust fund for those proposed purposes

    On Feb. 9, 1960,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R 10234), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 2348, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Forest Highways (Trust Fund) (Liquidation of Contract 
                                 Authorization)

            For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
        provisions of title 23, United States Code, section 204, 
        pursuant to contract authorization granted by title 23, United 
        States Code, section 203, to remain available until expended, 
        $36,000,000, to be derived from the ``Highway trust fund''; 
        which sum is composed of $2,250,000, the remainder of the 
        amount authorized to be

[[Page 5723]]

        appropriated for the fiscal year 1959, and $33,000,000, the 
        amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1960, 
        and $750,000, a part of the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated for the fiscal year 1961: Provided, That the 
        unexpended balance as of June 30, 1960, of appropriations 
        heretofore granted under the head ``Forest highways 
        (liquidation of contract authorization)'' is hereby rescinded: 
        Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
        for the rental, purchase, construction, or alterations of 
        buildings and sites necessary for the storage and repair of 
        equipment and supplies used for road construction and 
        maintenance but the total cost of any such item under this 
        authorization shall not exceed $15,000

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the language appearing in the bill on 
    page 13, line 16, through line 11 on page 14
        The language therein contained is, in my opinion, subject to a 
    point of order on the ground that there is no authorization for 
    this action by the Appropriations Committee. The language is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to say that the language carried in the bill is as 
    it was presented to the committee by the Bureau of Roads. The 
    language was carried in the bill last year, and a point of order 
    was made against it, and we conceded the point of order, which we 
    do in this instance, because it clearly is subject to a point of 
    order. But it is a continuing difficulty that we have to deal with 
    later on.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Highway Trust Fund, Administrative Expenses

Sec. 28.3 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating funds in the 
    federal aid highway trust fund for administrative expenses of the 
    Internal Revenue Service for collection and allocation of taxes to 
    the fund was held to be unauthorized by law and therefore 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 4, 1958,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11085, a bill making appropriations for the U.S. 
Treasury and the Post Office Departments. At one point the Clerk read 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 3410-12, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Internal Revenue Service

                           Salaries and Expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, 
    including purchase (not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and 
    hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized by 
    section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), and of 
    expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by

[[Page 5724]]

    the Commissioner; $322 million, together with $3,500,000 to be 
    derived from the fund established pursuant to section 209 of the 
    Highway Revenue Act of 1956: Provided, That not to exceed $200,000 
    of the amount appropriated herein shall be available for expenses 
    of instruction and facilities for the training of employees by 
    contract, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the 
    Secretary of the Treasury.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language appearing on page 3, in lines 19 and 
    20, and the portion of line 21 preceding the proviso, that the 
    language proposes to change existing law and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman:(12) The Chair thanks the gentlemen for 
    their able presentation and is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This matter does present some difficulty, of course, and 
    requires an interpretation of section 209 of the Federal-Aid 
    Highway Act of 1956. Reference to the legislative history would 
    indicate that it was the intention of the Congress to preserve 
    inviolate trust funds for highway purposes, with such indirect use 
    as appeared clearly from the act itself. And, when we take that 
    into account and the precedents with reference to the disposition 
    of trust funds, I think it appears that the language is not 
    sufficiently broad to cover the proposed appropriation in this 
    case, and in the absence of an authorization otherwise, the point 
    of order should be sustained

Sec. 28.4 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating funds in the 
    federal aid highway trust fund for payment of obligations incurred 
    pursuant to the contract authorization granted for public lands 
    highways, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 20, 1958,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Commerce Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12540), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 9067, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Public lands highways (trust fund)

            For payment of obligations incurred pursuant to the 
        contract authorization granted by section 106 of the Federal-
        Aid Highway Act of 1956 (23 U.S.C. 155), to remain available 
        until expended, $2,692,000, to be derived from the highway 
        trust fund; which sum is composed of $692,000, the balance of 
        the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 
        1958, and $2 million, a part of the amount authorized for the 
        fiscal year 1959.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing on line 8, 
    `$2,692,000, to be derived from the ``highway trust fund'' as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    situation is the same with this item as the pre

[[Page 5725]]

    vious item, and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair has examined the 
    language and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer From Unemployment Trust Fund

Sec. 28.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing for transfer from 
    the unemployment trust fund a sum for expenses of the Bureau of 
    Employment Security was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1958,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 11645), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 5630, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Bureau of Employment Security

                             Salaries and Expenses

            For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
        the employment service and unemployment compensation programs, 
        including temporary employment of persons, without regard to 
        the civil-service laws, for the farm placement migratory labor 
        program; $6,219,000, of which $6,093,400 shall be derived by 
        transfer from the Federal unemployment account in the 
        unemployment trust fund, and of which $1,145,800 shall be for 
        carrying into effect the provisions of title IV (except section 
        602) of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 4 line 13 starting with 
    the word ``of'' and continuing through the word ``and'' on line 16. 
    I am not objecting to the provision to provide for the $6,093,400, 
    but rather the way in which it is being provided.
        On page 4 of this bill dealing with appropriations to the 
    Bureau of Employment Security in the Labor Department line 14 reads 
    as follows:

            $6,093,400 shall be derived by transfer from the Federal 
        unemployment trust fund.

        There is no provision in substantive law authorizing the 
    transfer of any sums from the unemployment account except to the 
    account of a State in the unemployment trust fund, which State has 
    applied for and been certified as eligible to receive an interest-
    free repayable advance for the purpose of replenishing its depleted 
    reserve account
        The Federal unemployment account is commonly referred to as a 
    State's loan fund. There is no valid basis for the transfer of 
    these funds from the unemployment trust fund to take care of the 
    expenses and salaries of the Bureau of Employment Security. This 
    transfer contravenes the intent and purpose of the provision for 
    the loan fund to assist the States which are in financial 
    difficulty to continue to make benefit payments.
        The Federal unemployment account is in no manner analogous to 
    the OASI

[[Page 5726]]

    and railroad retirement trust funds, which trust funds specifically 
    earmark all tax collections for crediting to the trust funds and 
    specifically authorize a transfer out of these trust funds of 
    amounts necessary to defray the cost of the OASI and railroad 
    retirement administration.
        An examination of section 904(h), which establishes the Federal 
    unemployment account in the unemployment trust fund, and of 
    sections 901 and 902, which provide for the computation of any 
    positive balance which is to go into the trust fund, and of section 
    903, which provides for the crediting of the positive balance to 
    the trust fund, and of section 1201, which provides for the making 
    of advances out of the Federal unemployment account, and of section 
    1202, which provides for the crediting of certain tax collections 
    directly to the Federal unemployment account, will clearly disclose 
    that there is no provision whatsoever for the use of funds in the 
    Federal unemployment account except for the single and sole purpose 
    of making repayable interest-free advances to the States.
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: We concede the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Fund

Sec. 28.6 An appropriation for the salary and expenses of the office of 
    Director of Vehicles and Traffic out of the District of Columbia 
    Gasoline Tax Fund was held to be legislative since the Gasoline Tax 
    Act provides that revenue raised through its operation could only 
    be appropriated by Congress for road and street improvements and 
    repairs.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3110, 3111, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For paving, repaving, grading, and otherwise improving 
        streets, avenues, and roads, including temporary per-diem 
        services, surveying instruments and implements, and drawing 
        materials, and the maintenance of motor vehicles used in this 
        work, including curbing and gutters and replacement of curb-
        line trees where necessary, and including trees and parkings, 
        assessment and permit work and the several purposes provided 
        for in that paragraph, and salaries and expenses of the office 
        of the Director of Vehicles and Traffic, as follows, to be paid 
        from the special fund created by section 1 of the act entitled 
        ``An act to provide for a tax on motor-vehicle fuels sold 
        within the District of Columbia, and for other purposes'', 
        approved April 23, 1924 (43 Stat., p. 106), and accretions by 
        repayment of assessments.

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of

[[Page 5727]]

    order against the portion beginning in line 11 on page 71 after the 
    word ``work'', and beginning with the word ``including'', going 
    through lines 11, 12, and 13, on down to and inclusive of line 21, 
    on the ground that it is legislation and changes existing law. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] makes a point of order 
    against certain language appearing on page 71, beginning with the 
    word ``including'', in line 11, and extending to the end of the 
    paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] in speaking in 
    opposition to the point of order, has called attention to certain 
    improvements that are provided for by the language included in this 
    part of the bill. The Chair would be inclined to agree with the 
    gentleman in the contention that he presents in all respects except 
    that relating to the question of salaries and expenses of the 
    office of director of vehicles and traffic. The Chair observes that 
    the office of director of vehicles and traffic is provided for in 
    the act to regulate traffic in the District of Columbia, and so 
    forth. An examination of this law clearly shows that the director 
    of vehicles and traffic has rather broad general duties to perform, 
    and it is not related alone to what might be imposed upon him in 
    connection with the Gasoline Tax Act. The Gasoline tax Act 
    provides, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Oklahoma, that--

            The proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 840 
        of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United 
        States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia and 
        shall be available for appropriations by the Congress 
        exclusively for road and street improvements and repairs.

        The Chair is unable to see how that language would be broad 
    enough to authorize the payment of salaries for the director of 
    vehicles and traffic. The Gasoline Tax Act does not make provision 
    for the payment of the salaries to which the Chair has directed 
    attention. Therefore, salaries paid out of this fund would not be 
    authorized by law. For that reason the provision to which the point 
    of order is made would, in the opinion of the Chair, be legislation 
    on a general appropriation bill and would be subject to a point of 
    order.
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Indians' Judgment Fund

Sec. 28.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that a specific 
    amount of the appropriation shall be available from the judgment 
    fund appropriated for the Indians of California to be advanced in 
    part for payment of attorneys employed by any tribe under contracts 
    approved by the Secretary of the Interior, was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 3, 1950,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department

[[Page 5728]]

appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 6304, 6305, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Tribal Funds

        In addition to the tribal funds authorized to be expended by 
    existing law, there is hereby appropriated $2,525,465 from tribal 
    funds not otherwise available for expenditure for the benefit of 
    Indians and Indian tribes, including pay and travel expenses of 
    employees . . . compensation and expenses of attorneys and other 
    persons employed by Indian tribes under approved contracts; pay, 
    travel and other expenses of tribal officers, councils, and 
    committees thereof . . . and employment of a recreational director 
    for the Menominee Reservation and a curator for the Osage Museum . 
    . . Provided, That $100,000 of the amount appropriated herein shall 
    be available from the judgment fund appropriated for the Indians of 
    California by section 203 of the act of April 25, 1945 (59 Stat. 
    77), to be advanced for compensation and expenses of attorneys and 
    other persons employed by any tribe, band, or other identifiable 
    groups of Indians of California under contracts approved by the 
    Secretary . . . Provided further, That in addition to the amount 
    appropriated herein, tribal funds may be advanced to Indian tribes 
    for such purposes as may be designated by the governing body of the 
    particular tribe involved and approved by the Secretary. Any tribal 
    funds advanced under this authority shall be reported to the 
    Congress in the annual budget for the next succeeding fiscal year
        Mr. [Thomas H.] Werdel [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, against the language commencing with the word 
    ``Provided'' in line 3, page 229, reading:

            That $100,000 of the amount appropriated herein shall be 
        available from the judgment fund appropriated for the Indians 
        of California by section 203 of the Act of April 25, 1945 (59 
        Stat. 77), to be advanced for compensation and expenses of 
        attorneys. . . .

        The Chairman:(20) Does the gentleman from Washington 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Farm Labor Supply Revolving Fund

Sec. 28.8 Language in an appropriation bill providing for transfer of 
    funds from the farm labor supply revolving fund for expenses of the 
    Mexican farm labor program was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Mar. 27, 1958,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R.

[[Page 5729]]

11645), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 5630, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

               Salaries and expenses, Mexican farm labor program

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
        carry out the functions of the Department of Labor under the 
        act of July 12, 1951, as amended, $1,550,000, to be derived by 
        transfer from the farm labor supply revolving fund: Provided, 
        That reimbursement to the United States under agreements 
        hereafter entered into pursuant to section 502 of the act of 
        July 12, 1951, as amended, shall include all expenses of 
        program operations except those compliance activities 
        separately provided for herein.

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, we must 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 29. Transfer of Funds Within Same Bill

    Transfers of appropriations within the confines of the same bill 
are normally considered in order on a general appropriation bill if not 
accompanied by legislative 
language.                          -------------------

Bestowing New Authority on Bureau of the Budget

Sec. 29.1 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of Labor to allot or transfer, with the approval of the 
    Director of the Budget, funds from a certain appropriation in the 
    bill to any bureau of the Department of Labor, to enable such 
    agency to perform certain services, was held to be legislation and 
    not in order on a general appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 20, 1939,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2868, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk read 
a paragraph providing an appropriation for the Department of Labor, 
Wage and Hour Division, which contained the following proviso:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided, That the Secretary of Labor may allot or transfer, 
    with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 
    funds from this appropriation to any bureau or office of the

[[Page 5730]]

    Department of Labor to enable such agency to perform services for 
    the Wage and Hour Division.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the proviso beginning in line 3, page 5, and 
    including the rest of the section on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill that imposes additional duties 
    upon the Bureau of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: No.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

In General; Permissive Authority to Transfer Indefinite Amount

Sec. 29.2 On one occasion, a provision in a general appropriation bill 
    which permitted the transfer to an appropriation therein of amounts 
    contained in other items in that bill, while not constituting a 
    reappropriation proscribed by Rule XXI clause 6 (then clause 5), 
    was conceded to be in violation of the rules (as legislative in 
    character) and was therefore ruled out on a point of order.

     On June 4, 1971,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8825), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 18039, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Government Contributions

        For contributions to employees life insurance fund, retirement 
    fund, and health benefits fund, as authorized by law, $5,245,000, 
    and in addition, such amount as may be necessary may be transferred 
    from the preceding appropriation for ``miscellaneous items''.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 6, line 7, after the 
    figure ``$5,245,000.'' It is this language:

            And in addition, such amount as may be necessary may be 
        transferred from the preceding appropriation for 
        ``miscellaneous items''.

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this language on 
    the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I will say to 
    the gentleman from Iowa this is merely a facilitating provision. 
    This is an amount that must be paid. It is subject to a point of 
    order, but it is going to be paid one way or the other, because it 
    is provided by law for Government contributions. We have no way of 
    determining precisely what amount will be needed.
        Some Members have 15 employees. Some have 16. Some have four or 
    five.

[[Page 5731]]

    Regardless of the amount, it has to be paid.
        Mr. Gross: Then I submit, Mr. Chairman, the Members of the 
    House have no way of knowing what constitutes ``miscellaneous 
    items.''
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: It refers to the ``preceding 
    appropriation for `miscellaneous items'.'' This is transfer 
    authority. That is what it amounts to.
        Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I insist on the point of order.
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: We do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer of Funds to Account in Bill

Sec. 29.3 A provision in an appropriation bill that the Secretary may 
    transfer funds, from appropriations available for authorized 
    activities of the Department of Agriculture, for use in formulating 
    programs for such authorized activities, was held in order.

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 3306, 3307, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Admistinction may be 
        made between actual permissible transfer of funds and the 
        conferral of a general discretionary authority to make 
        transfers which might be impermissible if having reference to 
        transfer of funds not contained within the same bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Economic investigations: For acquiring and diffusing useful 
    information among the people of the United States, and for aiding 
    in formulating programs for authorized activities of the Department 
    of Agriculture, relative to agricultural production, distribution, 
    land utilization, and conservation in their broadest aspects, 
    including farm management and practice, utilization of farm and 
    food products, purchasing of farm supplies, farm population and 
    rural life, farm labor, farm finance, insurance and taxation, 
    adjustments in production to probable demand for the different farm 
    and food products; land ownership and values, costs, prices, and 
    income in their relation to agriculture, including causes for their 
    variations and trends, $839,100: Provided, That the Secretary may 
    transfer to this appropriation from the funds available for 
    authorized activities of the Department of Agriculture such sums as 
    may be necessary for aiding in formulating programs for such 
    authorized activities, including expenditures for employment of 
    persons and means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point 
    of order [that the provision] is legislation

[[Page 5732]]

    upon an appropriation bill and a delegation to the Secretary of 
    authority to transfer funds, and delegates to or requires of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture additional duties in violation of the 
    rules. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, no funds are 
    affected here except funds which have been appropriated by 
    Congress, and the Secretary of Agriculture under the terms of the 
    organic law is authorized to administer the Department, and he may, 
    as administrator of that Department at any time transfer such funds 
    from one activity to another. The point of order is not well taken, 
    Mr. Chairman, the appropriation is for the use of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture in the discharge of his official duties, as provided by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . The first point of order 
    made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] is overruled 
    because an examination of section 511 of title 5 of the United 
    States Code discloses that it is certainly in order. The last part 
    is related to the transfer of funds. The Chair quotes from Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume VII, section 1470, the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             A proposition to transfer funds from one department of the 
        Government to another for purposes authorized by law was held 
        not to involve legislation and to be in order in an 
        appropriation bill.

        The gentleman makes the point of order that it is legislation 
    in an appropriation bill. The point of order is overruled.

Granting Transfer Authority

Sec. 29.4 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    authorizing the commissioners to transfer money from a specific 
    appropriation to another appropriation was held to be legislative 
    in nature and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3108, 3109, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Police Court

            Salaries: For personal services, $107,030: Provided That 
        upon occupancy of the new police court building the 
        Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part of this 
        appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may be 
        necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District Buildings.''--

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on the language contained in the paragraph beginning 
    in line 22 of page 48, after the ``$107,030'', which reads:

            Provided, That upon occupancy of the new police court 
        building the Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part 
        of this appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may 
        be necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District buildings''--

        That it is legislation and changes existing law. . . .

[[Page 5733]]

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma makes a point of 
    order against the proviso on page 48, line 22, which reads:

            Provided, That upon occupancy of the new police-court 
        building the Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part 
        of this appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may 
        be necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District buildings.''

        This provision seeks to authorize the Commissioners of the 
    District of Columbia to transfer funds appropriated for one 
    specific purpose to another purpose, and, apparently, seeks also to 
    impose an additional duty on the Commissioners. Therefore, it is 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Limiting Amounts Transferred Within Accounts in Bill

Sec. 29.5 A general provision in an appropriation bill permitting 
    transfers of sums appropriated therein from one subhead to another 
    in the same enactment was held not to constitute legislation.

    On June 29, 1959,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 12131, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               General Provisions

            Not to exceed 5 per centum of any appropriation made 
        available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        by this Act may be transferred to any other such appropriation, 
        but the ``Salaries and expenses'' appropriation shall not be 
        thereby increased.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 5, lines 17 to 21, inclusive, as being legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We think 
    this is not legislation. It refers entirely to funds within this 
    bill. It starts off as a limitation and applies only to funds in 
    this bill.
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Thomas: I yield to my friend from Iowa.
        Mr. Jensen: This is nothing more nor less than a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from

[[Page 5734]]

    Iowa [Mr. Gross] makes a point of order against that portion of the 
    bill appearing on page 5, lines 17 through 21, that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It appears to the Chair that 
    the transfer applies to funds only within this bill, that it is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 29.6 An amendment to a title of an appropriation bill providing 
    that not to exceed five percent of any appropriation in the title 
    may be transferred to any other appropriation therein, but no such 
    appropriation shall be increased by more than five percent by any 
    such transfer was held not to constitute legislation.

    On Apr. 25, 1950,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Labor Department and Federal Security Agency 
chapter of the general appropriation bill for 1951. The Clerk read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 5732, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: 
    On page 124, line 13, insert ``Sec. 106. Not to exceed 5 percent of 
    any appropriation in this title may be transferred to any other 
    such appropriation, but no such appropriation shall be increased by 
    more than 5 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That no such 
    transfer shall be used for creation of new functions within the 
    Department.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill in that it gives authority to somebody else to 
    perform a budgetary act in a department. It goes beyond the pale of 
    a direct appropriation or a limitation and it gives authority to 
    the department to transfer funds. That authority does not exist 
    without this language and it is clearly a delegation of additional 
    duties to the department that do not already exist. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Rhode Island has offered an amendment which has been reported. 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 in violation of the rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Rhode Island and has listened to the argument presented by the 
    gentleman from New York. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    language contained in this amendment does not constitute 
    legislation, and invites attention to section 1468 of Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 7, in which it is stated:

            A proposition to transfer a sum previously appropriated 
        from one subhead to another in the same enactment was held not 
        to constitute legislation.

        There are quite a number of decisions cited in approval of that 
    holding.

[[Page 5735]]

    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

     29.7 Language in a general appropriation bill permitting 
    appropriations to be used interchangeably among several offices 
    with approval of the Bureau of the Budget provided that no office 
    exceed the amount appropriated for it by more than a designated 
    percentage, was held to be legislative in character.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 2353, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not to exceed 5 percent of the foregoing appropriations for 
    personal services shall be available interchangeably, subject to 
    the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, for expenditures in the 
    various offices and divisions named, but not more than 5 percent 
    shall be added to the amount appropriated for any one of said 
    offices or divisions and any interchange of appropriations 
    hereunder shall be reported to Congress in the annual Budget, and 
    not to exceed $250,000 of said appropriations shall be available 
    for the employment, on duties properly chargeable to each of said 
    appropriations, of special assistants to the Attorney General 
    without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language on page 36 beginning with line 23 and 
    continuing to the end of the page, and on page 37, the first 10 
    lines, inclusive, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill not provided for by law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order. It has been in the bill for many years, 
    however.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The language in this paragraph giving 
approval authority to the Bureau of the Budget, requiring reporting to 
Congress, and waiving the Classification Act of 1923 was clearly 
legislation.

Interchange of Appropriations

Sec. 29.8 Language in an appropriation bill permitting interchange of 
    appropriations in the bill for purposes authorized by law was in 
    order on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture

[[Page 5736]]

Department appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3458, 3459, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Interchange of Appropriations

        Not to exceed 5 percent of the foregoing amounts for the 
    miscellaneous expenses of the work of any bureau, division, or 
    office herein provided for shall be available interchangeably for 
    expenditures on the objects included within the general expenses of 
    such bureau, division, or office, but not more than 5 percent shall 
    be added to any one item of appropriation except in cases of 
    extraordinary emergency.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and delegates authority and requires the 
    performance of further duties on the part of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the Chair 
    ruled on that point of order when a similar provision was before 
    the Committee Friday.
        The Chairman: (18) On a number of occasions a 
    similar point of order has been overruled. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on Transfers Between Accounts in Paragraph

Sec. 29.9 A provision restricting the amount which could be transferred 
    between accounts under that paragraph was held in order as a 
    limitation.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the proviso in the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 27288, 27289, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Property Management and Disposal Service

                               operating expenses

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for 
        carrying out the functions of the Administrator with respect to 
        the utilization of excess property; the disposal of surplus 
        property; the rehabilitation of personal property . . . the 
        supplemental stockpile established by section 104(b) of the 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (68 
        Stat. 456, as amended by 73 Stat. 607); including services as 
        authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and reimbursement for security 
        guard services, $33,000,000, to be derived from proceeds from 
        transfers of excess property, disposal of surplus property, and 
        sales of stockpile materials . . . Provided further, That none 
        of the funds available under this heading shall be available 
        for transfer to any other account nor for the funding of any 
        activities other than those specifically authorized under this 
        heading.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After points of order had been conceded with respect to other 
language in the paragraph (omit

[[Page 5737]]

ted here),(1) the following colloquy occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Points of order were directed against provisions in a paragraph of 
        the appropriation bill (1) authorizing the General Services 
        Administration to acquire lease-hold interests in property; (2) 
        removing limitations imposed by law on the value of surplus 
        strategic materials which may be transferred without 
        reimbursement to the national stockpile; and (3) authorizing 
        materials in certain stockpiles and inventories to be available 
        without reimbursement for transfer to contractors as payment 
        for expenses. These provisions were conceded to be legislation 
        and were stricken from the bill.
            See Sec. 38.7, infra, for more detailed treatment of the 
        points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the points 
    of order made against the language are conceded down to line 7, 
    page 23, but the language of that ``Provided further,'' is a simple 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and is not subject to a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair agrees with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.
        The various points of order that are conceded are sustained, 
    and that language is stricken. The language:

            Provided further, That none of the funds available under 
        this heading shall be available for transfer to any other 
        account nor for the funding of any activities other than those 
        specifically authorized under this heading.

        Which is a proper limitation and appears beginning in line 7, 
    page 23, through line 10, remains in the bill, since the point of 
    order has not been made against the entire paragraph.

Unallocated Funds in Pending Bill

Sec. 29.10 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    certain public works, an amendment providing that a particular 
    authorized project should be financed out of ``any available 
    unallocated funds contained in this act'' was held to be in order.

    On June 5, 1959,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509), making appropriations for 
the civil functions of the Department of the Army, a point of order was 
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10054, 10055, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sikes: On page 4, line 16, strike 
        out the period, add a semicolon and the words ``Provided 
        further, That the improvement of the Escambra River, Fla., 
        according to authorized specification may be undertaken with 
        any available unallocated funds contained in this act.'' . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it

[[Page 5738]]

    changes existing law. It attempts to control funds that have been 
    appropriated in previous acts in a way that is different from the 
    way those acts now stand and as those old appropriations stood.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair would like to be 
    informed as to whether or not the particular project referred to in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is authorized 
    by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: That I do not know.
        Mr. Sikes: May I respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    project is authorized by law. It was carried in the last rivers and 
    harbors omnibus bill, which was signed by the President, and I am 
    informed the number of that law is 500 of the 85th Congress. I 
    further point out that this is permissive and as such would not 
    constitute legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Taber: The previous act carried a provision ``to remain 
    available until expended.'' This particular amendment would mean 
    that they would be using it for something that was not in the 
    original bill, and that would result in a change in existing law 
    That is the idea that I had in making the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Apparently the gentleman from New York is not making the point 
    of order on whether or not the project is authorized. The Chair has 
    been informed by the gentleman from Florida that the project is 
    authorized by law.
        Insofar as the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York is concerned, the Chair overrules the point of order because 
    this language is quite specific in that it makes available 
    unallocated funds contained in this act, the act now being debated 
    before the committee, and does not affect heretofore made 
    appropriations.

Discretionary Transfer of Funds

Sec. 29.11 Language in an appropriation bill making an appropriation 
    for specific objects ``together with such amounts (transferred) 
    from other appropriations . . . as may be determined by the 
    Secretary,'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On May 17, 1951,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5468, 5469, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Office of Information

            For necessary expenses in connection with the publication . 
        . . and distribution of bulletins, documents, and reports, the 
        preparation, distribution, and display of agricultural motion 
        and sound pictures . . . and the coordination of informational 
        work and programs authorized by Congress in the Department, 
        $1,271,000, together with such

[[Page 5739]]

        amounts from other appropriations or authorizations as are 
        provided in the schedules in the budget for the current fiscal 
        year for such expenses, which several amounts or portions 
        thereof, as may be determined by the Secretary, not exceeding a 
        total of $16,200, shall be transferred to and made a part of 
        this appropriation, of which total appropriation amounts not 
        exceeding those specified may be used for the purposes 
        enumerated as follows: For preparation and display of exhibits, 
        $104,725. . . .

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in lines 4 to 9, inclusive, 
    page 46, on the ground that it involves additional duties on the 
    part of the Secretary of Agriculture.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer With Approval of Committee on Appropriations

Sec. 29.12 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    transfer of funds within an appropriation for allowances and 
    expenses, with the approval of the Committee on Appropriations, was 
    conceded to constitute legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    2 and was stricken from the bill on a point of order.

    On Mar. 16, 1977,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4877 (supplemental appropriation bill), 
a point of order was sustained against a provision in the bill, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7747, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Such amounts as deemed necessary for the payment of 
        allowances and expenses within this appropriation may be 
        transferred among accounts upon approval of the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 29, lines 17 through 
    20, inclusive, on the grounds that the language as it is written 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        In previous instances where an appropriation bill has contained 
    similar language--and I emphasize the word ``similar''--the Chair 
    has held that it is permissible to allow language that would 
    transfer appropriations from one subhead to another in the same 
    enactment.
        The language before us, if it is read carefully, makes it 
    rather clear that what is being permitted is the transfer of 
    amounts, and they may be transferred, as the language says, among 
    accounts upon approval.
        It is not in fact an authorization to transfer amongst the 
    various moneys in this bill, but in fact could be used to

[[Page 5740]]

     authorize the transfer of previously appropriated amounts not in 
    this bill.
        Therefore, it exceeds the authority of the committee to in fact 
    consider it. . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois] . . . The committee will 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Shipley] concedes the point of order. Therefore, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Bauman] and the language is stricken from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 30. Transfer of Funds Not Limited to Same Bill

    Section 139(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, later 
incorporated into the standing rules as clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule 
XXI in 1953, sought to prohibit inclusion in general appropriation 
bills of reappropriations, which were understood to be legislative 
methods (1) for making an appropriation available after the period in 
which it may be obligated has expired, or (2) for transferring to a 
given appropriation an amount not needed in another appropriation. See 
Chapter 25, Sec. 3, supra, for further discussion of decisions 
involving reappropriations of unexpended balances on general 
appropriation bills. In that section, the emphasis is on the 
prohibition against reappropriations, while in the precedents cited in 
this section, the Chair's rulings focus on the proposed language as 
changing existing law. This section includes rulings wherein the Chair 
has relied upon both clauses 2 and 6 of Rule XXI to rule out provisions 
which sought to authorize the transfer of previously appropriated funds 
into new accounts (see Sec. Sec. 30.17, 30.19, and 30.20, infra).
    Prior to enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 
provisions which reappropriated in a direct manner unexpended balances 
and continued their availability for the same purpose for an extended 
period of time were not prohibited by Rule XXI because they were not 
deemed to change existing law by conferring new authority (see, e.g., 4 
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3592; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1152; Ch. 25, 
Sec. 3.14, supra). Indeed, some precedents indicated that provisions in 
or amendments to general appropriation bills were in order which not 
only constituted reappropriations of unexpended balances, but which 
conferred new authority on federal officials to expend such balances 
for purposes different from those for which originally appropriated. 
(See, e.g., 4 Hinds'

[[Page 5741]]

Precedents Sec. 3591; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1153-1156, 1158.) 
Other precedents, however, indicated that propositions to make an 
appropriation payable from funds already appropriated for a different 
purpose were considered legislation (see, e.g., 7 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 1466). On Dec. 14, 1921, Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, stated that ``there are several decisions in print which 
are contradictory. There are decisions both ways.'' (7 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 1158).
    In light of the more recent precedents contained in this section, 
it is apparent that provisions on a general appropriation bill are in 
violation of Rule XXI clause 2 if they confer new authority to expend 
previously appropriated funds for a new purpose, or to expend funds for 
unauthorized projects, by mandating or permitting transfers between 
accounts.                          -------------------

Transfer From Previous Appropriations

Sec. 30.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing the transfer 
    of funds previously appropriated in another appropriation bill is 
    legislation. [An amendment proposing transfer of funds appropriated 
    under one heading in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1959 (Pub. 
    L. No. 85-766) for use under another heading in the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation Act, 1959 (Pub. L. No. 85-594), was held to 
    be legislation.]

    On Mar. 24, 1959,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 5916), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 5102, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl T.] Durham [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Durham: After line 24, page 13, 
        add the following:

                   ``Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization

            ``Federal contributions: For an additional amount for 
        `Federal contributions' to the States pursuant to section 205 
        of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to be 
        equally matched with State funds, $3 million to be derived by 
        transfer from the appropriation for `emergency supplies and 
        equipment,' fiscal year 1959.''

        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.

[[Page 5742]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Carolina desire to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Durham: Mr. Chairman, this is a transfer of funds, a matter 
    that I understand appears all through the bill, and I was so 
    advised by the clerk of the committee.
        The Chairman: This is a little more than that; it affects the 
    transfer of funds for the fiscal year 1959 for this new purpose, 
    and as such would constitute legislation.
        Mr. Durham: If that is the Chair's interpretation, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 30.2 In an appropriation bill a provision transferring funds 
    previously appropriated under another subhead in a prior enactment 
    was held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 18, 1955,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 4903), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 101 Cong. Rec. 3197, 3198, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Contributions to the United Nations expanded program of 
                              technical assistance

            For an additional amount for ``Contributions to the United 
        Nations expanded program of technical assistance,'' for United 
        States contributions during the period ending June 30, 1955, $4 
        million, to be derived by transfer from the appropriation 
        contained in Public Law 778, 83d Congress, for assistance 
        authorized by section 121 of Public Law 665, 83d Congress. . . 
        .

        See Sec. 29.6, supra, where transfers between accounts in the 
    pending bill, rather than from an account in a prior act were held 
    in order, citing 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1468.
        The Chairman: (11) What is the gentleman's point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: That it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill because in line 19 it provides that the ``$4 
    million, to be derived by transfer from the appropriation contained 
    in Public Law 778, 83d Congress, for assistance authorized by 
    section 121 of Public Law 665, 83d Congress.'' That section which I 
    have before me expressly provides that the money is given to the 
    President for his own purposes. Down in the next section a 
    limitation is put on the fund. The President's control over it is 
    limited to certain specific purposes. . . .
        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer From Fund Created From Bond Proceeds

Sec. 30.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing addi

[[Page 5743]]

    tional funds for rural electrification to be made available from 
    the loan authority for 1956 for rural housing (not an appropriated 
    account), was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 15, 1957,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R 6870), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 5684-86, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

                              Loan authorizations

            For an additional amount for loans for the rural-
        electrification program, $200 million, to be borrowed from the 
        Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with section 3(a) of 
        the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and to be 
        made available from the loan authorization contained in section 
        606(a) of the act of August 7, 1956 (Public Law 1020).

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language commencing on page 2, line 23, after the word, 
    ``as amended'' and reading: ``And to be made available from the 
    loan authorization contained in section 606(a) of the act of August 
    7, 1956 (Public Law 1020).''
        Mr. Chairman, the public law referred to has nothing whatsoever 
    to do with the authorization of REA, but is a loan authorization 
    for construction of rural housing as provided in the Rural Housing 
    Act of 1949, as amended by the act of 1956, which gives 
    authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture to issue such 
    debentures as necessary to carry out the authority contained in 
    section 11 of the act of 1949.

        I submit that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    is subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama on line 
    23, page 2, is against the three lines beginning with the word 
    ``and'' as being legislation upon an appropriation bill, which it 
    obviously is.

Transfer From Funds Available to Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 30.4 To an appropriation bill an amendment making available to the 
    Secretary of the Army for furnishing a specified milk ration 
    certain available funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be legislation and therefore not in order.

    On Apr. 29, 1954,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5744]]

Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill (H.R. 8873), a point 
of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 5749, 4750, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roosevelt: At line 12, page 6, 
        after the figure ``$4,150,479,000'', insert the following: 
        ``plus such other amounts, from the funds available to the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation for price support to producers of 
        milk, butterfat and the products of milk and butterfat, which 
        the Secretary of the Army requires in order to make available 
        to each of the persons herein described, a minimum daily ration 
        of 1 quart of whole fluid milk in addition to such other 
        amounts of milk products to which he is entitled.''

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I press the point of order, based on the fact 
    that this amendment seeks to change existing law, first; secondly, 
    it seeks to provide funds other than those provided in the act; 
    and, thirdly, I believe it seeks to place additional duties on the 
    Secretary of the Army.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Roosevelt] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. McCulloch (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        May I say in opposition to my friend on the point of order that 
    this does not change existing law insofar as appropriations have 
    been made. As I pointed out, this does not call for any new 
    appropriation. It merely marks the transfer of existing 
    appropriations for dispensation in accordance with the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, and that the point of order is well 
    taken. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Transfer to Previous Appropriation.

Sec. 30.5 To an appropriation bill an amendment adding an appropriation 
    and providing for transferring funds therefrom to an appropriation 
    made by a prior enactment but without regard to the limitations 
    applicable to the previously appropriated funds was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 20, 1954,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 9936), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 11123, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of 
    Massachusetts]: Page 6, line 11, after the words ``ship 
    construction'' strike out all of lines 11,

[[Page 5745]]

    12, and 13, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``For payment of construction-differential subsidy and cost of 
    national defense features incident to construction of four 
    passenger-cargo ships under title V of the Merchant Marine Act, 
    1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1154); for reconditioning and 
    betterment of not to exceed four ships in the national defense 
    reserve fleet; and for necessary expenses for the acquisition of 
    used tankers pursuant to section 510 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
    1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1160), and the payment of cost of 
    national defense features incorporated in new tankers constructed 
    to replace such used tankers, $82,600,000, to remain available 
    until expended: Provided, That transfers may be made to the 
    appropriation for the current fiscal year for `Salaries and 
    expenses' for administrative expenses (not to exceed $500,000) and 
    for reserve fleet expenses (in such amounts as may be required), 
    and any such transfers shall be without regard to the limitations 
    under that appropriation on the amounts available for such 
    expenses: Provided further, That appropriations granted herein 
    shall be available to pay construction-differential subsidy granted 
    by the Federal Maritime Board, pursuant to section 501(c) of the 
    Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, to aid in the reconstruction 
    of any Mariner-class ships sold under the provisions of title VII 
    of the 1936 act.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment contains legislation. The language 
    ``and any such transfers shall be without regard to the limitations 
    under that appropriation of the amounts available for such 
    expenses'' makes it clearly subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wigglesworth: Mr. Chairman, the language submitted is the 
    language that was received from the Bureau of the Budget. It seemed 
    to me that if this step was to be taken this was the desirable way 
    to do. However, if the gentleman from New York insists, I concede 
    that the language in question is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment does contain legislation.

Lifting Appropriation Ceiling; Allowing Transfer to New Project

Sec. 30.6 A provision in an appropriation bill changing the dollar 
    limitation on a project and transferring previously appropriated 
    funds from one project to another was conceded to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
12740), the

[[Page 5746]]

following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the language on page 12, beginning on line 11, running 
    through line 19, as being legislation on an appropriation bill, the 
    language being as follows:

                        Construction and Rehabilitation

            The limitation under this head in the Interior Department 
        Appropriation Act, 1955, on the amount available toward the 
        emergency rehabilitation of the Crescent Lake Dam project, 
        Oregon, is increased from ``$297,000'' to $305,000'', and not 
        to exceed $300,000 of funds available under this head for 
        fiscal year 1961 shall be used for advance planning activities 
        on the Canadian River project, Texas.

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is good, but for the all-powerful reason that it does not 
    appropriate any money, but simply transfers money appropriated 
    several years ago and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Change in Purpose of Permanent Appropriation

Sec. 30.7 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of Agriculture to pay out of funds made available by section 32 of 
    the Act of Aug. 24, 1935, transportation and handling charges on 
    surplus commodities owned by the department and its agencies for 
    the purpose of distribution to public welfare agencies was held to 
    be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), a point of order was directed against the following 
language of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 5911-13, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Department of Agriculture is authorized to pay out of funds 
    made available by section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
    U.S.C. 612(c)) transportation and handling charges on surplus 
    commodities owned by the Department or any of its instrumentalities 
    or agencies for the purpose of distribution to public welfare 
    agencies.
        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 193, lines 18 through 24, 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore is 
    contrary to the rules of the House, in that it seeks to add an 
    additional purpose for which section 32 funds may be expended.
        Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, is the section which 
    sets aside 30 percent of the gross customs receipts to

[[Page 5747]]

    be expended for certain purposes; namely, to increase the export 
    and the consumption of agricultural commodities. The purposes for 
    which the funds may be expended are set out. They may be used by 
    paying indemnities to exporters, and by making payments to 
    producers. The further authority proposed to be set forth in this 
    bill is to pay the transportation and handling charges on certain 
    agricultural commodities. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: While there is much 
    merit to the intent of our friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, I 
    am rather of the same opinion as my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Georgia, so far as the use of section 32 funds is concerned. 
    Further, it has been my purpose and the purpose of our committee to 
    cooperate with the legislative committee and in no case to usurp or 
    try to usurp their prerogatives. The provision put in here is a 
    stop-gap and it was done only on the basis that the legislative 
    committee was now considering this matter. I think the committee is 
    so considering it. I wonder if it would not be better to let the 
    whole thing go out and let the legislative committee handle it by 
    substantive law. I think that is the way it properly should be 
    handled. I did yield to the desires of our colleagues of the 
    committee to try to meet this situation by putting it in here. But 
    if there is any objection on the part of the legislative committee, 
    certainly it is their business. We are trying to help out rather 
    than try to usurp their prerogatives. That is the position I take.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language referred to and is 
    definitely of the opinion that it does include legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair is very favorably impressed with the 
    last statement made by the gentleman from Georgia in reply to the 
    observation made by the gentleman from South Dakota to the effect 
    that if existing law provided for this there would be no useful 
    purpose to be served by having this provision in the bill. It does 
    appear very clearly to the Chair that the inclusion of this 
    language would result in a diversion of certain funds from the 
    purpose provided by existing law for the use of those funds. It 
    therefore appearing to the Chair that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

New Purpose For Previously Appropriated Funds

Sec. 30.8 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds for 
    two reclamation projects be derived by transfer from appropriations 
    previously made available to the Department of the Interior was 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 26, 1958, (2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
10881), a point

[[Page 5748]]

of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 2899, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Bureau of Reclamation

            For an additional amount for the ``Upper Colorado River 
        Basin Fund'' for the Glen Canyon project, not to exceed $10 
        million; and for the Trinity River division of the Central 
        Valley project, not to exceed $10 million; to be derived by 
        transfer from any definite annual appropriations available to 
        the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year 1958 and 
        from the appropriation ``Construction and Rehabilitation'': 
        Provided, That no part of any funds allocated to these two 
        project activities shall be used for contracts not in effect as 
        of February 20, 1958.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on line 20, page 14, and 
    ending on page 15, line 7, on the ground that it changes existing 
    law and is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.9 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    President to allocate a certain sum from funds made available by 
    the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1937 was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Aug. 17, 1937,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the third deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
8245), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 9171, 9172, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harry L.] Englesbright [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against that portion of the title appearing 
    on page 18, beginning on line 5, and reading as follows:

            Yosemite National Park, Calif.: For the acquisition of 
        certain lands, including expenses incidental thereto, as set 
        forth in the act approved July 9, 1937 (Public, No. 195, 75th 
        Cong.), the President is authorized to allocate not to exceed 
        $2,005,000, from funds made available by section 1 of the 
        Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, such amount having 
        been heretofore earmarked for such purpose.

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill, that it is 
    directory in character, that it changes existing law, and is 
    unauthorized.
        If the Chair will permit, may I call the attention of the Chair 
    to certain authorities?
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    matter is subject to a point of order, there is no use prolonging 
    the agony.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language in this paragraph seeks to authorize the President 
    to allocate funds not heretofore allocated to this park. This is 
    purely legislation

[[Page 5749]]

    upon an appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is 
    sustained with reference to that portion of the title ``Department 
    of the Interior'' which appears on page 18, lines 5 to 12, 
    inclusive, under the heading, ``National Park Service.''

Continuation of Previous Appropriations; New Purpose

Sec. 30.10 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill which is 
    applicable to funds appropriated in another act constitutes 
    legislation and is not in order.

    On June 29, 1959, (6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12132, 12133, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Department of Commerce

                              Bureau of the Census

                             Salaries and Expenses

            The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal 
        year 1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on 
        a reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, 
        or costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
        appropriations to the Bureau of the Census.

        Mr. [Joseph F.] Holt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the following language, on page 7, lines 11 to 
    15, ``The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal year 
    1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on a 
    reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, or 
    costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
    appropriations to the Bureau of the Census'' constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is subject to a point of 
    order.
        It refers to funds that are not in this bill but in another; 
    and I noted in the report that the Comptroller General expresses 
    the opinion that specific legislative authorization should be 
    obtained. I maintain that the place to obtain it is not here but in 
    the legislative committee.
        The Chairman: (7) does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I might say that the committee 
    had no deep feeling one way or the other on this provision. It was 
    inserted in the bill because the Bureau of the Budget said the 
    Census Bureau must have this language in order to expend their own 
    funds. We are merely trying to help the agency out. It does not 
    call for 5 cents expenditure; it does not call for either an 
    increase or a decrease in the appropriation. It is merely the way 
    costs are applied within the agency.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The point of order 
    is made that the following language, appearing on page 7, lines 11 
    to 15, ``The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal 
    year 1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on

[[Page 5750]]

    a reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, or 
    costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
    appropriations to the Bureau of the Census'' constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and has no reference to the 
    bill before the Committee.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Appropriation Continued Without Warrant Action

Sec. 30.11 Language in an appropriation bill for establishment of air-
    navigation facilities providing that the appropriation for a 
    preceding year ``is hereby continued available without warrant 
    action'' and merged with this appropriation, was held unauthorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Establishment of air-navigation facilities: For the 
        acquisition and establishment by contract or purchase and hire 
        of aid-navigation facilities, including the equipment of 
        additional civil airways for day and night flying . . . the 
        alteration and modernization of existing air-navigation 
        facilities; the acquisition of the necessary sites by lease or 
        grant . . . and hire, maintenance, repair, and operation of 
        passenger-carrying automobiles, $9,400,000: Provided, That the 
        consolidated appropriation under this head for the fiscal year 
        1945 is hereby continued available without warrant action until 
        June 30, 1946, and is hereby merged with this appropriation, 
        the total amount to be disbursed and accounted for as one fund.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 58, line 16, ``without warrant action'' 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 30.12 A provision in an appropriation bill for development of 
    landing areas making available funds from a prior appropriation 
    bill ``without warrant action'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5751]]

the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Development of landing areas: For completion of the program for 
    the construction, improvement, and repair of public airports for 
    national defense the consolidated appropriation under this head in 
    the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1943; shall remain 
    available until June 30, 1946, without warrant action, and the 
    portion thereof available for administrative expenses shall be 
    available also for the operation, maintenance, and repair of 
    passenger-carrying automobiles, and not to exceed $3,000 for 
    printing and binding. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make a point of order against the words on page 61, line 
    10, ``without warrant action'', that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making Available Other Funds by Reference to the Budget Estimates 
    Submitted by the President

Sec. 30.13 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating for the 
    Office of the Solicitor, Department of Agriculture, a specific 
    amount ``together with such amounts from other appropriations or 
    authorizations as are provided in the . . . Budget . . . which 
    several amounts . . . as may be determined by the Secretary . . . 
    shall be transferred to . . . this appropriation,'' was conceded to 
    be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950, (12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 5913, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 205, beginning with 
    line 8:
        together with such amounts from other appropriations or 
        authorizations as are provided in the schedules in the Budget 
        for the current fiscal year for such expenses, which several 
        amounts or portions thereof, as may be determined by the 
        Secretary, not exceeding a total of $207,000, shall be 
        transferred to and made a part of this appropriation: Provided, 
        however, That if the total amounts of such appropriations or 
        authorizations for the current fiscal year shall at any time 
        exceed or fall below the amounts estimated, respectively, 
        therefor in the budget for such year, the amounts transferred

[[Page 5752]]

        or to be transferred therefrom to this appropriation shall be 
        increased or decreased in such amounts as the Bureau of the 
        Budget, after a hearing thereon with representatives of the 
        Department, shall determine are appropriate to the requirements 
        as changed by such reductions or increases in such 
        appropriations or authorizations.

        I make a point of order against all of the remainder of the 
    provision relating to the Office of Solicitor on the ground that 
    the provision therein contained is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I can 
    only say that this is the usual and customary way of carrying these 
    funds. In fairness to the Chair, I think it does appear to be 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has made a point of order against 
    the language appearing on page 205 beginning with the words 
    ``together with such amounts'' in line 8 and through the remainder 
    of that paragraph, on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and in violation of the rules of the House. The 
    gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point of order; therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Transfers Within Department

Sec. 30.14 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing any 
    appropriation therein for the Treasury Department to be transferred 
    to any other appropriation for that department, with approval of 
    the Bureau of the Budget, and requiring the reporting of such 
    transfers to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
    Senate, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7060), Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point 
of order against the provision described above, as being legislation on 
an appropriation bill and bestowing authority not previously granted by 
law. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. The provision in question 
        stated: ``Not to exceed 2\1/2\% of any appropriation herein for 
        the Treasury Department . . . may be transferred with approval 
        of Bureau of the Budget, to any other appropriation of the 
        Department . . . and such transfers shall be reported promptly 
        to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).

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

[[Page 5753]]

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, obviously 
    the language is subject to a point of order, if the gentleman 
    insists on his point of order.
        The Chairman: The paragraph does contain legislation, as 
    maintained by the gentleman from Iowa; and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Sec. 30.15 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the transfer of 
    any appropriation available to the Post Office Department for the 
    current fiscal year to be transferred to any other such 
    appropriation was ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7060), a point of order was raised by Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, against the language described above. The following 
exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    language has been in the bill for many years. I believe the 
    gentleman will find that the transfer authority within this 
    Department is considerably different from the point he raised in 
    the case of the Treasury,(18) where there was 
    transferability between agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 30.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language probably is subject to a point of order, but it 
    can take from the Department the only device it has to cope with 
    unexpected and unforeseen changes in mail flow volume which can and 
    frequently do occur. That makes transferability almost vital to the 
    efficient functioning of the Department.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa insist on his point 
    of order?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The paragraph does contain legislative matter, 
    and the point of order is sustained.

Transfers Between Departments

Sec. 30.16 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    head of any department of the government having funds available for 
    scientific investigations to transfer such funds, under certain 
    conditions, to the Interior Department for expenditure by such 
    department was held to be legislation and ruled out of order.

    On May 2, 1951,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3790), a

[[Page 5754]]

point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 109. During the current fiscal year the head of any 
        department or establishment of the Government having funds 
        available for scientific and technical investigations within 
        the scope of the functions of the Department of the Interior 
        may, with the approval of the Secretary, transfer to the 
        Department such sums as may be necessary therefor, which sums 
        so transferred may be expended for the same objects and in the 
        same manner as sums appropriated herein but without their 
        limitations.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in section 109 on the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds in Other Acts Available for New Purpose

Sec. 30.17 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring that 
    funds provided in other acts be available for employment of guards 
    for government buildings and conferring certain powers on those 
    guards and on the Postmaster General was conceded to be subject to 
    a point of order and was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI 
    clauses 2 and 5 (5 now clause 6).

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and Executive Office appropriation bill (H.R. 9590) for fiscal 
1974, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, raised a point of order against 
certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 610. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
        the ``Building management fund'' (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), and the 
        ``Postal service fund'' (39 U.S.C. 2003), shall be available 
        for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
        occupied by the United States or the Postal Service and under 
        the charge and control of the General Services Administration 
        or the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, with respect 
        to such property, the powers of special policemen provided by 
        the first section of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 
        U.S.C. 318), but shall not be restricted to certain Federal 
        property as otherwise required by the proviso contained in said 
        section, and, as to property owned or occupied by the Postal 
        Service, the Postmaster General may take the same actions as 
        the Administrator of General Services may take under the 
        provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 
        Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b) attaching thereto penal 
        consequences under the authority and within the limits provided 
        in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 
        U.S.C. 318c).

[[Page 5755]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make, again, the same point of 
    order against the entirety of section 610, beginning with line 4 on 
    page 36.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sec. 30.18 A provision in an appropriation bill permitting an 
    appropriation previously made in another act to be used for a new 
    purpose was conceded to be legislation.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1970, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
point of order against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 38541, 48542, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Members' Clerk Hire

        After June 1, 1970, but without increasing the aggregate basic 
    clerk hire monetary allowance to which each Member and the Resident 
    Commissioner from Puerto Rico is otherwise entitled by law, the 
    appropriation for ``Members' clerk hire'' may be used for 
    employment of a ``student congressional intern'' in accord with the 
    provisions of House Resolution 416, Eighty-ninth Congress.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 6, beginning with line 11 and through line 18, as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard in support of the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I thought I made the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the Committee 
    on Appropriations put this legislation in the bill for the purpose 
    of accommodating Members. It is subject to a point of order, and 
    the point of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas has conceded the point 
    of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Funds Carried Forward for Same Purpose

Sec. 30.19 Where the bill providing an annual authorization for the 
    Coast Guard Reserve had not yet been enacted into law, an amendment 
    to a general appropriation bill containing funds for Coast Guard 
    Reserve training and providing that amounts equal to prior year 
    appropriations for that purpose should be transferred to

[[Page 5756]]

    that appropriation was held to contain an unauthorized 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and a 
    reappropriation of unexpended balances in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 5 (now clause 6).

    On June 20, 1973,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1974 [H.R. 8760], Mr. George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, raised a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 20538, 20539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 4, after line 23, insert:

                                Reserve Training

            For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
        authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; and 
        supplies, equipment, and services; $25,000,000: Provided, That 
        amounts equal to the obligated balances against appropriations 
        for ``Reserve training'' for the two preceeding years shall be 
        transferred to and merged with this appropriation, and such 
        merged appropriation shall be available as one fund, except for 
        accounting purposes of the Coast Guard, for payment of 
        obligations properly incurred against such prior year 
        appropriations and against this appropriation. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against 
    the amendment. The amendment, in my opinion, is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and the funds are not authorized by law, so I 
    make the point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clause 2, rule XXI, prohibits unauthorized items from being 
    included in amendments to a general appropriation bill, and also 
    clause 5, rule XXI, has a prohibition against the reappropriation 
    of unexpended balances of sums appropriated in prior years. The 
    amendment is subject to a point of order for these reasons and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Funds Continued Available for Same Purpose

Sec. 30.20 In an appropriation bill a provision that ``the unexpended 
    balance of appropriations heretofore reserved for moving the 
    International Broadcasting Service to the District of Columbia or 
    its environs shall remain available for such purpose until December 
    31, 1954,'' was ruled out, being a reappropriation in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 5 [now clause 6], the Chair also construing the 
    language to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

[[Page 5757]]

    On Mar. 3, 1954,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
appropriation. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 2600, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page 
    49, lines 11 to 14, I make a point of order against that language.
        The Chairman:(8) Will the gentleman explain his 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney: This would make available into another fiscal year 
    funds appropriated in the current year. There is no authority in 
    law for this.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio]: I concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Transfer of Funds to Other Agencies of Government for Authorized Work

Sec. 30.21 A provision in a general appropriation bill permitting 
    reimbursement (or advance transfer) of funds therein between 
    federal agencies for purposes authorized by law is in order as a 
    direction to the reimbursing agency as to the manner in which such 
    funds are to be expended--where existing law permits the 
    reimbursing agency to requisition services of other federal 
    agencies.

    On June 21, 1974,(9) during consideration of H.R 15472, 
the Department of Agriculture, Environmental and Consumer Protection 
appropriation bill, language authorizing the Environmental Protection 
Agency to transfer funds to other federal agencies for certain services 
rendered to the EPA was held not to change provisions of existing law 
permitting reimbursements between agencies, where the Committee on 
Appropriations cited statutory authority for such interagency 
agreements.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 20592, 20593, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See 31 USC Sec. 686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Energy Research and Development

            For energy research and development activities, including 
        hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and 
        operation of aircraft; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
        authorized by section 5901-5902, United States Code, title 5; 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
        individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the

[[Page 5758]]

         rate of GS-18; purchase of reprints; library memberships in 
        societies or associations which issue publications to members 
        only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who are 
        not members; $103,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        [Provided, That the Environmental Protection Agency may 
        transfer so much of the funds appropriated herein as it deems 
        appropriate to other federal agencies for energy research and 
        development activities that they may be in a position to 
        supply, or to render:] Provided further, That the amount 
        appropriated for ``Energy Research and Development'' in the 
        Special Energy Research and Development Appropriation Act, 
        1975, shall be merged, without limitation, with this 
        appropriation: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        contained in this Act shall be used to fund the development of 
        automotive power systems: Provided further, That this 
        appropriation shall be available only within the limits of 
        amounts authorized by law for fiscal year 1975.

                               point of order

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language at page 33, commencing with the word ``provided'' at line 
    17 down through the end of page 33, line 21.
        The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the language 
    complained of constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    is, as such, violative of rule XXI, clause 2.
        Mr. Chairman, I am prepared, at the convenience of the Chair, 
    to be heard on this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the basic authority for interagency agreements is 
    the Economy Act of 1932, which, subject to the limitation noted 
    below, permits the requisitioning of goods and services between 
    Federal agencies. Additionally, there are other statutes applicable 
    to EPA which authorize cooperation and coordination with other 
    Federal agencies, these include section 104(a), (b), (c), (i), (h), 
    (p), and (t) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; section 
    204 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; section 102(b) and 103 of the 
    Clean Air Act; section 14(1) of the Noise Control Act of 1972; and 
    sections 20(a), 22(b); and 23(b) of the Federal Pesticide Control 
    Act of 1972.
        So, the language to which the gentleman objects, while it might 
    be repetitious, is clearly authorized in numerous instances and is 
    not legislation on an appropriation bill, but a repetition of the 
    law as it now exists.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the point of order lies, not to the authority to 
    transfer, but the authority of the receiving agency. As the Chair 
    will note, the Environmental Protection Agency may transfer funds 
    as it deems appropriate to other Federal agencies for energy 
    research and development activities.
        First of all, I am not aware of EPA having any development 
    responsibilities in any of the statutes cited. Sec

[[Page 5759]]

    ond, I am not aware of any statutory authority for EPA to transfer 
    as it deems appropriate. This constitutes excessive authority far 
    beyond that existing in present law.
        In addition to this, the agencies to whom EPA might transfer 
    funds are not identified, and it is not clear who will be the 
    recipient agencies or what energy research and development 
    activities they shall go into. This is far beyond the authorities 
    under existing law, and I believe that the burden under the Rules 
    of the House is upon the proponents of the legislation to establish 
    the authority under which: First, the funds shall be transferred; 
    and second, under which the activities referred to in the section 
    will be carried out.
        One of the principal questions around which the point of order 
    revolves, Mr. Chairman, is the question of, First, who shall 
    conduct the activity; second, what shall be the activity conducted; 
    and third, under what authority will the agency's recipient of the 
    funds spent receive the funds and carry out the development and 
    research projects.
        I believe there has been no legislation cited by my good friend 
    from Mississippi which would indicate the authority for other 
    agencies to receive the funds or to engage in development and 
    research activities.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments of the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and believes that the arguments are fully covered by 
    Cannon's Precedents, House of Representatives, volume 7, page 468, 
    section 1470, which states:

            A proposition to transfer funds from one department of 
        government to another for the purposes authorized by law was 
        held not to involve legislation and to be in order in an 
        appropriation bill.

        Such reimbursement authority, where shown to be authorized by 
    law is therefore in order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Compare with Sec. Sec. 30.22 and 30.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of Funds Specifically Authorized for One Agency to Other 
    Unspecified Agencies

Sec. 30.22 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for the official residence of the Vice President and permitting 
    advances, repayments, or transfers of those funds to other 
    departments or agencies to carry out those activities (where 
    existing law authorized appropriations only to the General Services 
    Administration) was conceded to change existing law and was ruled 
    out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1976,(13) the following proceedings took 
place dur

[[Page 5760]]

ing consideration of H.R. 14261 (Treasury, Postal Service, and general 
government appropriations for fiscal 1977):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 17854, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    Official Residence of the Vice President

                               operating expenses

            For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
        furnishing, improvement, heating and lighting, including 
        electric power and fixtures, of the official residence of the 
        Vice President, $61,000: Provided, That advances or repayments 
        or transfers from this appropriation may be made to any 
        department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
        activities.

                               point of order

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language of the bill on page 8, lines 17 through 23, and page 9, 
    lines 1 and 2, as violative of rule XXI, clause 2, constituting 
    legislation in an appropriation bill, referring specifically to the 
    words following the word ``Provided'', at line 22, ``Provided, That 
    advances or repayments or transfers from this appropriation may be 
    made to any department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
    activities.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order and again leave the responsibility on the shoulders of the 
    gentleman who raises it and we will try to make the final bill 
    comply therewith.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order. For that reason the point of order is 
    sustained, and the entire paragraph is stricken.

Sec. 30.23 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing for 
    advances, repayments, and transfers from the appropriation therein 
    to any department or agency was ruled out in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2 as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On June 8, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 7552, Departments of Treasury, Postal Service, 
and general government appropriations for 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17922, 17923, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    Official Residence of the Vice President

                               operating expenses

            For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
        furnishing, improvement, heating and lighting, including 
        electric power and fixtures, of the official residence of the 
        Vice President, $61,000: Provided, That advances or repayments 
        or transfers from this appropriation may be made to any

[[Page 5761]]

        department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
        activities:

                              points of order

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against this portion of the bill on the basis 
    previously stated.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    (Mr. Steed) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, in this case there is authorization for the item. 
    In the 93d Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 202, passed July 12, 
    1974, provides for the inclusion of this item in the bill. It is 
    Public Law 93-346.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair direct a question to the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Harris) so that the gentleman may clarify his 
    point.
        Against what portion of this paragraph does the gentleman make 
    his point of order?
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with official 
    entertaining expenses in this item, and that is not authorized 
    under law.
        The Chairman: To what line is the gentleman referring? Will the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) explain it so we will know to 
    what specific lines of the paragraph he directs his point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I believe the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) made the point of order 
    against the entire item.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, this is the item on the Official 
    Executive Residence of the Vice President, Operating Expenses.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair state to the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Harris) that there is authorization for 
    appropriations for the official residence of the Vice President, if 
    that is the point the gentleman is attempting to address in this 
    matter. Therefore, that portion of the paragraph would not be 
    subject to a point of order.
        Mr. Harris: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) will 
    state his point of order.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, let me read this to be sure we are 
    speaking of the same item.
        I make a point of order against the language of the bill on 
    page 8, lines 20 through 25, and on page 9, lines 1 and 2. That 
    item is entitled ``Official Residence of the Vice President--
    Operating Expenses,'' and this language violates rule XXI, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House. That is the basis for the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, we have had previous 
    points of order sustained against this item, and, in fact, in last 
    year's appropriation bill a similar point of order was sustained.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair state that the present occupant of 
    the chair was the occupant of the chair last year and considered 
    the proviso starting on line 25 of page 8 and continuing through 
    line 26 and lines 1 and 2 on page 9. On that basis the point of

[[Page 5762]]

    order was sustained. However, the earlier designation, as the Chair 
    understood the statement of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris), would not follow, because basically there is authority for 
    the Vice President's residence.
        That is the reason the Chair is giving ample opportunity to the 
    Members to clarify the point of order. A point of order was in fact 
    sustained on the proviso mentioned last year. I understand the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is making a point of order 
    based on that proviso.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on the point of 
    order, if we read section 3 of this act, it says that the Secretary 
    of the Navy shall, subject to the supervision and control of the 
    Vice President, provide for the staffing, upkeep, alteration, and 
    furnishing of an official residence and grounds for the Vice 
    President.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not know what more authority we need.

        The Chairman:  The Chair will state that in line with the like 
    ruling last year, a paragraph in a general appropriation bill 
    containing funds for the official residence of the President and of 
    the Vice President and providing for advances, repayments or 
    transfers of those funds to other departments or agencies--not just 
    to General Services Administration--was conceded to change existing 
    law and was ruled out as being in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        Therefore, on the basis of the proviso, the point of order 
    issustained against the entire paragraph.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Public Law No. 93-346, appropriations 
for the Vice President's residence are authorized only to GSA, and not 
to other departments and agencies. If money is authorized only for a 
purpose and not to an agency, the Chair's ruling would be different.

Transfer Among Accounts Upon Approval of Committee

Sec. Sec. 30.24 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill authorizing 
    the transfer of funds for allowances and expenses with the approval 
    of the Committee on Appropriations was conceded to constitute 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 and was stricken from 
    the bill on a point of order.

    On Mar. 16, 1977,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4877, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 7747, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Such amounts as deemed necessary for the payment 
        ofallowances and expenses within this appropriation may be 
        transferred among accounts upon approval of the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of

[[Page 5763]]

    order against the language on page 29, line 17 through 20, 
    inclusive, on the grounds that the language as it is written 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        In previous instances where an appropriation bill has contained 
    similar language--and I emphasize the word ``similar''--the Chair 
    has held that it is permissible to allow language that would 
    transfer appropriations from one subhead to another in the same 
    enactment.
        The language before us, if it is read carefully, makes it 
    rather clear that what is being permitted is the transfer of 
    amounts, and they may be transferred, as the language says, among 
    accounts upon approval.
        It is not in fact an authorization to transfer amongst the 
    various moneys in this bill, but in fact could be used to authorize 
    the transfer of previously appropriated amounts not in this bill.
        Therefore, it exceeds the authority of the committee to in fact 
    consider it.
        I would make that point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will say 
    to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) that this language has 
    been carried for several years in the bill and is subject to a 
    point of order. The committee will concede the point of order.
        The Chairman:  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley) 
    concedes the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) and the language is stricken from the bill.

Transfer of Defense ``Funds Available'' to State

Sec. 30.25 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill transferring 
    available funds from a department to another department and 
    directing the use to which those funds must be put was conceded to 
    be legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, as well as a 
    reappropriation violating Rule XXI clause 6.

    On Dec. 8, 1982,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7355), a point of order was sustained to a portion of that bill, 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 29449, 29450, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 793. Of the funds available to the Department of 
        Defense, $200,000 shall be transferred to the Department of 
        Education which shall grant such sum to the Board of Education 
        of the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery, New York, central school 
        district. The funds transferred by this section shall be in 
        addition to any assistance to which the Board may be entitled 
        under subchapter 1, chapter 13 of Title 20 United States Code. 
        . . .

        I make a point of order against section 793, which provides 
    appropria

[[Page 5764]]

    tions without authorization, and constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, which I believe to be in violation of clause 2 
    of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo  [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    section is subject to a point of order, but this is a special case. 
    These are children of men and women at West Point who are attending 
    the public schools. If these funds are not allocated, the school 
    will close and there will be no school for these young people to 
    attend. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: 20 The gentleman insists 
    on his point of order, and the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Bailey (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will have to rule that, for the reasons conceded, the 
    point of order to section 793 as stated by the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Nichols) is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 31. Transfers or Disposition of Property

Transfer of Federal Property From One Agency to Another Without 
    Exchange of Funds

Sec. 31.1 A provision of a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    transfer of title to power facilities from one agency of government 
    to another without exchange of funds was conceded and held to 
    constitute legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

              Transfer of Certain Facilities, Denison Dam Project

            The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to transfer 
        to the Secretary of the Interior under arrangements 
        satisfactory to said Secretaries, without exchange of funds, 
        all right, title, and interest, including rights-of-way, of the 
        Department of the Army in and to the Denison-Payne 132-kilovolt 
        transmission line.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in the bill beginning line 20, 
    page 4, over to line 2, page 5, on the ground that it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Jackson) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Excess Property to Department of the Interior

Sec. 31.2 A provision in a general appropriation bill author

[[Page 5765]]

    izing transfers of excess property by federal agencies to the 
    Department of the Interior at the request of the Secretary of the 
    Interior without reimbursement or transfer of funds when required 
    by the Interior Department for operations conducted in territories 
    and island possessions was conceded to constitute legislation and 
    ruled out of order.

    On May 2, 1951,(3) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill (H.R. 3790), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 4739, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 111. Transfers to the Department of the Interior, 
        pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
        Act of 1949, of equipment, material and supplies, excess to the 
        needs of Federal agencies may be made at the request of the 
        Secretary without reimbursement or transfer of funds when 
        required by the Department for operations conducted in 
        Territories and island possessions.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating  [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 111 on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4)The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Property Transferred to Territory

Sec. 31.3 A provision in an appropriation bill authorizing property of 
    the Public Health Service to be transferred to the Territory of 
    Alaska without reimbursement in the discretion of the Surgeon 
    General was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Mar. 25, 1952,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the federal security appropriation bill (H.R. 
7151), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 2859, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Disease and sanitation investigations and control, 
        Territory of Alaska: To enable the Surgeon General to conduct, 
        in the Service, and to cooperate with and assist the Territory 
        of Alaska in the conduct of, activities necessary in the 
        investigation, prevention, treatment, and control of diseases, 
        and the establishment and maintenance of health and sanitation 
        services pursuant to and for the purposes specified in sections 
        301, 311, 314 (without regard to the provisions of subsections 
        (d), (f), (h), and (j) and the limitations set forth in 
        subsection (c) of such section), 361,

[[Page 5766]]

        363, and 704 of the Act, including the purchase of one 
        passenger motor vehicle, and hire, operation, and maintenance 
        of aircraft, $1,200,000: Provided, That property of the Public 
        Health Service located in Alaska and used in carrying out the 
        activities herein authorized may be transferred, without 
        reimbursement, to the Territory of Alaska at the discretion of 
        the Surgeon General.

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order against the proviso appearing on page 21, 
    beginning with line 9; but pending the Chairman's ruling, I would 
    like to ask a question.
        May I ask the chairman of the subcommittee, or the ranking 
    minority member, if either one can explain the provision which 
    gives the Surgeon General, at his own discretion, the right to 
    transfer property of the United States to the Territory of Alaska. 
    It seems to me a delegation of authority of the Congress, 
    especially when there is no indication of the value of the 
    property, might be dangerous. I cannot find anything in the report, 
    nor can I recall that there was anything in the bill of the 
    preceding session.
        I make the point of order this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and a delegation of authority. May I ask the 
    chairman what this is all about?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: As far as the 
    committee is concerned, I may say that a point of order lies there 
    and we are willing to accept it. I cannot give the gentleman the 
    figures. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Phillips] makes a point of order against the language on page 21, 
    line 9 through 13, beginning with the word ``Provided.'' The 
    gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty] concedes the point of 
    order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriation of Property

Sec. 31.4 Existing law authorizing the appropriation of funds for a 
    certain purpose ``including U.S. contributions in funds or 
    otherwise'' does not permit inclusion in an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill of language directly appropriating property in 
    lieu of funds, such a matter being within the legislative 
    jurisdiction of another committee of the House and not being an 
    appropriation of revenue.

    On June 3, 1944,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4937), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 90 Cong. Rec. 5246, 5247, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case: Page 5, line 11, strike out 
        ``$450,000,000'' and insert ``$428,300,000 in funds and 
        61,740,000 pounds of raw wool from

[[Page 5767]]

        stocks owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the amendment. It is not germane, and 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It involves legislation 
    pertaining to the appropriation of wool whereas the pending bill 
    relates exclusively to the appropriation of money.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand Public Law 267 of the 
    Seventy-eighth Congress, which is the U.N.R.R.A. Act, under which 
    the appropriation in this section is proposed. The first paragraph 
    of that Act reads as follows:

            Resolved, etc., That there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated to the President such sums, not to exceed 
        $1,350,000,000 in the aggregate, as the Congress may determine 
        from time to time to be appropriate for participation by the 
        United States (including contributions in funds or otherwise 
        and all necessary expenses related thereto) in the work of the 
        United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.

        Further, section 6 of the act specifically sets forth that 
    Congress may determine the character of our contributions as well 
    as the amount by using this language:

            In adopting this joint resolution the Congress does so with 
        the following reservation:
            ``That in the case of the United States the appropriate 
        constitutional body to determine the amount and character and 
        time of the contributions of the United States is the Congress 
        of the United States.''

        I submit to the Chair that the basic act under which this 
    entire appropriation is authorized specifically, in the first 
    paragraph, uses the words ``including contributions in funds or 
    otherwise.'' Unless something like raw wool or something else might 
    be offered as part of the aggregate of the $1,350,000,000, the 
    words ``or otherwise'' as contrasted with ``funds'' would have no 
    meaning.
        That is buttressed by the language in section 6, which provides 
    that the Congress may determine the amount, which relates to the 
    aggregate, and the character. Obviously the word ``character'' is 
    intended to include contributions of character other than money.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The authorization for this 
    appropriation is Public Law 267 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, an 
    act which authorizes the appropriation of sums of money. We are 
    authorized under this law to appropriate money and nothing else. 
    Later on, after the money is appropriated then, as the gentleman 
    suggests, if you want to substitute commodities, that is 
    permissible, but the authorization is to appropriate money, and 
    money only.
        Any proposition to appropriate commodities is not authorized by 
    law and is not germane to the bill.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the basic authorization 
    for this appropriation is Public Law 267, which is what I cited, 
    but the gentleman from Missouri read only a part of the first 
    paragraph and ignored the last part of it to which I called the 
    gentleman's at

[[Page 5768]]

    tention, where it specifically provides for ``funds or otherwise''; 
    and he certainly ignored section 6, which reserved for Congress the 
    right to determine not only the amount but the character of the 
    contribution.
        The Chairman: The authorization, as has been stated, is under 
    Public Law 267, Seventy-eighth Congress. The first paragraph of 
    that law reads:

            That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President such sums, not to exceed $1,350,000,000 in the 
        aggregate as the Congress may determine from time to time to be 
        appropriate for participation by the United States (including 
        contributions in funds or otherwise).

        The Chair is of the opinion that inasmuch as this is an 
    appropriation, and inasmuch as the Committee on Appropriations is 
    limited to making appropriations of money, this bill could provide 
    only for an appropriation of money, and that if Congress should 
    determine to make other property owned by the Government available, 
    it would have to be under legislation submitted to the Congress by 
    an appropriate committee.
        In view of that interpretation, the Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

Transfer of Facilities and Property Rights

Sec. 31.5 Language in an appropriation bill transferring certain 
    facilities of the Fort Peck Project, Montana, from the Department 
    of the Army to the Department of the Interior was conceded to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On May 1, 1951,(9) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill (H.R. 3790), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 4659, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 18, lines 7 to 21, on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The language is as follows:

           Transfer of Certain Facilities, Fort Peck Project, Montana

            The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to transfer 
        to the Department of the Interior without exchange of funds, 
        all of the right, title, and interest of the Department of the 
        Army in and to the following facilities, including rights-of-
        way (except that portion of the rights-of-way within the Fort 
        Peck Reservoir area), but there shall be reserved the right to 
        use the power facilities for the purpose of transmitting power 
        to the Fort Peck project during emergency periods when the Fort 
        Peck power plant is not functioning: (a) the Fort Peck-Rainbow 
        (Great Falls) 161-kilovolt transmission line; (b) the Rainbow 
        (Great Falls) terminal facilities; and (c) the Fort Peck-
        Whatley 50-kilovolt-transmission line and substation.

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I submit that 
    the point

[[Page 5769]]

    of order made by the gentleman from New York comes too late.
        The Chairman: (10) The point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) is timely. Does the gentleman 
    from Ohio desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kirwan: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

District of Columbia, Transfer of Hospitals Between Agencies

Sec. 31.6 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    appropriating for hospitals and sanatoria coupled with language 
    transferring hospitals and sanatoria from the Board of Public 
    Welfare to the Board of Commissioners was held to be legislative in 
    nature and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(11) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 3108, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            For the following hospital and sanatoria, which, on and 
        after July 1, 1937, shall be under the direction and control of 
        the health department of the District of Columbia and subject 
        to the supervision of the Board of Commissioners.

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 46 beginning in line 1, 
    after the word ``sanatoria'', ending with the word 
    ``Commissioners'', in line 5 of the same page, that it is clearly 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, which is contrary to 
    the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
         The Chairman: The gentlewoman from New Jersey makes a point of 
    order against certain language in the first paragraph on page 46. 
    Under existing law these hospitals and institutions are under the 
    Board of Public Welfare. This provision seeks to transfer these 
    hospitals and institutions to the Department of Health. It is 
    obviously legislation on a general appropriation bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

No Property To Be Withheld From Distribution

Sec. 31.7 Where existing law directed a federal official to provide for 
    the sale of certain government property to private organizations in 
    ``necessary'' amounts, but did not require that all such property 
    shall be distributed by sale, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill providing that no such property shall be 
    withheld from

[[Page 5770]]

    distribution from qualifying purchasers was ruled out as 
    legislation requiring disposal of all property and restricting 
    discretionary authority to determine ``necessary'' amounts and not 
    constituting (as required by the Holman rule) a certain 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 13635), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 24707, 24708, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: On 
        page 8, after line 10, add the following new section:

            None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
        in this Act shall be obligated or expended for salaries or 
        expenses during the current fiscal year in connection with the 
        demilitarization of any arms as advertised by the Department of 
        Defense, Defense Logistics Agency sale number 31-8118 issued 
        January 24, 1978, and listed as ``no longer needed by the 
        Federal Government'' and that such arms shall not be withheld 
        from distribution to purchasers who qualify for purchase of 
        said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 
        4308. . . .

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the amendment on the ground that I believe that 
    it is legislation within a general appropriation bill and, 
    therefore, violates the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. John T. Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple limitation 
    amendment. It merely limits the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    continue to carry out existing law. It does not provide any new 
    law. It simply says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry 
    out the prevailing, existing law. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, rule 21, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House [House Rules and Manual pages 426-427] 
    specifies that an amendment to an appropriation bill is in order if 
    it meets certain tests, such as:
        First. It must be germane;
        Second. It must be negative in nature;
        Third. It must show retrenchment on its face;
        Fourth. It must impose no additional or affirmative duties or 
    amend existing law.
        First. [The amendment] is germane. As the amendment applies to 
    the distribution of arms by the Defense Logistics Agency, it is not 
    exclusively an Army of civilian marksmanship amendment, so should 
    not be placed elsewhere in the bill. . . .
        Second. It is negative in nature. It limits expenditure of 
    funds by the Defense Department by prohibiting the destruction and 
    scrapping of arms which qualify for sale through the civilian 
    marksmanship program, which is a division of the executive created 
    by statute.
        Third. It shows retrenchment on its face. Retrenchment is 
    demonstrated in

[[Page 5771]]

    that the Department of Defense if prohibited from expending funds 
    to destroy surplus military arms, and that the arms previously 
    earmarked for destruction will be made available in accordance with 
    existing statute. . . . The House, in adding this amendment, will 
    secure additional funds for the Treasury which the General 
    Accounting Office has determined is adequate to pay costs of 
    handling the arms. For example, the M-1 rifles are to be sold at a 
    cost of $110 each. These are the arms most utilized by the civilian 
    marksmanship program. The Defense Department will not be required 
    to spend additional funds to process the sale of additional arms. . 
    . .
        . . . [The amendment] does not impose additional or affirmative 
    duties or amend existing law. . . .
        Regulations issued . . . AR 725-1 and AR 920-20 provide for the 
    issuance of arms by application and qualification through the 
    Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The DCM shall then submit sale 
    orders for the Armament Readiness Military Command [ARMCOM] to fill 
    the requests of these qualified civilians. Thus, the amendment 
    simply requires the performance of duties already imposed by the 
    Army's own regulation. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I particularly call attention of the 
    Chair to the second half of the amendment, which imposes an 
    affirmative duty on the Secretary, saying that such arms shall not 
    be withheld from distribution to purchasers who qualify for 
    purchase of said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, 
    section 4308.
        Under the general existing law, there are all kinds of 
    discretions that are allowed to the Secretary to decide whether or 
    not such arms shall be distributed. Under this amendment, the 
    existing law is to be changed and those arms may not be withheld. 
    The practical purpose is to turn loose 400,000 to 500,000 rifles 
    into the body politic.
        But the parliamentary effect is clearly to change the existing 
    law under which the Secretary can exercise all kinds of discretion 
    in deciding whether or not those arms will be distributed. Under 
    this amendment it not only limits the fact that the funds may be 
    obligated but it specifically goes on to affirmatively direct the 
    Secretary to distribute such arms under title X, which is an 
    affirmative obligation, which is exactly the kind of obligation the 
    rules prohibit, and I renew my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman:(14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the section to which the gentleman refers, 
    title 10, United States Code, section 4308, and is of the opinion 
    that it does not require that all firearms be distributed to 
    qualified purchasers. The Chair further feels that while the first 
    part of the amendment is a limitation, the last part of the 
    amendment is a curtailment of Executive discretion, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 32. Appropriations Prior to or Beyond Fiscal Year

    Statutes provide that appropriations in annual appropriation acts 
are not permanent. Thus, no spe

[[Page 5772]]

cific or indefinite appropriation made subsequent to Aug. 24, 1912, in 
any regular annual appropriation act shall be construed to be permanent 
or available continuously without reference to a fiscal year unless it 
belongs to one of the following four classes: ``Rivers and harbors,'' 
``lighthouses,'' ``public buildings,'' and ``pay of the Navy and Marine 
Corps,'' or unless it is made in terms expressly providing that it 
shall continue to be available beyond the fiscal year covered by the 
appropriation act in which it is contained.(15) Except as 
otherwise provided by law, all balances of appropriations contained in 
the annual appropriation bills and made specifically for the service of 
any fiscal year shall only be applied to the payment of expenses 
properly incurred during that year, or to the fulfillment of contracts 
properly made within that year.(16) Thus, provisions in 
general appropriation bills which make funds available for the payment 
of obligations chargeable against prior appropriations are legislative 
in character. But appropriations for public buildings are available 
until completion of the work. A statute provides:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 31 USC Sec. 1301.
16. 31 USC Sec. 1502.
17. 31 USC Sec. 1307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All moneys appropriated for the construction of public 
    buildings shall remain available until the completion of the work 
    for which they are, or may be, appropriated; and upon the final 
    completion of each or any of said buildings, and the payment of all 
    outstanding liabilities therefor, the balance or balances remaining 
    shall be immediately covered into the 
    Treasury.                          -------------------

General Rule--Public Building Construction Funds

Sec. 32.1 Although it is generally not in order in a general 
    appropriation bill to require that funds therein shall be 
    ``available until expended'' or beyond the fiscal year covered by 
    the bill unless the authorizing law contains that provision, such 
    language may be included where other existing law can be 
    interpreted to permit that availability. Thus, a provision in a 
    general appropriation bill that funds therein for the construction 
    of the west front of the U.S. Capitol shall ``remain available 
    until expended'' was held not to constitute legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2 where an existing law provided that 
    funds for public building construction shall remain available until 
    the completion of the work.

[[Page 5773]]

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
[H.R. 6691], a point of order was raised against a provision as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 12781, 12782, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Edward] Roush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the language found on page 17 of the bill, 
    lines 14 through 22.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                            Extension of the Capitol

            For an amount, additional to amounts heretofore 
        appropriated, for ``Extension of the Capitol'', in substantial 
        accordance with plans for extension of the West Central front 
        heretofore approved by the Commission for Extension of the 
        United States Capitol, to be expended as authorized by law, by 
        the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of such 
        Commission, $58,000,000, to remain available until expended.

        Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John M. Murphy [N. Y.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is based upon these 
    following facts: The appropriation as proposed lacks legislative 
    authority and, secondly, the language ``$58,000,000 to remain 
    available until expended'' constitutes legislation on a general 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I point to rule XXI [which] prohibits an 
    appropriation in a general appropriation bill unless previously 
    authorized [as well as] provisions changing existing law. I will 
    take my second point first, Mr. Chairman, the prohibition against 
    changing existing law.
        I would refer to the appropriation bill last year, which would 
    be Public Law 92-342, under the section ``Extension of the 
    Capitol:''

            Funds available under this appropriation may be used for 
        the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the 
        west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be 
        used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of 
        construction of said project until specifically approved and 
        appropriated therefor by the Congress.

        I point out to the Chairman that the plans have not been 
    specifically approved.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, I would point to an old provision of the 
    law which is found in the United States Code, 1970 edition, title 
    40, section 162 (providing that) no change in the architectural 
    features of the Capitol Building or landscape features of the 
    Capitol Grounds shall be made except on plans to be approved by the 
    Congress.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I am again going back to rule XXI. The 
    question then arises as to whether or not the Congress has passed 
    authorizing legislation. Mr. Chairman, I have searched this matter 
    diligently and the only authority that I can find for the extension 
    of the west front of the Capitol necessarily has to be inferred 
    from the language of a bill which was passed in 1955. I would like 
    to read that section of that bill. Again it is entitled ``Extension 
    of the Capitol'':

[[Page 5774]]

            The Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized, under 
        the direction of a Commission for Extension of the United 
        States Capitol . . . to provide for the extension, 
        reconstruction, and replacement of the central portion of the 
        United States Capitol in substantial accordance with scheme B 
        of the architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of 
        Congress and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House 
        Document numbered 385, Fifty-eighth Congress), but with . . . 
        modifications and additions . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is the authority for the 
    extension of the East Front and Scheme B is the key reference in 
    the 1955 statute, and those words are in substantial accord with 
    Scheme B of the architectural plan, et cetera. Scheme B, as it is 
    referred to, provides that the building--referring to the Capitol 
    Building--should be projected eastward 32 feet, 6 inches from the 
    wall of the Supreme Court and statuary hall--should be projected 
    eastward, Mr. Chairman.
        The question then arises can authority be inferred? Certainly 
    there is no specific authority granted by this authority by 
    inferring from that wording, which affects the rest of Scheme B. 
    And I respectfully submit that the answer is ``no,'' that that is 
    not the effect of the statute. It is not another program, it is not 
    another sentence, it is a continuation of the same sentence, and 
    the only possible inference is that the language was inserted to 
    implement Scheme B, which calls for an extension of the East Front.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for the appropriation 
    of $58 million, to remain available until expended. The precedents 
    of the House are explicit that an appropriation made available 
    until expended is in the nature of legislation and not in order on 
    a general appropriations bill, and thus is in violation of rule 21. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casey) desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Bob] Casey of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        Mr. Chairman, this project is authorized, and I would point out 
    that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roush) who is making the point 
    of order, failed to read all of Public Law 242 of the 84th 
    Congress.
        The law reads:
        Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is 
    hereby authorized. . . .
    Et cetera.

            In substantial accordance with Scheme B of the 
        architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress 
        and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document 
        Numbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Congress), but with such 
        modifications and additions, including provisions for 
        restaurant facilities and such other facilities in the Capitol 
        Grounds, together with utilities. . . .

        It does not just refer to one item. I think this gives great 
    latitude.

            Together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other 
        appurtenant or necessary items . . . there is hereby 
        appropriated $5,000,000, to remain until expended: Provided, 
        that the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of said 
        commission and without regard to the provisions of section 3709 
        of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized to enter 
        into contracts.

        Et cetera.

[[Page 5775]]

        This law was amended February 14, 1956, and there was added 
    this amendment under ``Extension of the Capitol.'' This was Public 
    Law 406, 84th Congress:

            The paragraph entitled ``Extension of the Capitol'' in the 
        Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, is hereby amended by 
        inserting after the words ``to remain available until 
        expended'' and before the colon, a comma and the following: 
        ``and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 
        additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be 
        required for the purposes hereof.

        Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the authority is 
    here for any and all changes under plan B as put together in the 
    architectural plan, because there is language in there ``with such 
    modifications and additions'' as well as ``other appurtenant or 
    necessary items, as may be approved by said Commission,'' and the 
    Capitol building includes not only the East Front, but it includes 
    the West Front. I submit the point of order is not well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has listened carefully to the debate and the laws and 
    precedents cited by the gentlemen from Indiana and Texas; and the 
    Chair has had an opportunity to examine the authorizing legislation 
    for the West Front construction, and would note that in 1956--
    Public Law 84-406--the basic statute was amended to provide that--

            There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 
        additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be 
        required for the purposes hereof.

        The Chair would also call the Members' attention to the 
    provisions of 31 U.S. Code 682,(20) which provides that 
    all moneys appropriated for construction of public buildings shall 
    remain available until the completion of the work for which they 
    are, or may be appropriated. Therefore, the inclusion of the 
    language ``to remain available until expended'' in the 
    appropriation bill, although not contained in the basic authorizing 
    statute for the West Front, cannot be considered a change in 
    existing law since other existing law--31 U.S.C. 682--already 
    permits funds for public building construction to remain available 
    until work is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Now 31 USC Sec. 1307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana also contends that Public Law 92-342 
    requires ``specific'' approval by Congress of preparation of final 
    plans or initiation of construction prior to an appropriation 
    therefor. The Chair has examined the legislative history of the 
    provision relied upon by the gentleman from Indiana in support of 
    his argument that the appropriation must be specifically approved 
    by Congress prior to the appropriation, and it is clear from the 
    debate in the Senate on March 28, 1972, that approval in an 
    appropriation bill was all that was required by the provision in 
    Public Law 92-342. The Chair feels that there is sufficient 
    authorization contained in Public Law 92-342 as amended by Public 
    Law 84-406 for the appropriation contained in the pending bill, and 
    that no further specific authorization is required prior to an 
    appropriation for final plans and construction for the West Front.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5776]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: As noted in the introduction to this 
section, certain exceptions are made to the general provision of 31 USC 
Sec. 718 that ``no specific or indefinite appropriation . . . in any 
regular annual appropriation Act shall be construed to be permanent or 
available continuously without reference to a fiscal year,'' one of the 
exceptions being appropriations for ``public buildings.''

Where Authorization for Continued Availability is Lacking

Sec. 32.2 An appropriation for railroad research ``to remain available 
    until expended'' was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill where the authorizing statute (Pub. L. No. 91-458) did not 
    make those funds available beyond the fiscal year for which 
    appropriated.

    On July 14, 1971,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill (H.R. 9667), the following point of order was 
raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 24913, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order as to the language on page 16, lines 1 through 3, as 
    being an unauthorized appropriation and violating rule XXI, clause 
    2.
        The portion of the bill reads as follows:

                               Railroad Research

            For necessary expenses for conducting railroad research 
        activities, $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.

        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The point of order which the gentleman from Missouri makes is 
    with reference to the language that indicates the amount of $7 
    million for conducting railroad research activities will remain 
    available until expended. The phrase ``to remain available until 
    expended'' is legislation on an appropriation bill. Just as soon as 
    I can get an amendment ready I will offer an amendment which will 
    preserve the $7 million and leave out the ``to remain available 
    until expended.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California concede the 
    point of order?
        Mr. McFall: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Characterization of an Appropriation as ``Final''

Sec. 32.3 In an appropriation bill, where an appropriation is

[[Page 5777]]

    authorized by a law which would remain effective in the future, 
    words designating an appropriation as ``a final appropriation'' for 
    ``completing'' acquisition of certain land under authority of such 
    law were conceded to constitute legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 4128, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Land acquisition, National Capital park, parkway, and 
        playground system: As a final appropriation under authority of 
        the act of May 29, 1930 (46 Stat. 482), as amended, for 
        necessary expenses for the National Capital Planning Commission 
        for completing acquisition of land for the park, parkway, and 
        playground system of the National Capital, to remain available 
        until expended, $545,000, of which (a) $135,000 shall be 
        available for the purposes of section 1(a) of said act of May 
        29, 1930, (b) $126,000 shall be available for the purposes of 
        section 1(b) thereof, and (c) $284,000 shall be available for 
        the purposes of section 4 thereof: Provided, That not exceeding 
        $26,450 of the funds available for land acquisition purposes 
        shall be used during the current fiscal year for necessary 
        expenses of the Commission (other than payments for land) in 
        connection with land acquisition.

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I desire to interpose a 
    point of order to the language contained in line 17 on page 35: 
    ``as a final appropriation''; and on line 20 against the word 
    ``completing.''. . .
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: I will concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Funds ``To Be Immediately Available''

Sec. 32.4 Under the modern practice the provision that an appropriation 
    shall be immediately available is not subject to a point of order: 
    language in the independent offices appropriation bill making the 
    appropriations for administrative expenses for public works advance 
    planning immediately available was held in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 942, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 5778]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: On page 18, 
        line 12, insert:
            ``Public works advance planning: Toward accomplishing the 
        provisions of title V of the War Mobilization and Reconversion 
        Act of 1944, $5,000,000, of which not to exceed 4 percent shall 
        be available for administrative expenses necessary therefor, to 
        be immediately available and to remain available until June 30, 
        1946, including salary for not to exceed one position at 
        $10,000 per annum; personal services and rent in the District 
        of Columbia; printing and binding; purchase and exchange of 
        lawbooks and books of reference; purchase (not exceeding 5) and 
        repair, maintenance, and operation of passenger automobiles; 
        and travel expenses (not to exceed $10,000).''

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the amendment just 
    offered reading, ``to be immediately available,'' and call the 
    attention of the Chair to the fact that the bill is an 
    appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946. I 
    direct this point of order merely against the language, ``to be 
    immediately available.''
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered 
    conforms to the point of order which the gentleman made to the 
    paragraph originally. The language in line 17, ``to be immediately 
    available,'' had not been complained of by the gentleman from South 
    Dakota.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case] makes 
    a point of order against the language indicated by the gentleman 
    from Virginia, ``to be immediately available.'' Does the gentleman 
    from Virginia desire to be heard further?
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: I do not, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In volume 7, Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1120, the Chair finds the following language:

            Under the modern practice the provision that an 
        appropriation shall be immediately available is not subject to 
        a point of order.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Permanent Appropriations

Sec. 32.5 Language in a general appropriation bill making 
    appropriations available beyond the current fiscal year is 
    legislation and not in order: appropriations for fulfilling 
    treaties with certain Indians on a permanent basis and 
    appropriations from proceeds from power projects on a similar basis 
    have been conceded as legislation and not in order.

    On May 3, 1950,(7) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the Agriculture Depart

[[Page 5779]]

ment appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), the following point of order was 
raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 6304, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 227, lines 13 to 18, 
    inclusive, and on page 227, lines 19 to 25, inclusive, and page 
    228, lines 1 and 2 on the ground that it is permanent legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The language to which the point of order is made is as follows:

                         Claims and Treaty Obligations

            For fulfilling treaties with Senecas and Six Nations of New 
        York, Choctaws and Pawnees of Oklahoma, and payment to Indians 
        of Sioux reservations, to be expended as provided by law, such 
        amounts as may be necessary after June 30, 1950.

                              Proceeds from Power

            After June 30, 1950, not to exceed the amount of power 
        revenues covered into the Treasury to the credit of each of the 
        power projects, including revenues credited prior to August 7, 
        1946, shall be available for the purposes authorized by section 
        3 of the act of August 7, 1946 (Public Law 647), as amended, 
        including printing and binding, in connection with the 
        respective projects from which such revenues are derived.

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Washington 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    both points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the points of order.

Available to End of Next Fiscal Year

Sec. 32.6 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds 
    [to collect and publish certain statistics on voting] to be 
    available until the end of the next fiscal year, was conceded to be 
    legislation and ruled out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 6, 1965,(9) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7091), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 7131, 7132, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Department of Commerce

                              Bureau of the Census

                       Registration and Voting Statistics

            For expenses necessary for the collection, compilation, and 
        publication of statistics on registration and voting, in such 
        geographic areas as may be recommended by the Commission on 
        Civil Rights, as authorized by section 801 of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 266), $7,500,000, to remain available 
        until December 31, 1966.

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 21, lines 2 through 9, 
    and ask to be heard on the point of order.

[[Page 5780]]

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Florida [Mr. Sikes].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, the language in this section goes 
    beyond the period of time set forth in the bill H.R. 7091. The 
    preamble of this bill states that it is a bill making supplemental 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965. The 
    language on lines 2 through 9, page 21, proposes to have the funds, 
    $7.5 million, remain available until December 31, 1966. There is no 
    such authority in the basic law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, the proposed 
    appropriation of $7.5 million contained in the bill for the Bureau 
    of the Census is for the purpose of a registration and voting 
    statistics survey covering the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and 
    Mississippi, to provide a count of all persons of voting age and a 
    determination of the following information for each such person: 
    ``(1) citizenship, (2) residence, (3) years of school completed, 
    (4) race and color, (5) whether registered to vote in Federal 
    elections, (6) whether voted in the most recent statewide primary 
    election and general election in which Members of the U.S. House of 
    Representatives were nominated or elected.''
        As appears at page 161 of the printed hearings on this pending 
    bill, the following questions were asked and the following answers 
    given concerning this requested $7.5 million appropriation:

            Mr. Rooney: What is the legal authority for this proposed 
        activity of the Department of Commerce?
            Mr. Eckler: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act indicates 
        that the Secretary of Commerce shall promptly conduct a survey 
        to compile registration and voting statistics in such 
        geographic areas as may be recommended by the Commission on 
        Civil Rights.
            I believe we have included a full text of title VIII, 
        section 801, in the material which was put into the record.
            Mr. Rooney: Where do you get the authority for the 
        unlimited availability?
            Mr. Imhoff: We have no specific authority for that, Mr. 
        Chairman.

        In view of this, the gentleman from New York is reluctantly 
    constrained to concede that the gentleman's point of order is well 
    taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The purpose of the bill is to make supplemental appropriations 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965. The language on page 21, 
    line 9, is ``to remain available until December 31, 1966'', which 
    goes beyond the purpose of the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Available for Next Fiscal Year

Sec. 32.7 To a supplemental appropriation bill, an amendment to 
    increase a limitation on use of funds for administrative purposes 
    contained in another act and to make such funds available beyond 
    the current fiscal year was conceded to be legislation and 
    therefore was ruled out as not in order.

[[Page 5781]]

    On May 7, 1957,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 7221) 
for fiscal year 1957, a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 6431, 6432, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [DeWitt S.] Hyde [of Maryland]: 
        Page 5, after line 10, insert the following item:

         ``Administration Expenses, Employees' Life Insurance Fund

            ``The limitation under this head in the Independent Offices 
        Appropriation Act, 1957, on the amount made available from the 
        `Employees' life insurance fund,' for reimbursement to the 
        Civil Service Commission for administrative expenses incurred 
        in the administration of the Federal Employees' Group Life 
        Insurance Act, is increased from `$117,500' to `$194,000.'

        ``Not to exceed $23,000 of the funds in the `Employees' life 
    insurance fund' shall be available for reimbursement to the Civil 
    Service Commission during the fiscal year 1958, for administrative 
    expenses incurred by the Commission during that fiscal year in the 
    administration of said act, and such amount shall be in addition to 
    any amounts otherwise made available from the fund for such 
    expenses for the fiscal year 1958.''. . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly 
    I must state that the committee insists on the point of order. . .
        You will recall that the language, Mr. Chairman, does two 
    things that makes the amendment subject to a point of order. It 
    first attempts to increase the limitation, then in the next place 
    it attempts to take part of the funds so limited and transfer them 
    from that fund to the general administrative expense fund of the 
    Civil Service Commission.
        No. 2. This is a deficiency appropriation bill for the fiscal 
    year 1957. The language attempts to carry the fund over and beyond 
    and into the fiscal year 1958; therefore it is over and beyond the 
    scope of the bill.
        It is subject to a point of order on two counts.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hyde: Only to the extent of asking the very genial chairman 
    of the committee a question. I understand that the chairman is 
    objecting to this amendment not on its merit but on a technical 
    basis.
        Mr. Thomas: Let us take one hurdle at a time. I am objecting 
    now on two scores.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I must bow to the wisdom of the 
    chairman. I recognize that the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order?
        Mr. Hyde: Yes.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Available ``Each Fiscal Year Thereafter''; Permanent Appropriation

Sec. 32.8 Language in an appropriation bill making appro

[[Page 5782]]

    priations beyond the current fiscal year is legislation: language 
    in the general appropriation bill making appropriations for the 
    Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the current year ``and each 
    fiscal year thereafter'' from the sale of stamps was conceded to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 4, 1950,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), the 
following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 6400, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order, on the ground it is permanent legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in accordance with the rules of the 
    House, to the language appearing in lines 18 to 24, page 246, and 
    reading as follows:

                        Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

            For carrying into effect section 4 of the act of March 16, 
        1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 718-718h), amounts equal to the 
        sums received during the current year and each fiscal year 
        thereafter from the proceeds from the sale of stamps, to be 
        warranted monthly and to remain available until expended.

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from 
    Washington [Mr. Jackson] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order and at the proper time will offer an amendment 
    in lieu of the language appearing at that point in the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen] makes a 
    point of order against the language mentioned by him, the gentleman 
    from Washington [Mr. Jackson] concedes the point of order, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Fees and Royalties Hereafter Received; Permanent Appropriation

Sec. 32.9 Language in a general appropriation bill making fees and 
    royalties collected pursuant to law available beyond the current 
    fiscal year is legislation and not in order.

    On May 3, 1950,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), the following points of order were raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 96 Cong. Rec. 6296, 6297, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph appearing on page 222, lines 18 through 
    25, and page 223, lines 1 through 3, which is as follows:

[[Page 5783]]

                               Range Improvements

            The aggregate of all moneys received after June 30, 1950, 
        as range-improvement fees under the provisions of section 3 of 
        the Act of June 28, 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315) and 25 per centum of 
        all moneys received after June 30, 1950, under the provisions 
        of section 15 of said Act (in addition to all moneys received 
        during the fiscal year 1950 from either of such sources but not 
        yet appropriated) shall be available until expended for 
        construction, purchase, and maintenance of range improvement 
        pursuant to the provisions of sections 3 and 10 of said Act.

        Mr. Jensen: . . . I make a point of order against the language 
    on page 223, lines 13 through 24, which language is as follows:

                              Payment to Oklahoma

            Thirty-seven and one-half percent of the royalties received 
        after June 30, 1950 (in addition to 37\1/2\ percent of all 
        royalties received during the fiscal year 1950 but not yet 
        appropriated), from the south half of Red River in Oklahoma 
        under the provisions of the joint resolution of June 12, 1926 
        (44 Stat. 740), shall be available for payment to the State of 
        Oklahoma in lieu of all State and local taxes upon tribal funds 
        accruing under said act, to be expended by the State in the 
        same manner as if received under section 35 of the act approved 
        February 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C. 191).

        I make a point of order against the language on page 224, lines 
    1 through 8, which language is as follows:

                            Leasing of Grazing Lands

            The aggregate of all moneys received after June 30, 1950 
        (in addition to all moneys received during the fiscal year 1950 
        but not yet appropriated), from grazing fees for State, county, 
        or privately owned lands leased in accordance with the 
        provisions of the act of June 23, 1938 (43 U.S.C. 315m-4), 
        shall be available until expended for leasing of such lands.

        I make a point of order against the language on page 224, lines 
    9 through 16, which language is as follows:

                       Payments to States (Grazing Fees)

            Thirty-three and one-third percent of all grazing fees 
        received after June 30, 1950, from each grazing district on 
        Indian lands ceded to the United States for disposition under 
        the public-lands laws, shall be available for payment to the 
        State in which said lands are situated, in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 11 of the act of June 28, 1934, as 
        amended (43 U.S.C. 315j).

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language I 
    have indicated, in each instance, has the effect of making 
    appropriations on a permanent basis, which goes beyond the scope of 
    the bill and also constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    and, therefore, is not in order under the rules of the House.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the points of order.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair sustains the points of 
    order made by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriation Available Until Expended

Sec. 32.10 A provision that an appropriation is ``to remain

[[Page 5784]]

    available until expended'' constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and is not in order where such availability is 
    not authorized by law.

    On Apr. 30, 1952,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7314), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 4620, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Page 
    9, after line 13 insert the following:
        ``Research Laboratory: For establishment of a research 
    laboratory, including acquisition of necessary land and the 
    preparation of plans and specifications for, and construction of 
    laboratory buildings and related facilities for research and study 
    of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases, in accordance 
    with the act of April 24, 1948 (Public Law 496, 80th Cong.), 
    $24,500,000, to remain available until expended.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment contains legislation in that 
    the last clause directs that the money ``remain available until 
    expended.''
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Nebraska 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I do, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: The 
    Chair will hear the gentleman briefly. Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Mr. 
    Chairman, I maintain that the amendment is in order because the 
    Eightieth Congress passed Public Law 496 providing for the 
    laboratory. It is not new legislation; it merely implements 
    legislation Congress has already passed. I am merely trying to 
    implement that legislation by an appropriation which was authorized 
    at that time.

        The Chairman: The Chair has not been able to find in Public Law 
    496 any authority that the funds shall remain available until 
    expended.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: If the Chair please, Public Law 496 of 
    the Eightieth Congress is the law that this Congress passed 
    authorizing the construction of this laboratory. I am merely 
    providing funds to implement a law that has already been passed by 
    Congress.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is within his rights in offering 
    such an amendment with the exception of the fact that the 
    gentleman's amendment contains a clause stating that the funds 
    shall remain available until expended. That is new legislation.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I concede the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, and submit the amendment minus the last clause.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order. The 
    point of order is sustained.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 6296, 6297, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 3, 
        1950; and 89 Cong. Rec. 3080, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 7, 
        1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.11 Language in a paragraph of a general appro

[[Page 5785]]

    priation bill providing that funds provided in that paragraph shall 
    remain available until expended is generally conceded to be 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 unless the 
    authorizing legislation permits such availability, since such 
    language extends funds beyond the period permitted by law.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,20 during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 27288, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   National Archives and Records Service

                             operating expenses

        For necessary expenses in connection with Federal records 
    management and related activities, as provided by law, including 
    reimbursement for security guard services, contractual services 
    incident to movement or disposal of records, and acceptance and 
    utilization of voluntary and uncompensated services, $33,000,000, 
    of which $500,000 for allocations and grants for historical 
    publications as authorized by 44 U.S.C. 2504, as amended, shall 
    remain available until expended.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is to the 
    language on page 20, line 25, referring specifically to the words 
    in the bill, ``shall remain available until expended.''
        That again, Mr. Chairman, is violative of rule XXI, clause 2, 
    as legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

Sec. 32.12 To a provision in an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation projects, 
    an amendment providing funds to ``be programed and remain available 
    until spent for the Fort Randall-Grand Island 230-kilovolt 
    transmission line,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 22, 1956,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319), 
the following transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 102 Cong. Rec. 8728-30, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Construction and Rehabilitation

            For construction and rehabilitation of authorized 
        reclamation projects or parts thereof (including power 
        transmission facilities) and for other related activities, as 
        authorized by law,

[[Page 5786]]

        to remain available until expended, $125,900,000, of which 
        $63,083,000 shall be derived from the reclamation fund. . . .

        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Nebraska: On page 7, 
        line 22, after ``Congress.'', insert ``Provided further,  That 
        $5,500,000 shall be programed and remain available until spent 
        for the Fort Randall-Grand Island 230-kilovolt transmission 
        line.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, we are constrained to insist upon our point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Nebraska 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I concede that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and concede the point order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] makes a 
    point of order; the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Miller] concedes 
    it and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 32.13 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to appropriate 
    funds for a specific purpose making such appropriation ``available 
    until expended'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and therefore not in order.

    On June 16, 1948,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 6935), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 8469, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: On 
        page 14, line 19, after the period, add a new section as 
        follows:
            ``Rural Electrification Administration, salaries and 
        expenses, for an additional amount, fiscal year 1949, for 
        administrative expenses to be available immediately and to 
        remain available until expended, $450,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, that it carries legislation in the 
    words ``which will be available until expended.''
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Clifford R. Hope (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides additional 
    funds for the administrative expenses for the Rural Electrification 
    Administration. It carries the same wording as was carried in the 
    original act providing the funds. It is in accordance with the 
    budget estimate, and it seems to me it is not subject to a point of 
    order. It is not legislation because it is authorized by law.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the words ``to be available until 
    expended'' make it legislation, and therefore the amendment is 
    subject to a point of order.

[[Page 5787]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment in its 
    present form with the language ``to be available until expended'' 
    is clearly legislation. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 32.14 A provision in a paragraph of a general appropriation bill 
    authorizing certain funds therein to remain available until 
    expended whenever determined by the recipient to be necessary and 
    without regard to provisions of law was conceded to be legislation 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 and was stricken from the bill.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 27289, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            United States Tax Court

                             Salaries and Expenses

            For necessary expenses, including contract stenographic 
        reporting, and other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
        $5,760,000: Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall 
        be paid upon the written certificate of the judge: Provided 
        further, That $1,280,000 of this appropriation shall remain 
        available until expended for equipment, furniture, furnishings 
        and accessories, required for the new Tax Court building and, 
        whenever determined by the Court to be necessary, without 
        compliance with section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as 
        amended (41 U.S.C. 5).

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I assert a 
    point of order against the line beginning with ``Provided further'' 
    at page 26, line 21, down through the end of the paragraph at the 
    top of page 27, line 2.
        Mr. Chairman, the burden of the point of order is that the 
    language in the bill referred to is violative of rule XXI, clause 
    2, constituting legislation in an appropriation bill. I refer 
    specifically to the language at line 22 wherein the words are as 
    follows:

            That $1,280,000 of this appropriation shall remain 
        available until expended for equipment, furniture, furnishings, 
        and accessories . . .

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The point of order is conceded, 
    and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7 Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Available Until Expended; Bureau of Reclamation Construction Funds

Sec. 32.15 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill for the 
    Department of the Interior providing that funds for Bureau of 
    Reclamation construction ``shall remain available until expended,'' 
    was

[[Page 5788]]

    held to be legislation where authorizing language was not cited.

    On July 24, 1956,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12350), a point of order was raised against a provision which contained 
language as described above, and which also prescribed the conditions 
under which certain contracts could be entered into.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 102 Cong. Rec. 14289, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            [For an additional amount for ``Construction and 
        rehabilitation'', $2,500,000 to remain available until 
        expended: Provided, That any contract under the Act of July 4, 
        1955 (69 Stat. 244), as amended, which calls for the making of 
        loans beyond the fiscal year in which the contract is entered 
        into shall be made only on the same conditions as those 
        prescribed in section 12 of the Act of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 
        1187, 1197).]

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a further point of order against the language appearing on 
    page 7, beginning with line 5 ``Bureau of Reclamation'' down to the 
    bottom of the page and including the remainder of the bill.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Missouri 
    desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to be heard on the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this is not subject to a point of 
    order, as it covers a project which has been approved by 
    legislation. It appears in this bill, as a matter of information 
    for the Chairman, only because at the time the regular bill came 
    through the matter of contracts had not been settled between the 
    people involved in the district and the Government. That matter has 
    been settled. That is why this is here. Therefore this is not 
    subject to a point of order, as it has already been authorized.
        Mr. Cannon: It provides for the negotiation of contracts to be 
    entered into in a particular and specified way.
        Mr. Phillips: Then I desire to be heard further, Mr. Chairman, 
    before the Chairman rules in reply to the gentleman from Missouri, 
    that his point of order lies against the proviso only and not 
    against lines 7 and 8.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Missouri has made a point of order against 
    the language appearing in the bill on page 7, beginning in line 5, 
    on the ground that it contains legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chair has examined the language covered in the point of 
    order and invites attention to the fact that there appears in line 
    8 the words ``to remain available until expended,'' which 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Available Until Expended for Payment of Prior Obligations

Sec. 32.16 Language in an appropriation bill providing for

[[Page 5789]]

    funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority ``to remain available 
    until expended, and to be available for the payment of obligations 
    chargeable against prior appropriations,'' was conceded to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 22, 1956,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        . . . In lines 11 through 13 ``, to remain available until 
    expended, and to be available for the payment of obligations 
    chargeable against prior appropriations.''. . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    read by the gentleman is unquestionably legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and I therefore concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) . . . The gentleman from 
    Missouri, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, concedes the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill and the 
    point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: 31 USC Sec. 1502 provides:

        Except as otherwise provided by law, all balances of 
    appropriations contained in the annual appropriation bills and made 
    specifically for the service of any fiscal year shall only be 
    applied to the payment of expenses properly incurred during that 
    year, or to the fulfillment of contracts properly made within that 
    year.

    Thus, provisions in general appropriation bills which make funds 
available for the payment of obligations chargeable against prior 
appropriations are legislative in character.

Office of Telecommunications Policy; Earmarking Certain Funds to Remain 
    Available Until Expended

Sec. 32.17 To a paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for salaries and expenses of the Office of Telecommunications 
    Policy, an amendment increasing the amount and providing that the 
    additional amount shall be available until expended for 
    telecommunications studies and research was held to constitute 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

[[Page 5790]]

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 27285, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Page 10, line 24, 
        after the first comma, strike out the figure $2,070,000 and 
        insert the figure $2,745,000, and add at the end thereof the 
        following: ``Provided, That not to exceed $675,000 of the 
        foregoing amount shall remain available for telecommunications 
        studies and research until expended.''

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I should like to 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: The second provision is: Provided, That not to 
    exceed $675,000 of the foregoing amount shall remain available for 
    telecommunications studies and research until expended.
        There is no authorization for studies and research, and I make 
    a point of order against that portion of the amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to 
    restore funds which were stricken by the committee in its 
    consideration of the proposals for this particular office as the 
    bill was under consideration in the committee.
        The amendment seeks to restore a portion of the funds which 
    were a part of that total budget asked of the committee. The reason 
    for the proviso language is to further clarify for what the 
    additional funds would be used, to go back to the testimony of the 
    office when it appeared before the committee and to restore the 
    specific portion of those funds.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Steed: The language of the original bill was submitted to 
    the experts, and it was held it would be subject to a point of 
    order, because the funds would be available until expended. That is 
    why it was deleted from the bill in the committee. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will rule narrowly on the point made by the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma. The words ``until expended'' constitute legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is 
    sustained on that ground.

Laws Not Permitting Availability Until Expended--Mutual Security Act

Sec. 32.18 An amendment to the Mutual Security Act appropriation bill 
    to provide for the equivalent of $1.5 million in local currencies 
    for hos

[[Page 5791]]

    pital construction, to remain available until expended, was ruled 
    out as legislation.

    On June 17, 1960,(14) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec.  13133, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: On page 3, line 7, after 
        ``$206,000,000,'' strike out beginning ``of which not'' and 
        through the colon on line 12 and insert on page 3, after line 
        19, the following:
            ``Special assistance, special authorization: For assistance 
        authorized by section 400(c) for hospital construction the 
        equivalent of $1,500,000 in local currencies to remain 
        available until expended.''

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment and against the words ``until expended'' as not being 
    authorized. I would call the Chair's attention to title 31, United 
    States Code, 718, which provides as follows:

            No specific or indefinite appropriation made subsequent to 
        August 24, 1912, in any regular annual appropriation act shall 
        be construed to be permanent or available continuously without 
        reference to a fiscal year unless it belongs to one of the 
        following four classes: ``Rivers and harbors,'' 
        ``lighthouses,'' ``public buildings,'' and ``pay of the Navy 
        and Marine Corps,''. . . or unless it is made in terms 
        expressly providing that it shall continue available beyond the 
        fiscal year for which the appropriation act in which it is 
        contained makes provision.

        Mr. Chairman, I point out that this is an annual appropriation 
    bill and, therefore, this is language on an appropriation bill that 
    is not authorized by law.
        Mr. Zablocki: I will not argue the point, Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the present 31 USC Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- National Academy of Sciences

Sec. 32.19 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    to enable the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis 
    of the Environmental Protection Agency under contract, which funds 
    were to remain available until expended, was conceded to contain an 
    appropriation unauthorized by law and legislation where the only 
    law cited authorized the National Academy to investigate any

[[Page 5792]]

    subject of science or art when requested by an agency.

    On June 15, 1973,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8619), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 19852, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For an amount to provide for a complete and thorough review, 
    analysis, and evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
    its programs, its accomplishments and its failures, and to 
    recommend such changes, cancellations, or additions as necessary, 
    to be conducted under contract with the National Academy of 
    Sciences, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    point I make a point of order against the language appearing at 
    lines 20 through 24 on page 32, and on through the first two lines 
    of page 33.
        The reason for my point of order, Mr. Chairman, is twofold. 
    First, this is legislation in an appropriation bill; and it 
    constitutes an appropriation of funds not previously authorized by 
    law.
        So that the language referred to is again violative of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, and I would point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    rule should be so interpreted as to require strict compliance.
        Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from page 466 of the Manual of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, as follows:

            In the administration of the rule, it is the practice that 
        those upholding an item of appropriation should have the burden 
        of showing the law authorizing it.

        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that neither the statute 
    setting up the EPA nor the statute setting up the National Academy 
    of Sciences affords the National Academy of Sciences the duty, 
    responsibility, or power to investigate or to study EPA. For that 
    reason, Mr. Chairman, I make this point of order.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    additional point of order that the language in the paragraph 
    appearing at the top of page 33, containing the words, ``to remain 
    available until expended,'' is also subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I seem to have a little 
    difficulty finding it at the moment, but the language setting up 
    the National Academy of Sciences, after establishing the Academy, 
    provides for making this kind of study when asked by any department 
    or agency of the Government.
        While we seem to have difficulty finding it--I do not know 
    whether the Chair has it in his hands or not--it does so provide. 
    Based on that, we have directed this agency to make such a request. 
    That is the situation as we submit it at this time.

[[Page 5793]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the committee 
    in its kindness, in the report at page 99 and page 100, under the 
    words ``limitations and legislative provisions'' has set forth 
    precisely the language which I have alluded to.
        I would point out since it is clearly not a limitation and 
    since it does not limit the level of expenditures, then it becomes, 
    in the words of the distinguished committee, then legislation, 
    since to exclude one is necessarily to require the expression of 
    the other alternative. Therefore, it is conceded at page 100 of the 
    report in the second to last paragraph to which I referred the 
    Chair that this does in fact constitute legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I shall not press the matter 
    further. The language on which we rely is to be found--and we have 
    finally found it here--March 3, 1963, and it provides in section 3 
    of such act:

            Be it further enacted that the National Academy of Sciences 
        shall hold an annual meeting at such place in the United States 
        to be designated and the Academy shall when called upon by any 
        department of the Government investigate, examine, and report 
        any subject of science or art the actual expenses for which are 
        to be paid for in an appropriation which may be made for the 
        purpose. The Academy shall receive no compensation whatever for 
        its services to the Government of the United States.

        If I may have a second to write a similar amendment to that 
    which we substituted a while ago in a similar point of order, we 
    will provide the money for such an expense if I might have the 
    cooperation of my friends. I have to acknowledge the point of order 
    at this point.
        Mr. Dingell: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Whitten: If the Chair will oblige me for a second while I 
    write the amendment, we will provide $5 million for such study by 
    the National Academy of Sciences, and we shall be happy to so amend 
    the legislation.
        The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from 
    Mississippi concedes the point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: I do. And I beg the indulgence of the Chair that 
    we may write an amendment to replace the section.
        Mr. Dingell: Out of deference to my good friend from 
    Mississippi and in order to have the business on the committee go 
    forward, I will ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
    return at a time later--
        Mr. Whitten: I think we have it ready.
        Mr. Dingell: Very well.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained, and the language 
    is stricken.

-- Lump-sum Appropriation for Joint Economic Committee

Sec. 32.20 Since the law establishing the Joint Economic Committee [15 
    USC Sec. 1024(e)] authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as 
    may be necessary during each fiscal year,'' it is not in order in a 
    general appropriation bill to

[[Page 5794]]

    make funds for that joint committee available beyond the fiscal 
    year covered by the bill.

    On May 11, 1971,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8190), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 14472, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Contingent Expenses of the Senate

                            joint economic committee

            For an amount (to be disbursed by the Secretary of the 
        Senate on vouchers signed by the chairman or vice chairman and 
        the chairman of the subcommittee) necessary to enable the 
        Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, under authority of the 
        Employment Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 23, sec. 5), to undertake a 
        study to develop reliable, comprehensive, and factual 
        information concerning welfare programs and needs in the United 
        States, $500,000, to remain available until June 30, 1973.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this bill, on page 11, the section beginning 
    with line 15 through page 12, line 3.
        My point of order is directed, Mr. Chairman, particularly to 
    the last clause which says, ``to remain available until June 30, 
    1973.''
        The point of order should lie in the fact that this is an 
    appropriation on unauthorized legislation [sic].
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Federal Building Fund; Limiting Obligational Authority to Current 
    Fiscal Year

Sec. 32.21 Notwithstanding legislation providing that funds when 
    appropriated shall be available ``until expended'' or ``without 
    regard to fiscal year limitation'', the Committee on Appropriations 
    may nevertheless limit the availability of funds to the fiscal year 
    covered by the bill absent a clear showing that the amounts in the 
    general appropriation bill are required by law to remain available 
    without such limitation.

    The Chair ruled on June 25, 1974,(1) that, where 
existing law provided that moneys deposited into the federal buildings 
fund shall be available for expenditure by GSA ``for real property 
management . . . in such amounts as

[[Page 5795]]

are specified in annual appropriations acts without regard to fiscal 
year limitations'', a paragraph in a general appropriation bill 
specifying the amount to be made available from that fund ``during the 
current fiscal year'' did not constitute a change in that law. The 
language of the law was interpreted merely to permit, and not to 
require, the annual appropriation bill to make those funds available 
until expended. The proceedings are shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21040, 21041, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The revenues and collections deposited into a fund pursuant 
        to Section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
        Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), shall be 
        available during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses 
        of real property management and related activities not 
        otherwise provided for, including operation, maintenance, and 
        protection of federally owned and leased buildings; . . . 
        construction of new buildings (including equipment for such 
        buildings); and payment of principal, interest, taxes, and any 
        other obligations for public buildings acquired by purchase 
        contract; in the aggregate amount of $871,875,000 of which (1) 
        not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be available for construction 
        of buildings as authorized by law including construction 
        projects at locations and at maximum construction improvement 
        costs (including funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
            New Construction:
            Arizona: Lukeville Border Station, $2,081,000
            Texas: Laredo Border Station, $15,462,000. . . .
        Provided, That the immediately foregoing limits of costs may be 
        exceeded to the extent that savings are effected in other such 
        projects, but by not to exceed 10 per centum; (2) not to exceed 
        $26,244,000 for purchase contract payments; . . . (6) not to 
        exceed $54,037,000 for program direction and centralized 
        services; and (7) not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be available 
        for obligation in fiscal year 1976. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language in the bill appearing at page 15, 
    lines 10 and 11, that this is legislation in an appropriation act, 
    and it is, I believe, in violation of rule XXI, clause 2.
        Mr. Chairman, two provisions under the appropriation heading, 
    ``Federal Buildings Fund--Limitations on Availability of Revenue,'' 
    are subject to a point of order because they change existing law.
        The first such provision is the clause, ``during the current 
    fiscal year,'' at page 15, lines 10-11 of the bill. This language 
    would limit the use of funds made available to GSA from the Federal 
    Building Fund to fiscal year 1975. This is in direct conflict with 
    section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
    Act of 1949, as amended, which specifically provides that ``the 
    fund shall be available for expenditure--without regard to fiscal 
    year limitations.'' The language in the bill is clearly designed to 
    change the authorizing law and is contrary to rule 21, clause 2 
    that prohibits legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The objectionable language in the bill cannot be supported on 
    any theory of retrenchment of expenditures. The limitation 
    requiring that moneys made

[[Page 5796]]

    available for real property activities be spent in the fiscal year 
    does not reduce expenditures, but would tend to increase costs and 
    spending by encouraging expenditures over a shorter period of time 
    than good management and planning would otherwise require.
        If the language is allowed to remain in the bill, the Congress 
    will, in effect, be substantially modifying the concept of a 
    Federal Building Fund. The Public Works Committee, when it 
    considered the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, which 
    established the fund, concluded that the Federal Building Fund 
    would have to be available without regard to fiscal year 
    limitations, but with reasonable congressional control, if the 
    purpose of reforming real property management financing was ever 
    going to be achieved. . . .
        The fiscal year limitation applies to all construction work 
    performed by GSA including the construction of new buildings and 
    conversion and extensions to older buildings. The restriction is 
    thus directly in conflict with section 682 of title 31 of the 
    United States Code which provides that appropriations for 
    construction of public buildings remain available until completion 
    of the work; that is, without regard to fiscal year limitations. I 
    know of no single instance where the Congress has placed a fiscal 
    year limitation on the construction of new buildings.
        Elimination of the objectionable language in the appropriation 
    bill will not in any way interfere with normal congressional 
    controls of appropriations to GSA for its real property activities. 
    The Appropriations Committee in considering the 1976 budget 
    requests can take into account any unobligated balances in the fund 
    in determining the amount to be made available to GSA from the fund 
    in fiscal 1976.
        For the above-stated reasons, the phrase ``during the current 
    fiscal year'' is subject to a point of order and should be deleted. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma] . . . Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    simple, negative limitation, it merely restricts the use of the 
    funds to the fiscal year. The fact that there is no authority to 
    make them available for a longer period of time does not constitute 
    a point of order against the language here. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order against the 
    clause on page 15, lines 10 and 11 of H.R. 15544 which limits the 
    availability ``during the current fiscal year'' of the aggregate 
    amount of $871,875,000 for expenditure by GSA from the Federal 
    Buildings fund. The gentleman from Ohio contends that this language 
    in H.R. 15544 violates clause 2, Rule XXI by constituting a change 
    in existing law [section 210(f) of the Federal Property and 
    Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (Public Law 92-
    313)] which provides:

            (2) Moneys deposited into the fund shall be available for 
        expenditure for real property management and related activities 
        in such amounts as are specified in annual appropriations Acts 
        without regard to fiscal year limitations.

        The gentleman from Ohio contends that this law requires that 
    amounts in Federal Building Fund must be made available by the 
    Appropriations Committee without a fiscal year restriction,

[[Page 5797]]

    and that the Committee on Appropriations has no authority under 
    clause 2, rule XXI to limit the availability of amounts from that 
    fund for the current fiscal year. The Committee on Appropriations, 
    on the other hand, contends that such a provision of law merely 
    permits, and does not require, the Committee on Appropriations to 
    appropriate funds from the Federal Building Fund without a fiscal 
    year limitation, or to be available until expended, and therefore 
    that the limitation contained in the paragraph for the current 
    fiscal year is within the prerogative of the Committee on 
    Appropriations under Public Law 92-313.
        The Chair would point out that while authorizing legislation 
    customarily provides that funds authorized therein shall ``remain 
    available until expended'', the Committee on Appropriations has 
    never been required, when appropriating for those purposes, to 
    specify that such funds must remain available until expended. The 
    Appropriations Committee often confines the availability of funds 
    to the current fiscal year, regardless of the limit of availability 
    contained in the authorization. Conversely, however, where the 
    authorizing statute does not permit funds to remain available until 
    expended or without regard to fiscal year limitation inclusion of 
    such availability in a general appropriation bill has been held to 
    constitute legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair thus is of the opinion that Public Law 92-313 should 
    be construed as has been suggested by the Committee on 
    Appropriations, absent a clear showing that the language in 
    question was intended to require appropriations from the Federal 
    building fund to be made available until expended. In this regard, 
    the Chair has examined the legislative history of Public Law 92-313 
    in an effort to understand congressional intent on this question. 
    The Chair notes that on June 5, 1972, during debate on the 
    conference report on S. 1736 which became Public Law 92-313, the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gray) in response to a question by Mr. 
    Bow of Ohio, stated that:

            Any residue left over from existing appropriations now will 
        go automatically, when this legislation is signed into law into 
        the revolving fund. That residue from previous appropriations 
        plus the amount of rents collected from all Federal agencies 
        will make up the total revolving fund, and the House Committee 
        on Appropriations will have complete control on an annual basis 
        over the revolving fund.

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) then stated during that 
    debate:

            I think there is quite an adequate safeguard in what the 
        Committee on Appropriations can do in controlling the 
        implementation of this measure. All of the money that goes into 
        the revolving fund must be appropriated before it is expended. 
        Therefore, the Committee on Appropriations will have control 
        from that standpoint.

        The Chair holds that the Committee on Appropriations has not 
    changed existing law by limiting the availability of a portion of 
    the funds taken from the Federal building fund to the current 
    fiscal year. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5798]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 33. Increasing Limits of Authorization Set in Law

Indefinite Appropriation Where Authorization Requires Definite Amount

Sec. 33.1 A provision in a general appropriation bill making available 
    indefinite sums from the Southwest Power Administration revolving 
    fund to insure continued electric service and use of transmission 
    facilities was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2 where existing law provided that a definite amount must be 
    specified for that purpose in annual appropriation bills.

    On June 26, 1972,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15586), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 22428, 22429, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 20, beginning 
    with line 8, as follows:

            Provided, That, in addition, such sums as may be necessary 
        shall be available from the Continuing Fund, Southwestern Power 
        Administration (16 U.S.C. 825 S-1) to defray emergency expenses 
        to insure continuity of electric service and continuous 
        operation of Government facilities in the area.

        Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard on the point of order, in the 
    Interior Department appropriation bill in 1943, Public Law 216, 
    there was established a $100,000 continuing fund to insure 
    continuity of power operations for use in emergency.
        Then in the Interior Department Appropriation Act of 1950, 
    Public Law 350, this so-called continuing fund was increased to 
    $300,000 and extended its use to include the purchase of power and 
    rental of transmission lines. Between 1950 and 1952 the Department 
    of the Interior and the Southwest Power Administration interpreted 
    the continuing fund as a revolving fund which replenished itself 
    automatically from the Southwest Power Administration power 
    revenues. Therefore, there was no upper limit on the amount that 
    could be withdrawn from the continuing fund each year except from 
    the Southwest Power Administration gross power receipts in that 
    year.
        Congress recognized that the Southwest Power Administration's 
    use of the continuing fund for the purchase of power and the 
    payment of transmission charges gave the Southwest Power 
    Administration unlimited funds through the back door of the 
    Treasury without going through the congressional appropriation 
    procedure. Therefore in 1951 the Congress added to the continuing 
    fund statute the following provision:

            Provided, That expenditures from this fund to cover such 
        costs in con

[[Page 5799]]

        nection with the purchase of electric power and energy, and 
        rentals for the use of facilities are to be made only in such 
        amounts as may be approved annually in appropriation Acts.

        Congress itself thus closed the back door to the Treasury to 
    the Southwest Power Administration and recaptured its control of 
    Federal expenditures.
        Since 1952 the Southwest Power Administration budgeted the 
    received appropriations for its estimated power purchases and 
    transmission costs which appropriations together with supplemental 
    appropriations as have been required from time to time have 
    permitted SPA to fulfill contract commitments in emergencies.
        If I might simply cite that statute back in July 1952, Public 
    Law 470, the proviso here said:

            Continuing fund, Southwest Power Administration not to 
        exceed $1,000,000 shall be available during the current fiscal 
        year from the continuing fund for all costs in connection with 
        the purchase of electric power and energy and rentals for the 
        use of transmission facilities.

        Ever since that time we have been using varying appropriation 
    language setting a particular figure.
        If I might read from the code, page 4013, title 18, under 
    ``Conservation,'' paragraph 825S-1, the one to which we make 
    reference here and the language to which I object, we read:

            All receipts from the transmission and sale of electric 
        power and energy under the provisions of Sec. 825S of this 
        title, generated or purchased in the Southwest Power Area shall 
        be covered into the Treasury of the United States as 
        miscellaneous receipts, except that the Treasury shall set up 
        and maintain from such receipts a continuing fund of $300,000, 
        including the sum of $100,000 in the continuing fund 
        established under the Administrator of the Southwest Power 
        Administration. . . .

        And so on and so forth.
        Then it goes on and concludes with a proviso:

            Provided, That expenditures from this fund to cover such 
        costs in connection with the purchase of electric power and 
        energy and rentals for the use of facilities are to be made 
        only in such amounts as may be approved annually in 
        appropriation Acts.

        The language on page 20 and beginning on line 8 adds the 
    further proviso to the continuing fund as follows:

            Provided, That, in addition, such sums as may be necessary 
        shall be available from the continuing fund, Southwest Power 
        Administration, (U.S. Code 825S-1,) to defray emergency 
        expenses to insure continuity of electric service and 
        continuous operation of Government facilities in the area.

        In addition to being a double negative or having that effect of 
    double negative, the adoption of this proposed wording would 
    actually be a change in the basic law concerning the use of the 
    continuing fund. It is not merely a change in appropriations, as 
    suggested.
        Mr. Chairman, this change is legislation in an appropriation 
    bill, and I request that my point of order be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair is of the opinion that the language does permit the transfer 
    of an indefinite sum of money from the continuing or revolving fund

[[Page 5800]]

    and, in fact, changes existing law and, therefore, is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order. Waiving Limitation in 
    Permanent Law

Sec. 33.2 Where a limitation on the amount of an appropriation to be 
    annually available for expenditure by an agency has become law, 
    language in a subsequent appropriation bill seeking to change this 
    limitation on such funds was conceded to change existing law and 
    therefore to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 2305, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Foreign Service Buildings Fund: For the purpose of carrying 
        into effect the provisions of the act of May 25, 1938, entitled 
        ``An act to provide additional funds for buildings for the use 
        of the diplomatic and consular establishments of the United 
        States'' (22 U.S.C. 295a), including the initial alterations, 
        repair, and furnishing of buildings acquired under said act, 
        $1,466,000, notwithstanding the amount limitation in the act of 
        May 25, 1938 (22 U.S.C. 295a), to remain available until 
        expended: Provided, That expenditures for furnishing made from 
        appropriations granted pursuant to the act of May 7, 1926, and 
        subsequent acts providing funds for buildings for the use of 
        diplomatic and consular establishments of the United States 
        shall not be subject to the provisions of section 3709 of the 
        Revised Statutes.

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning in line 14, page 16, down to 
    and including line 3, page 17, on the ground it is a violation of 
    the basic law.
        Appropriation is asked notwithstanding the amount limitation in 
    the act of May 25, 1938 (22 U.S. Code, sec. 295a), as follows:
        Sections 292 et seq. authorized the acquisition of properties 
    abroad for the State Department, and section 295a authorized ``to 
    be appropriated, in addition to the amount authorized by such act, 
    an amount not to exceed $5,000,000, of which not more than 
    $1,000,000 shall be appropriated for any 1 year,'' and so forth.
        No necessity or reason is shown for the lifting of that 
    $1,000,000 yearly limitation on these appropriations, and the 
    present proposal amounts to, and is, permanent and repealing 
    legislation on an appropriation act.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Rabaut] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order 
    might

[[Page 5801]]

    apply to the language appearing in lines 20 and 21. That is because 
    of the excesses.
        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to understand the gentleman. The 
    gentleman concedes that the language in lines 20 and 21 is bad and 
    subject to a point of order?
        Mr. Rabaut: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees] insist 
    on his point of order against the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: I do.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman withhold his point 
    of order for a minute?
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Yes. I reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, the citation of the law for that 
    appears in line 18 and the reason for the legislative language in 
    this bill is for the purpose of taking advantage of the situation 
    as it exists today in the money and real estate markets of the 
    world.
        In this bill we had $1,466,000 and a part of those funds are 
    necessary for the purpose of taking advantage, for the benefit of 
    the United States in reestablishing where there has been huge 
    destruction of our own diplomatic posts in the form of buildings 
    and necessities, or at least getting hold of the land in many 
    places, so necessary at this time. If it is the gentleman's idea to 
    frustrate this advantage, of course, the point of order should 
    stand, but for the purpose of really being of assistance to the 
    Treasury of the United States it would be very well if this 
    language were left in the bill. It was placed in the bill to enable 
    the agency to move speedily to any place in the world where it 
    would be to our advantage to reestablish housing for our diplomatic 
    corps.
        Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order, if the gentleman 
    insists on it, beginning with the word ``notwithstanding'' in line 
    20.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: I insist on the point of order to the 
    entire paragraph, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that certain language in the 
    paragraph is conceded to be subject to a point of order, the entire 
    paragraph is subject to a point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Increasing Limitation on Rural Telephone Borrowing Authority

Sec. 33.3 A provision in an appropriation bill increasing the loan 
    authorization for the rural telephone program above the amount 
    authorized for that purpose in a prior appropriation law was held 
    to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 22, 1953,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
4664), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 3613, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5802]]

                      Rural Electrification Administration

                              Loan authorizations

            The basic amount authorized by the Department of 
        Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1953, to be borrowed from the 
        Secretary of the Treasury for the rural-telephone program is 
        increased from ``$25 million'' to ``$32,500,000.''

        Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the language on page 5, from line 7 
    through line 12. Mr. Chairman, on its face the language is out of 
    order because it clearly amends existing law, and, therefore, is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman may proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. Byrnes (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of 
    order is clearly out of order. The language which the subcommittee 
    has placed in the bill simply increases the amount of authorization 
    for these particular loans, and in my opinion, it is perfectly in 
    order as we have written it in the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    desire to be heard on this point of order?
        Mr. [John] Taber: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Coudert] makes a point of order that the language of 
    this paragraph is legislation on an appropriation bill. It is 
    apparent from a reading of the language that a change is made in 
    the basic act of the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act of 
    1953. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Rural Electrification; Distribution of Funds Above Authorized Limit

Sec. 33.4 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that 
    additional funds for the rural electrification program ``may be 
    distributed in any State or Territory in addition to any sum which 
    such State may otherwise receive'' was conceded and held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 20, 1953,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5227), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 99 Cong. Rec. 5270, 5271, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Loan authorizations

            For loans in accordance with said act, and for carrying out 
        the provisions of section 7 thereof, to be borrowed from the 
        Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of 
        section 3(a) of said act as follows: Rural electrification 
        program, $135 million; and rural telephone program, $50 
        million; and additional amounts, not to exceed $30 million for 
        the rural electrification

[[Page 5803]]

        program, may be borrowed under the same terms and conditions to 
        the extent that such additional amounts are required during the 
        fiscal year 1954, under the then existing conditions, for the 
        expeditious and orderly development of the program.

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Poage: On page 38, line 2, after 
        the comma strike out the balance of the line and all of line 3 
        [deleting ``for the . . . development of the program''] and 
        insert ``and may be distributed in any State or Territory in 
        addition to any sum which such State may otherwise receive.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. McCulloch (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and contrary to existing law. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I will have to concede the point of 
    order because I know it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Census Work

Sec. 33.5 An appropriation for carrying on authorized census work, 
    including personal services and rentals, in excess of the limit of 
    cost fixed by law is not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 7, 1940,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8319, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and 
the Judiciary appropriation bill. At one point the Clerk read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 1195, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For continuing the work of taking, compiling, and publishing 
    the Sixteenth Census of the United States, as authorized by the act 
    of June 18, 1929 (13 U.S.C. 201-218), and the national census of 
    housing as authorized by the act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 
    1406), and for carrying on other authorized census work, within a 
    limit of cost for the period of July 1, 1939, to December 31, 1942, 
    of $53,250,000, including personal services and rentals in the 
    District of Columbia and elsewhere; the cost of transcribing State, 
    municipal, and other records; contracts for the preparation or 
    monographs on census subjects and other work of specialized 
    character which cannot be accomplished through ordinary employment; 
    per diem compensation of employees of the Department of Commerce 
    and other departments and independent establishments of the 
    Government who may be detailed for field work; expenses of 
    attendance at meetings concerned with the collection of statistics, 
    when incurred on the written authority of the Secretary of 
    Commerce; purchase of books of reference, periodicals, maps, 
    newspapers, manuscripts, first-aid outfits for use in the buildings 
    occupied by employees of the census, maintenance, operation, and 
    repair of

[[Page 5804]]

    a passenger-carrying automobile to be used on official business; 
    construction, purchase, exchange, or rental of punching, 
    tabulating, sorting, and other labor-saving machines, including 
    technical, mechanical, and other services in connection therewith; 
    printing and binding, traveling expenses, streetcar fares, and all 
    other contingent expenses in the District of Columbia and in the 
    field, $17,850,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available 
    immediately, and the unexpended balance of the appropriation under 
    this title in the Department of Commerce's Appropriation Act, 1940, 
    is hereby continued available until June 30, 1941.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 37, beginning with the word 
    ``within'', on line 17, running through the word ``elsewhere'', in 
    line 20. It is legislation on an appropriation bill, increasing the 
    limitation that now exists against the expenses of the Census 
    Bureau, and it is unauthorized by law.
        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Will the gentleman 
    state the particular language to which he makes the point of order?
        Mr. Taber: I shall read it. It is as follows, beginning on line 
    17, page 37:

            Within a limit of cost for the period of July 1, 1939, to 
        December 31, 1942, of $53,250,000, including personal services 
        and rentals in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

        Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order is well 
    taken. It is simply an economy measure that the committee wrote in.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it is not an economy measure. It 
    raises the authorizations $150,000 beyond all authorizations now 
    existing.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Harry P. Beam (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Housing Assistance, Increase in Contract Authority

Sec. 33.6 To a paragraph in an appropriation bill containing funds for 
    liquidation of contract obligations for homeownership and rental 
    housing assistance, an amendment providing that total payments 
    required by such contracts in any fiscal year shall be increased by 
    a certain amount was ruled out as permanent legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 11, 1971,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8190), the following transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Chapter IV

                Department of Housing and Urban Development

                              Mortgage Credit

                homeownership and rental housing assistance

        For an additional amount for ``Homeownership and rental housing 
    assistance'', $32,900,000.

[[Page 5805]]

        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Koch: On page 5, line 9, insert 
        immediately before the period ``: Provided, That the limitation 
        on total payments that may be required in any fiscal year by 
        all contracts entered into under section 235 of the National 
        Housing Act, as amended, is increased by $25,000,000, and the 
        limitation on total payments under those entered into under 
        section 236 of such Act, is increased by $25,000,000''.

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment, it 
    seeks to increase contract authority, and the bill under 
    consideration does not contain any contract authority but merely 
    payments that have accrued and have to be paid in order to 
    liquidate contract authority. Therefore, I think the amendment is 
    subject to a point of order and I so make it.
        Mr. Koch: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Koch: This chapter relates to sections 235 and 236, but 
    provides no new moneys and does not provide the moneys that 
    heretofore have been authorized. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, 
    that all my amendment will do is to appropriate moneys which 
    heretofore have been authorized for the purpose provided in the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment does 
    constitute legislation in an appropriation bill and violates clause 
    2 of rule XXI. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 34. Exceptions From Existing Law

Contracts, Competitive Bidding Waived

Sec. 34.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing that purchases 
    and contracts for supplies or services may be made by the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority without regard to any law relating to advertising 
    or competitive bidding was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and held not in order.

     On Dec. 15, 1950,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second supplemental appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9920), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 16672, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Tennessee Valley Authority

         For an additional amount, $64,500,000, to remain available 
    until

[[Page 5806]]

    expended: Provided, That purchases and contracts for supplies or 
    services may be made by the Authority during the fiscal year 1951 
    without regard to any provisions of law relating to advertising or 
    competitive bidding.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the proviso on line 9, running down to line 12 on 
    page 11 that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard further on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper [Tenn.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: If the gentleman insists 
    on the point of order it must, in my opinion, be sustained, but I 
    do feel that the gentleman will make a grievous error in insisting 
    upon it.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order that the language referred to is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The gentleman from Tennessee concedes the point 
    of order.
         The Chair sustains the point of order.

Exception From Civil Service Laws

Sec. 34.2 Language in an appropriation bill permitting employment of 
    personnel ``without regard to civil-service laws and regulations or 
    the Classification Act of 1923'' was conceded to be legislation and 
    not in order.

     On May 19, 1939,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, a point of 
order was raised against the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 5845, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Promotion of Foreign Trade

        Promotion of foreign trade: For the purpose of carrying into 
    effect the provisions of section 4 of the act entitled ``An act to 
    amend the Tariff Act of 1930'', approved June 12, 1934 (48 Stat. 
    945), as amended, including personal services without regard to 
    civil-service laws and regulations or the Classification Act of 
    1923, as amended, stenographic reporting services, by contract if 
    deemed necessary, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
    Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5),(18) contingent

[[Page 5807]]

    expenses, printing and binding, traveling expenses, and such other 
    expenses as the President may deem necessary, $43,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 41 USC Sec. 5 stated: Unless otherwise provided in the 
        appropriation concerned or other law, purchases and contracts 
        for supplies or services for the Government may be made or 
        entered into only after advertising a sufficient time 
        previously for proposals, except (1) when the amount involved 
        in any one case does not exceed $2,500, (2) when the public 
        exigencies require the immediate delivery of the articles or 
        performance of the service, (3) when only one source of supply 
        is available and the Government purchasing or contracting 
        officer shall so certify, or (4) when the services are required 
        to be performed by the contractor in person and are (A) of a 
        technical and professional nature or (B) under Government 
        supervision and paid for on a time basis. Except (1) as 
        authorized by section 1638 of Appendix to Title 50, (2) when 
        otherwise authorized by law, or (3) when the reasonable value 
        involved in any one case does not exceed $500, sales and 
        contracts of sale by the Government shall be governed by the 
        requirements of this section for advertising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the following language in lines 11 
    and 12:

            Without regard to civil-service laws and regulations or the 
        Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

        I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I confine the point of order to 
    that specific language in order to avoid a long debate, such as we 
    got into a little while ago.
        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    the gentleman has confined his point of order to the specific 
    language to which he has referred, I will concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (19) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Harold D. Cooley (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 34.3 Provision in an appropriation bill to enable the President, 
    through appropriate agencies, to make certain expenditures and 
    employment of persons without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
    Statutes and the civil service laws was held as legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Jan. 30, 1941,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2788), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 407, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            To enable the President, through appropriate agencies of 
        the Government, to provide for emergencies affecting the 
        national security and defense and for each and every purpose 
        connected therewith, and to make all necessary expenditures 
        incident thereto without regard to the provisions of law 
        regulating the expenditure of Government funds or the 
        employment of persons in the Government service, such as 
        section 3709 (1) of the Revised Statutes and the 
        civil service and classification laws, $100,000,000; and, in 
        addition, the President is authorized, through such agencies, 
        to enter into contracts during the fiscal year 1942 for the 
        same purposes to an amount not exceeding $25,000,000: Provided, 
        That an account shall be kept of all expenditures made or 
        authorized hereunder, and a report thereon shall be submitted 
        to the Congress on June 30, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 34.2, supra, for provisions of Sec. 3709 [41 USC Sec. 5].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.

[[Page 5808]]

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from South Dakota, a member of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the words ``emergencies affecting,'' beginning in line 8, 
    and in lines 11 to 15, inclusive, these words:

            Without regard to the provisions of law regulating the 
        expenditure of Government funds or the employment of persons in 
        the Government service such as section 3709 of the Revised 
        Statutes and the civil service and classification law.
    as being legislation in an appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: With reference to the 
    latter part of the point of order, Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly that 
    is legislation, the language in lines 11 to 15 which the gentleman 
    has quoted. It is legislation and subject to a point of order, 
    although it is the same language that was carried in the 
    appropriation bill last year which made available an emergency fund 
    to the President.
        With reference to the language in line 8, I may say that simply 
    describes the method of using appropriate agencies to provide for 
    emergencies affecting the national security. I do not see that it 
    is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Waiving Classification Act

Sec. 34.4 An appropriation for temporary employees at rates to be fixed 
    by the Director of the Census without regard to the Classification 
    Act was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    held not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 2368, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Compiling census reports and so forth: For salaries and 
        expenses necessary for securing information for and compiling 
        and publishing the census reports provided for by law, the 
        collection, compilation and periodic publication of statistics 
        showing United States exports and imports, and for sample 
        surveys throughout the United States for the purpose of 
        estimating the size and characteristics of the Nation's labor 
        force and population, including personal services at the seat 
        of government; temporary employees at rates to be fixed by the 
        Director of the Census without regard to the Classification 
        Act; the cost of transcribing State, municipal, and other 
        records; preparation of monographs on census subjects and other 
        work of specialized character by contract or otherwise; travel 
        expenses, including not to exceed $4,000 for attendance at 
        meetings of organizations concerned with the collection of 
        statistics, when incurred on the written authority of the 
        Secretary; reimbursement for actual cost of ferry fares and 
        bridge, road and tunnel tolls, and not to exceed 3 cents per 
        mile for travel performed

[[Page 5809]]

        in privately owned automobiles within the limits of their 
        official posts of duty, of employees engaged in census 
        enumeration or surveys; maintenance, repair, and operation of 
        three motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; construction 
        and repair of tabulating machines and other mechanical 
        appliances, and the rental or purchase and exchange of 
        necessary machinery, appliances, and supplies, including 
        tabulating cards and continuous form tabulating paper; books of 
        reference, periodicals, maps, newspapers (not exceeding $200), 
        $4,757,000. . . .

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 56 beginning in line 16 with 
    the word ``temporary'' and ending in line 18 with the word ``act'' 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 34.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    authorizing the commissioners to enter into contracts for the 
    construction of the first unit of an extensible library building at 
    a cost not exceeding $1,118,000 and reappropriating the balance of 
    $60,000 previously appropriated for preparation of plans and 
    specifications, making same available without regard to the 
    Classification Act of 1923 or section 3709 of the Revised Statutes 
    was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 6, 1939,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5610), a point of order was raised against the paragraph 
containing the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 3923, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not to exceed $350,000 of the unexpended balance of the 
    appropriation of $500,000 contained in the District of Columbia 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1939 for beginning the 
    construction in square 533 of the first unit of an extensible 
    building for the government of the District of Columbia is hereby 
    reappropriated and made available for beginning the construction in 
    square 491 of the first unit of an extensible library building, 
    including quarters for the administrative offices of the Board of 
    Education, (and the Commissioners are authorized to enter into 
    contract or contracts for the construction of such first unit at a 
    total cost, including improvement of grounds and all necessary 
    furniture and equipment, not to exceed $1,118,000: Provided, That 
    the unexpended balance of the appropriation of $60,000, contained 
    in such act for the preparation of plans and specifications for a 
    library building to be constructed on square 491 is continued 
    available for the same purpose during the fiscal year 1940, and 
    shall

[[Page 5810]]

    be available for the employment of professional and other services, 
    without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, 
    civil-service requirements, or section 3709 of the revised 
    Statutes).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 34.2, supra, for provisions of Sec. 3709 (41 USC Sec. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the language beginning on line 23, page 
    18, after the word ``education,'' down to the end of the paragraph 
    on page 19, ending in line 10. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: The gentleman makes his 
    point of order to the language beginning with the word ``and'', in 
    line 23, and ending with line 10 on page 19?
        Mr. Rich: Yes.

        Mr. Collins: And not to the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Rich: Not to the entire paragraph.
        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 34.6 An appropriation for the District of Columbia Auditor's 
    Office coupled with language making part of the money available 
    ``without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, 
    and civil-service requirements'' was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3101, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Auditor's Office

        For personal services, $136,700, of which $10,000 shall be 
    available immediately, without reference to the Classification Act 
    of 1923, as amended, and civil-service requirements, for 
    examination of estimates of appropriations, and for other purposes; 
    and the compensation of the present incumbent of the position of 
    disbursing officer of the District of Columbia shall be exclusive 
    of his compensation as United States property and disbursing 
    officer for the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Ralph O.] Brewster [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language, beginning on page 5, line 16, 
    as follows--

            Without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, as 
        amended, and civil-service requirements--
    on the ground that if it is in compliance with existing law it is 
    unnecessary and if it is not, it is certainly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Collins]

[[Page 5811]]

    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins: I do not.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the provision to 
    which the gentleman from Maine has made the point of order is 
    patently legislation on an appropriation bill which is not 
    authorized under the rules of the House. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 34.7 Employment of a real estate expert in the Auditor's Office, 
    District of Columbia, without reference to civil service 
    requirements was held legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9181), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 83 Cong. Rec. 1306, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Auditor's Office

        For personal services, $131,700, of which $2,000 shall be 
    available without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, as 
    amended, [and civil-service requirements for the employment of a 
    real-estate expert, to be immediately available; and the 
    compensation of the present incumbent of the position of disbursing 
    officer of the District of Columbia shall be exclusive of his 
    compensation as United States property and disbursing officer for 
    the National Guard of the District of Columbia.)
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this is legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill. The point of order is directed to page 5, line 8, after the 
    words ``as amended'', ``and civil-service requirements for the 
    employment of a real-estate expert, to be immediately available; 
    and the compensation of the present incumbent of the position.'' 
    This is legislation.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Is this point of order 
    made only as to the language ``and civil-service requirements for 
    the employment of a real-estate expert, to be immediately 
    available''? Is that the end of it?
        Mr. Palmisano: It is in line 8, ``civil-service requirements.''
        Mr. Collins: I am trying to find out what the gentleman is 
    objecting to--``civil-service requirements''?
        Mr. Palmisano: Beginning at the paragraph, yes.
        Mr. Collins: I have no comment to make on those words, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The language to which the point of order is 
    directed is very clearly legislation, and therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 34.8 Language in an appropriation bill for the District of 
    Columbia providing for the employment of a secretary to the 
    people's counsel, and not to exceed $5,000

[[Page 5812]]

    may be used for the employment of expert services by contract or 
    otherwise and without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, 
    as amended, was held legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9181), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 1307, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Public Utilities Commission

        For two commissioners, people's counsel, and for other personal 
    services, $76,000, [of which amount $1,620 shall be available for 
    the employment of a secretary to the people's counsel, and not to 
    exceed $5,000 may be used for the employment of expert services by 
    contract or otherwise and without reference to the Classification 
    Act of 1923, as amended.]
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language on page 7, line 3, after 
    ``76,000'', and ending with the word ``amended.''
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I may say to the 
    gentleman that this is language that has been carried in this bill 
    ever since the creation of the Public Utilities Commission, and it 
    is my understanding that under existing law appropriations can be 
    made for the employment of expert services. This is not the 
    language of the committee, but the language of the Budget, and it 
    is money that is necessary to be appropriated in order that the 
    Commission may be able to function, and without which I doubt 
    seriously that they can function.
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, very clearly this is 
    an attempt to impose legislation on an appropriation bill, and the 
    point of order is therefore sustained.

Personal Services to the President

Sec. 34.9 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for personal services for the President ``without regard to the 
    provisions of law'' regulating government employment and for 
    entertainment expenses to be accounted for solely on the 
    certificate of the President was conceded to contain legislation 
    and stricken.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(14) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 27286, 27287, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5813]]

                             The White House Office

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the White House Office, 
        including not to exceed $2,250,000 for services as authorized 
        by title 5, United States Code, section 3109, at such per diem 
        rates for individuals as the President may specify, and other 
        personal services without regard to the provisions of law 
        regulating the employment and compensation of persons in the 
        Government service; newspapers, periodicals, teletype news 
        service, and travel (not to exceed $75,000), and official 
        entertainment expenses of the President, to be accounted for 
        solely on his certificate; $9,100,000.

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) has reserved a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: . . . I would point out that this 
    language appearing on page 12, lines 14 through 25, constitutes a 
    violation of rule XXI, clause 2, in that it constitutes legislation 
    in an appropriation bill.
        I would point out specifically the language which reads on line 
    18:
        at such per diem rates for individuals as the President may 
        specify . . .

        Clearly this is not sanctioned by authorization or law. And 
    then the language goes on:
        and other personal services without regard to the provisions of 
        law regulating the employment and compensation of persons in 
        the Government service . . .

        And then the language goes on.
        I would state, Mr. Chairman, there is no showing that there is 
    legislative authority for this particular appropriation. I would 
    point out again to the Chair that there is a requirement in the 
    Rules of the House that appropriation committees do bear the burden 
    of establishing the legislative basis for attempted appropriations. 
    I would point out that this has not been done, and I insist on the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we submitted 
    this item along with many others for expert review by the Office of 
    Management and Budget, and were advised that the language starting 
    on line 18 after ``section 3109,''--
        at such per diem rates for individuals as the President may 
        specify, . . .

        And going down to line 22, where it says--
        in the Government service . . .

        And we were advised that the language is subject to a point of 
    order, and we concede the point of order.
        We were also advised that the language on page 12, line 23, 
    after--
        (not to exceed $75,000) . . .

        The words--
        and official entertainment expenses of the President, to be 
        accounted for solely on his certificate . . .

        Is also subject to a point of order, and we concede that.
        The rest of it is not subject to a point of order because it is 
    provided by law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 5814]]

        If the Chair understands correctly, the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) has made a point of order against various items in 
    the paragraph and therefore makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
        The Chairman: Unless the gentleman from Texas desires to be 
    heard, the Chair is ready to rule on the point of order to the 
    paragraph.
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman:  The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Eckhardt:  Mr. Chairman, I have been about to raise a point 
    of order on the provision ``to be accounted for solely on his 
    certificate.'' I understand that this is conceded.
        The Chairman:  The Chair also understands it is conceded. The 
    Chair's understanding of the situation is that the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan lies against the whole of the 
    paragraph. The Chair is prepared to rule that the point of order 
    has been conceded and is sustained, and that the whole paragraph, 
    therefore, is stricken.

Travel Expenses

Sec. 34.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing for 
    transportation of prisoners in the custody of United States 
    marshals to narcotic farms without regard to the act of Jan. 19, 
    1929, and also providing that marshals and their deputies may be 
    allowed, in lieu of actual expenses of transportation, up to four 
    cents per mile for use of privately owned automobiles when 
    traveling on official business, was conceded to be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), 
points of order were raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 2363, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Salaries and expenses of marshals, etc.: For salaries, fees 
        and expenses of United States marshals, deputy marshals, and 
        clerical assistants, including services rendered in behalf of 
        the United States or otherwise; services in Alaska in 
        collecting evidence of the United States when so specifically 
        directed by the Attorney General; traveling expenses, including 
        the actual and necessary expenses incident to the transfer of 
        prisoners in the custody of United States marshals to narcotic 
        farms [without regard to the provisions of the act approved 
        January 19, 1929 (21 U.S.C. 227);] (17) purchase, 
        when authorized by the Attorney General, of two motor-propelled 
        passenger-carrying vans at not to exceed $2,000 each; and 
        maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled 
        passenger-carrying vehicles $3,980,000: [Pro

[[Page 5815]]

        vided, That United States marshals and their deputies may be 
        allowed, in lieu of actual expenses of transportation, not to 
        exceed 4 cents per mile for the use of privately owned 
        automobiles when traveling on official business within the 
        limits of their official station.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 21 Sec. 227 provided for the transfer of prisoner addicts to and 
        from farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language in line 11, running down into 
    line 13, which reads as follows: ``without regard to the provisions 
    of the act approved January 19, 1929 (21 U.S.C. 27)'' on the ground 
    that it is amendatory of existing law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (18) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the language in line 17, beginning with 
    the word ``Provided'' to the end of the paragraph, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Rabaut: We concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 34.11 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of State is authorized to pay the actual transportation 
    expenses and $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence of citizens of the 
    other American republics while traveling in the Western Hemisphere 
    without regard to the standardized government travel regulations 
    and to make advances of funds notwithstanding section 3648 of the 
    Revised Statutes, and to make contracts and grants of money without 
    regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, was held 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), the 
following transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 2307, 2308, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Cooperation with the American republics: For all expenses 
        necessary to enable the Secretary of State to meet the 
        obligations of the United States under the Convention for the 
        Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations between the 
        United States and the other American republics, signed at 
        Buenos Aires, December 23, 1936, and to carry out the purposes 
        of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the President to 
        render closer and more effective the relationship between the 
        American republics,'' approved August 9, 1939, and to 
        supplement appropriations available for carrying out other 
        provisions of law authorizing related activities . . . such 
        expenses to include personal services in the District of 
        Columbia, not to exceed $125,000 for printing and binding; 
        stenographic reporting, translating and other services by 
        contract, without regard

[[Page 5816]]

        to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) 
        (20) . . . Provided, That the Secretary of State is 
        authorized under such regulations as he may adopt, [to pay the 
        actual transportation expenses and not to exceed $10 per diem 
        in lieu of subsistence and other expenses, of citizens of the 
        other American republics while traveling in the Western 
        Hemisphere, without regard to the Standardized Government 
        Travel Regulations, and to make advances of funds 
        notwithstanding section 3648 of the Revised Statutes] 
        (1) . . . and the Secretary of State, or such 
        official as he may designate is hereby authorized, in his 
        discretion, [to make contracts with, and grants of money or 
        property to, governmental and public or private nonprofit 
        institutions and facilities in the United States and the other 
        American republics, including the free distribution, donation, 
        or loan of publications, phonograph records, radio 
        transcriptions, art works, motion-picture films, educational 
        material, and other material and equipment, and other 
        gratuitous assistance in the fields of the arts and sciences, 
        education and travel, publications, the radio, the press, and 
        the cinema; all without regard to the provisions of section 
        3709 of the Revised Statutes.]. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 34.2, supra, for provisions of 41 USC Sec. 5.
 1 Section 3648 provided: No advance of public money shall be made in 
        any case unless authorized by the appropriation concerned or 
        other law. And in all cases of contracts for the performance of 
        any service, or the delivery of articles of any description, 
        for the use of the United States, payment shall not exceed the 
        value of the service rendered, or of the articles delivered 
        previously to such payment. It shall, however, be lawful, under 
        the special direction of the President, to make such advances 
        to the disbursing officers of the Government as may be 
        necessary to the faithful and prompt discharge of their 
        respective duties, and to the fulfillment of the public 
        engagements. The President may also direct such advances as he 
        may deem necessary and proper, to persons in the military and 
        naval service employed on distant stations, where the discharge 
        of the pay and emoluments to which they may be entitled cannot 
        be regularly effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 33, line 16, beginning 
    with the word ``to'' and ending with the word ``Statutes'', on line 
    22, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and without 
    authority in law.
        Mr. (Emmet) O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a great many 
    points of order are being made on matters which seem to me to be 
    largely administrative. I believe that executives should not need 
    authority in law for many things which in the common ordinary 
    practice of business or operation of Government bureaus are 
    considered to be part of an executive job. The tendency of our 
    courts in recent years has been to do away with legal 
    technicalities which often defeat justice. Sometimes I feel that 
    the House defeats proper legislation by a too strict adherence to 
    superannuated procedure. If you must have laws to authorize every 
    little incidental effort to be made by an executive, it would be 
    impossible, in my opinion, for any executive to carry on properly 
    the business of his office.

[[Page 5817]]

     You could go through any appropriation bill and pick out small 
    duties that an executive is called upon to do which could not be 
    authorized specifically by any act of Congress because they are too 
    multitudinous. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2 Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas 
    does insist on his point of order and suggests that after all the 
    Appropriations Committee is not a legislative committee, as I 
    understand it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas insists on his point of 
    order.
        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The language referred to by the gentleman from Kansas 
    definitely changes existing law and therefore is subject to a point 
    of order. The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    against the language beginning on page 34, line 9, with the 
    word``to'' and extending down to and including line 6 on page 35, 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and without 
    authority of law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    based on 22 United States Code 501, 502, and is in use by other 
    agencies of the Government.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls to the attention of the gentleman 
    from Michigan that there is a specific waiver of existing law in 
    regard to the very subject mentioned by him.
        Mr. Rabaut: Then, Mr. Chairman, we will have to concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

International Conferences, Incidental Printing Expenses

Sec. 34.12 Language in a general appropriation bill permitting the 
    Secretary of State under the heading ``International conferences 
    (emergency)'' for ``printing and binding without regard to section 
    11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111)'' was conceded to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

        On Mar. 15, 1945,(3) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2305), 
    a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 2305, 2306, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        International conferences (emergency): For all necessary 
    expenses, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
    Statutes,(4) of participation by the United States, upon 
    approval by the Secretary of State, in international activities 
    which arise from time to time in the conduct of foreign affairs and 
    for which specific appropriations have not

[[Page 5818]]

    been provided pursuant to treaties, conventions, or special acts of 
    Congress, including personal services in the District of Columbia 
    or elsewhere without regard to civil service and classification 
    laws; employment of aliens; travel expenses without regard to the 
    Standardized Government Travel Regulations and the Subsistence 
    Expense Act of 1926, as amended; transportation of families and 
    effects under such regulations as the Secretary of State may 
    prescribe; stenographic and other services; rent of quarters by 
    contract or otherwise; purchase or rental of equipment, purchase of 
    supplies, books, maps, periodicals and newspapers; transportation 
    of things; contributions for the share of the United States in 
    expenses of international organizations; [printing and binding 
    without regard to section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 
    111); (5) entertainment;] and representation allowances 
    as authorized by the act of February 23, 1931, as amended (22 
    U.S.C. 12, 23c); $1,500,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 34.2, supra, for provisions of 41 USC Sec. 5.
 5. 44 USC Sec. 111 referred to government printing required to be done 
        at the Government Printing Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against that part of the paragraph commencing in 
    line 20 on page 21 with the word ``printing'' and extending down to 
    and including the figure ``$1,500,000'', in line 24, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is contrary to the 
    specific law against such expenditures.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman desire to 
    include the sum of money contained in the paragraph within his 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: No; I do not intend to include the sum of money.
        The Chairman: The gentleman intends, then, to include the 
    language in lines 20, 21, 22, and 23?
        Mr. O'Hara: Yes.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Purchase of Reindeer; Waiving Certain Laws Regulating Contracts

Sec. 34.13 Provision in an appropriation bill authorizing the purchase 
    of reindeer without regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the Revised 
    Statutes was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner 
        as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable and 
        without regard to sections 3709 (8) and 3744 
        (9) of the Re

[[Page 5819]]

        vised Statutes, of reindeer, abbatoirs, cold-storage plants, 
        corrals, and other buildings, and communication and other 
        equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, as authorized by the 
        act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), $820,000; and for 
        necessary administrative expenses in connection with such 
        purchase and the establishment and development of the reindeer 
        industry for the benefit of the Eskimos and other natives of 
        Alaska, as authorized by said act, including personal services 
        in the District of Columbia (not to exceed $2,300) and 
        elsewhere, traveling expenses, erection, repair, and 
        maintenance of corrals, fences, and other facilities $250,000; 
        in all $1,070,000 to be immediately available: Provided, That 
        under this appropriation not exceeding an average of $4 per 
        head shall be paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative 
        owners: Provided further, That the foregoing limitation shall 
        not apply to the purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak 
        Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 34.2, supra, for provisions of Sec. 3709.
 9. Section 3744 referred in part to contracts made by the Secretary of 
        the Interior required to be in writing, and copies to be filed 
        as specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill unauthorized by law. In fact, 
    the language clearly indicates that it repeals the specific 
    provisions of existing law as incorporated in sections 3709 and 
    3744 of the Revised Statutes.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. (Jed) Johnson of Oklahoma: No; I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Waiving Application of Davis-Bacon

Sec. 34.14 An amendment to a general appropriation bill making 
    inapplicable those provisions of law, requiring payment of 
    prevailing wage rates under federal construction contracts, to 
    wages paid under contracts funded by that bill, was conceded to be 
    legislation waiving existing law and not in the form of a 
    limitation.

    On Sept. 16, 1981,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the military construction appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4241), a point of order was raised and sustained against 
amendments offered to the bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 20737, 20738, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: 
    Page 2, line 11, strike out ``$1,029,519,000'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof ``$1,009,276,-400''. . . .
        Sec. 123. The provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 
    276a-276a-5; 46 Stat. 1494), commonly referred to as the Davis-
    Bacon Act, shall not apply to the wages paid to laborers and 
    mechanics for any work or services performed under any contract 
    entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act for the 
    construction of any project funds for which are appropriated by 
    this Act. . . .

[[Page 5820]]

        Mr. [Bo] Ginn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendments because they constitute legislation in 
    an appropriations bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule 
    XXI. . . .
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman insists on his point 
    of order, I will not put him further to the proof. I will concede 
    that perhaps he is correct.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiving Certain Laws Regulating Contracts

Sec. 34.15 Language in a general appropriation bill waiving the 
    provisions of existing law was held to constitute legislation where 
    the law being waived did not specifically permit exceptions 
    therefrom to be contained in appropriation bills.

    On Nov. 13, 1975,(13) it was held that, while 41 United 
States Code section 5 provides that ``unless otherwise provided in the 
appropriation concerned or other law, purchases and contracts for 
supplies or services for the government may be made or entered into 
only after advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals'', 
language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the Congressional 
Budget Office to contract without regard to that provision constituted 
legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, based upon a prior 
ruling of the Chair and also upon the language of the statute itself 
permitting an appropriation or other law, but not a bill, to waive its 
provisions. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 37.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 36271, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 35. Change in Source of Appropriated Funds or in Methods of 
    Financing

Change in Source of Funds--Reclamation Fund/General Fund

Sec. 35.1 Where existing law authorizes appropriations out of a 
    reclamation fund for surveys, it has been held not in order to 
    appropriate money out of the general funds of the Treasury for such 
    surveys.

    On May 17, 1937,(14) H.R. 6958, the Department of the 
Interior appropriation for 1938, was being considered in the Committee 
of the Whole. At one point, the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4692, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grand Coulee Dam, Wash.: For continuation of construction of 
    Grand Cou

[[Page 5821]]

    lee Dam and appurtenant works, $13,000,000, together with the 
    unexpended balance of the appropriation for this dam contained in 
    the Interior Department Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937: 
    Provided, That of this amount not to exceed $250,000 may be 
    expended for economic, industrial, and mineral surveys.
        Mr. (Francis D.) Culkin (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order not against the first portion of the paragraph, but 
    to the proviso on the ground that that amount is not authorized by 
    law, and in corroboration of that fact I say to the Chair that 
    legislation passed this afternoon cannot possibly have become law 
    as yet.

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Nevada 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the act 
    authorizing the reclamation project provides for such surveys.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: That would not make any 
    difference here, as this would come directly out of the Treasury 
    and not out of the reclamation fund.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Nevada cite the Chair to 
    any definite provision of law authorizing the appropriation of 
    money out of the general funds in the Treasury for the making of 
    economic or mineral surveys?
        Mr. Scrugham: The act authorizing the reclamation project, 
    United States Code, page 1862, paragraph 391, authorizes an 
    appropriation to be known as the reclamation fund to be used in 
    examination and survey for the construction and maintenance of 
    irrigation works for storage, diversion, and development of waters 
    and reclamation of semiarid lands in such States and Territories.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that apparently this appropriation does not come out of 
    the reclamation fund but out of the general fund of the Treasury. 
    Does the gentleman desire to make any further comments or cite any 
    further authority?
        Mr. Scrugham: Did the gentleman from New York make the point of 
    order only to the proviso?
        Mr. Culkin: That is all.
        Mr. Scrugham: I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order to the proviso appearing in line 9, page 82. Apparently this 
    is an appropriation of money out of the general funds in the 
    Treasury not authorized by existing law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order as to the proviso.

Sec. 35.2 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating funds 
    out of the general funds of the Treasury (and not out of a 
    reclamation fund) for general investigations of proposed federal 
    reclamation projects, was held to be unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 2, 1938, (16) H.R. 9621, the Department of the 
Interior ap

[[Page 5822]]

propriation for 1939, was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 2710, 2711, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For general investigations, $200,000, to enable the Secretary 
    of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to carry on 
    engineering and economic investigations of proposed Federal 
    reclamation projects, surveys for reconstruction, rehabilitation, 
    or extension of existing projects and studies of water conservation 
    and development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to 
    be carried on by said Bureau either independently, or, if deemed 
    advisable by the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with 
    State agencies, and other Federal agencies, including the Corps of 
    Engineers, National Resources Committee, and the Federal Power 
    Commission;
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning on line 18, page 85, 
    ending with line 4, page 86, upon the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [James C.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    authorized in my opinion in the general terms of the Reclamation 
    Act. It has been in effect for many years.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, an appropriation in accordance with 
    the authorization under the Reclamation Act is provided on page 77, 
    line 8, down to and including line 3 on page 78. The appropriation 
    is $25,000. That is the authorized appropriation. I do not believe 
    there is any authority for this out of the general fund of the 
    Treasury.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair has examined sections 
    411 and 396, United States Code, title 43, and it seems to the 
    Chair that under the terms of these two sections which are rather 
    broad in their application, this appropriation may be authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Is not that limited to the reclamation fund?
        The Chairman: The Chair was looking particularly with reference 
    to that. The Chair will read the entire section 411:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct, 
        as provided in this chapter, irrigation works for the storage, 
        diversion, and development of waters, including artesian wells, 
        and to report to Congress at the beginning of each regular 
        session as to the results of such examinations and surveys, 
        giving estimates of cost of all contemplated works, and 
        quantity and location of the lands which can be irrigated 
        therefrom, and all facts relative to the practicability of each 
        irrigation project; also the cost of works in process of 
        construction as well as of those which have been completed.

        Mr. Taber: I call the attention of the Chair to the language:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the 
        provisions of this chapter--

        That is where the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    and the reclamation fund are defined. That would imply that it is 
    to be done under the provisions of the reclamation fund. It would 
    seem to me that that is the authority under which they operated in

[[Page 5823]]

    providing the appropriation that is to be found on page 77.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Nevada desire to comment 
    on this, or the gentleman from Oklahoma? On consideration it seems 
    to the Chair that this comes out of the general fund in the 
    Treasury and not the reclamation fund, and this is limited in the 
    way suggested by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Scrugham: Section 411 seems to cover the matter.
        The Chairman: If this were out of the reclamation fund, there 
    would be no question about it, but this appropriation is out of the 
    general fund in the Treasury. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order inasmuch as the 
    appropriation is made out of the general fund and not the 
    reclamation fund. The Chair sustains the point of order.

--General Fund; Timber Sale Receipts

Sec. 35.3 A provision in a general appropriation bill providing funds 
    for an agricultural project, for which funding had been authorized 
    from the receipts of timber sales and not from appropriated funds, 
    was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

     On May 26, 1969,(18) 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 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 13754, 13755, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Cooperative State Research Service

                              payment and expenses

            For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
        grants for cooperative forestry and other research, for 
        facilities, and for other expenses, including $53,854,000 to 
        carry into effect the provisions of the Hatch Act, approved 
        March 2, 1887, as amended by the Act approved August 11, 1955 
        (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i), including administration by the United 
        States Department of Agriculture; $3,785,000 for grants for 
        cooperative forestry research under the Act approved October 
        10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-582a-7), [of which amount, the sum of 
        $201,642.80 shall be paid to those States for the benefit of 
        the counties from which timber receipts earned as a result of 
        agreements entered into under the authority of the Weeks Act 
        (16 U.S.C. 500) have been withheld;] $2,000,000 in addition to 
        funds otherwise available for contracts and grants for 
        scientific research under the Act of August 4, 1965 (7 U.S.C. 
        450i) of which $1,000,000 shall be for the special cotton 
        research program and $400,000 for soybean research; $1,000,000 
        for grants for facilities under the Act approved July 22, 1963 
        (7 U.S.C. 390-390k); $160,000 for penalty mail costs of 
        agricultural experiment stations under section 6 of the Hatch 
        Act of 1887, as amended; and $376,000 for necessary expenses of 
        the Cooperative State Research Service, including 
        administration of payments to State agricul

[[Page 5824]]

        tural experiment stations, funds for employment pursuant to the 
        second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
        U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 
        U.S.C. 3109; in all, $61,175,000.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language contained on page 6, lines 22, 
    23, 24, and 25, and on page 7, lines 1 and 2, through the word 
    ``withheld''.
        My point of order is predicated on four grounds.
        First, this is legislation in an appropriation bill. Under the 
    so-called Weeks Act, lands may be transferred by States to the 
    Federal Government under an agreement to pay 75 percent of the 
    funds for timber cut for school purposes and for roads, but under 
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such funds come within the purview of 
    moneys to be paid by the Federal Government to the States. The 
    Attorney General and other appropriate agencies have determined the 
    so-called Weeks Act falls within the purview of that act. 
    Therefore, in requiring funds to be paid under the Weeks Act in 
    contravention to the decision of the Attorney General that no such 
    funds should be paid, it changes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, it establishes an affirmative direction 
    to the Secretary of Agriculture or to one of his subordinates to 
    make a payment. It requires him to take a specific action. It says 
    the money shall be paid. Contrary to other provisions of this 
    appropriation bill, which say that funds shall be available for 
    certain purposes, this is a direction, a mandate, a requirement to 
    an executive officer to take certain steps.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation without authority 
    of law. If the Chair will note the citation for the funds, it is 
    given as 16 U.S.C. 582a-582a-7. Mr. Chairman, I have read those 
    sections very carefully, and I find no authority in those sections 
    for making this particular payment. I have the code before me. The 
    code is directed to a sustained yield forest management program. It 
    does not provide for any payments to be made under the so-called 
    Weeks Act.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, assuming that there is authority under 
    the Weeks Act, this language is not directed to authority under the 
    Weeks Act. Assuming whatever authority the Weeks Act provided for 
    payment of certain funds, that authority no longer exists when 
    appropriate agencies of the Federal Government take steps to 
    suspend payments that were authorized under that law, taking the 
    steps authorized under another act.
        For example, whatever authority the Weeks Act gave to make such 
    payments, that authority was suspended by the action taken under 
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizing the Attorney General to 
    suspend any payments to counties which did not require their 
    schools to desegregate in accordance with the law.
        For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) he gentleman from Illinois 
    reserves his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, our 
    committee realizes its limitations, but I think it

[[Page 5825]]

    well to point out in connection with the point of order that the 
    authority under which the committee has attempted to act is that 
    found in 582 of title 16, the language which is in line 22. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in view of the words ``shall be paid'' I would 
    have to agree that the section is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi concedes that the 
    language is subject to a point of order.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois insist upon his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The language of the bill 
    beginning in line 23, page 6, to and through the word ``withheld'' 
    on line 2, page 7, constitutes a diversion of funds from authorized 
    appropriations for an unauthorized purpose; and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order against that language.

Borrowing Authority in Lieu of Appropriation

Sec. 35.4 A provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating a 
    specific sum of money and providing that such sum would be borrowed 
    from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and directing such 
    corporation to lend such amount notwithstanding the provisions of 
    law was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Feb. 2, 1940,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 1033, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5, and 
    the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of the Rural 
    Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901-914), 
    $40,000,000, [which sum shall be borrowed from the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 
    3(a) of said act, and shall be considered as made available 
    thereunder; and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is hereby 
    authorized and directed to lend such sum in addition to the amounts 
    heretofore authorized under said section 3(a) and without regard to 
    the limitation in respect of time contained in section 3(e) of said 
    act.]
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning on page 84, line 7, with the 
    word ``which'', and ending with the word ``act,'' in line 15, that 
    it is legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Missouri 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Authorization and Appropriation in Lieu of Treasury Financing

Sec. 35.5 Where the authorizing legislation provided (1) that

[[Page 5826]]

    a program should be financed through sale of notes issued by the 
    Secretary of Commerce, and (2) further authorized the Secretary of 
    the Treasury to purchase such notes, using, as a public-debt 
    transaction, the proceeds from the sale of securities issued under 
    the Second Liberty Bond Act, a provision in an appropriation bill 
    providing a direct appropriation, in lieu of the treasury 
    financing, was held to be legislation amending existing law to 
    provide a direct authorization for that appropriation.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 19726, 19727, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Area Redevelopment Administration

                         Area redevelopment assistance

            For necessary expenses of the Area Redevelopment 
        Administration in carrying out the Area Redevelopment Act 
        (Public Law 87-27), $168,000,000, [of which not to exceed 
        $122,500,000 shall remain available until expended for loans 
        and participations as authorized by section 6 and public 
        facility loans as authorized by section 7 of such Act], not to 
        exceed $40,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
        public facility grants as authorized by section 8, not to 
        exceed $2,250,000 shall be available for technical assistance 
        as authorized by section 11, and not to exceed $3,250,000 shall 
        be available for necessary expenses, not otherwise provided 
        for, including rent in the District of Columbia and hire of 
        passenger motor vehicles, [and any funds heretofore borrowed 
        from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 9 of such Act 
        shall be repaid from this appropriation and such section 9 is 
        hereby amended to read as follows: ``There are hereby 
        authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of extending 
        financial assistance under sections 6 and 7 such amounts as may 
        be necessary to furnish financial assistance in the maximum 
        amounts authorized under such sections].''

        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the following language, on the ground it proposes 
    to change existing law and is legislation on an appropriation bill:
        Page 4, beginning with the figure ``$168,000,000'', line 19, 
    and running through line 22; and on page 5, beginning with ``and 
    any funds'', line 4, running through line 12, except the period. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: . . . But if the gentleman 
    feels that he cannot withdraw his point of order, I will join the 
    gentleman in his point of order and ask that the entire paragraph 
    be stricken.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Thomas] make

[[Page 5827]]

    a point of order against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: The entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Replacing Treasury Borrowing With Direct Authorization for 
    Appropriations; Housing and Home Finance Administrator

Sec. 35.6 Language in a general appropriation bill terminating the 
    authority of the Housing and Home Finance Administrator to finance 
    mass transportation projects through the issuance of notes and 
    obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
    substituting a direct authorization for appropriation for financing 
    based on a public-debt transaction, was conceded to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 19730, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Mass Transportation Loans and Grants

        For loans including purchase of securities and obligations in 
    connection with mass transportation facilities, as authorized by 
    clause (2) of section 202(a) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as 
    amended (42 U.S.C. 1492; 75 Stat. 173), and grants in connection 
    with mass transportation demonstration projects, as authorized by 
    section 103(b) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
    1453; 75 Stat. 166), $42,500,000, of which not to exceed $130,000 
    shall be available for administrative expenses in connection 
    therewith, and on and after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
    authority to issue notes and other obligations for the purposes of 
    clause (2) of section 202(a) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as 
    amended, shall cease, and in lieu of such authority $50,000,000 is 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated for such purpose, and the 
    proviso to the first sentence of section 103(b) of the Housing Act 
    of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
    ``may'' the phrase ``within the limits of appropriations made 
    available therefor and''.
        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rains: . . . Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make this point of 
    order. This is not an opportunity to save money; this is an 
    opportunity completely to change the law.
        This language would terminate the authority of the Housing and 
    Home Fi

[[Page 5828]]

    nance Administrator under section 202 of the Housing Amendments of 
    1955 to borrow from the Treasury. So it hits the big problem to 
    provide funds for loans to public bodies to purchase mass 
    transportation facilities.
        It would also amend section 103(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 
    by limiting the Administrator's contract authority for grants for 
    mass transportation demonstration projects to amounts within the 
    limits of the appropriation made available by the contracts; and 
    for that reason, because it is evidently legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, I must regretfully make the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: May I repeat, the committee is 
    trying to make these paragraphs on mass transportation work, not 
    cripple them, but make them work for loans and grants. There is no 
    limitation on who can get the money; the only limitation is in the 
    grant money. These are demonstration grants to be used to buy 
    equipment if you look at it carefully. Private utilities can do it 
    and public utilities. But, anyway, the committee went along with 
    it. It is back-door spending pure and unadulterated, and all we did 
    was to try to put back in the Congress control over the money.
        If my friend insists on his point of order I will have to join 
    him and make a point of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order 
    against the entire paragraph on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Discharge of Commodity Credit Corporation Indebtedness

Sec. 35.7 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of the Treasury to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes 
    issued by the corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury in a 
    specific amount under the International Wheat Agreement Act was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.

    On May 17, 1951,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 5469, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       international wheat agreement

        The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes issued by the 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury in the amount of 
    $76,808,000 for the net costs during the fiscal year 1950 under the 
    Inter

[[Page 5829]]

    national Wheat Agreement Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1641-1642).
        Mr. [Ed] Gossett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gossett: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph on page 50, lines 5 to 12, inclusive, International Wheat 
    Agreement, on the ground that that is a new authorization and a 
    direction to the Secretary of the Treasury to handle this item 
    contrary to the manner in which it has been handled, and therefore 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Forgiving Interest on Debt; Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 35.8 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds 
    borrowed from the Treasury by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    shall not bear interest to the extent that the CCC incurs 
    unreimbursed losses, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out 
    on a point of order.

    On May 20, 1964,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 11426, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 30, line 1:

                         ``Commodity Credit Corporation

                    ``Reimbursement for net Realized Losses

            ``To partially reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        for net realized losses sustained during the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1963, pursuant to the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 
        U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), $1,724,000,000: Provided, That after 
        June 30, 1963, the portion of borrowings from Treasury equal to 
        the unreimbursed realized losses recorded on the books of the 
        Corporation after June 30 of the fiscal year in which such 
        losses are realized, shall not bear interest and interest shall 
        not be accrued or paid thereon.''

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 30, line 7 through 11, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . The gentleman's 
    point of order is well taken and we acknowledge it, but I should 
    like to say for the record that what this amounts to is that this 
    cost will continue to pyramid

[[Page 5830]]

    bookkeeping-wise and interest will be added to it, so that 
    Agriculture will be charged with more and more interest every year. 
    We think that should be corrected and we tried to do it in this 
    way. But we confess the validity of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Mississippi has conceded 
    the validity of the point of order.

Sec. 35.9 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing and 
    directing the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge indebtedness 
    of a government corporation in the amount of its capital impairment 
    on a certain date by canceling notes issued by such corporation to 
    the Treasury was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and held not in order.

    On May 1, 1952,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7314), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 4741, 4742, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further point of order addressed to the same title and to the 
    provision beginning in line 9 and running down to, and including 
    line 17.
        There also we have legislation in an appropriation bill in that 
    it authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    discharge an indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the extent of $120,000,000. That obviously can be done only by 
    legislation which properly should come before the Banking and 
    Currency Committee. If the Commodity Credit Corporation can make 
    out a case it will probably get the authorizing and proper 
    legislation. This is not the way to do it. This, in effect, changes 
    the authorization by increasing it to the extent of $120,000,000. 
    It is now $4,750,000,000, as fixed by law. This would, in effect, 
    increase that authorization by another $120,000,000.
        The reference to the statute in the last two lines of the 
    section merely fixes the method of determining any impairment of 
    the capital of the Commodity Credit Corporation and does not 
    authorize a discharge of any indebtedness.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    have to admit the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman concedes the point 
    of order and it is, therefore, sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee Valley Authority; Repayment of Interest

Sec. 35.10 In an appropriation bill a provision that hereafter the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority shall pay into the Treasury interest on 
    the amounts invested by the Authority in

[[Page 5831]]

    power facilities and that no limit shall be placed by the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority on resale rates of power fixed by local 
    distributors was conceded and held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 4131, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
        ch. 12A), including purchase (not to exceed 1) and hire, 
        maintenance, and operation of aircraft, and purchase (not to 
        exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor 
        vehicles $103,582,000, to remain available until expended, and 
        to be available for the payment of obligations chargeable 
        against prior appropriations: . . . Provided further, That 
        hereafter the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley 
        Authority shall pay each year to miscellaneous receipts of the 
        Treasury from power revenues interest on the amounts invested 
        by the Authority in power-facility properties, including 
        construction in progress, from appropriations heretofore and 
        hereafter made to the Authority and on amounts equal to the 
        book value at the time of the transfer of power-facility 
        properties obtained from other Federal agencies without 
        reimbursement by the Authority, less amounts of capital 
        returned to the Treasury from such revenues. The rate of 
        interest shall be equal to the average rate of interest paid by 
        the Treasury of the United States, during the prior fiscal 
        year, on the public debt: Provided further, That no limitation 
        shall be placed by the Tennessee Valley Authority on resale 
        rates of power fixed by local distributors.

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 43, line 25, 
    after the colon, and all the language in the paragraph on page 44 
    on the ground that it proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Public Debt Transaction Financing Mechanism

Sec. 35.11 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of the Treasury to use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds 
    from the sales of any securities issued under the Second Liberty 
    Bond Act was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5832]]

Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. On page 200, line 16, beginning with the words--

            Provided further,  That for the purpose of making loans 
        pursuant to the foregoing authority, the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized to use as a public-debt transaction the 
        proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the 
        Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which 
        securities may be issued under that act are extended to include 
        such loans to the Secretary: Provided further, That repayments 
        to the Secretary of the Treasury on such loans shall be treated 
        as a public-debt transaction.

        I make the point of order that that language involves 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. However, I do this in order 
    to protect the record at this point and would be very glad to 
    reserve the point of order and ask for an explanation of what is 
    attempted to be accomplished by this proviso. My point is that it 
    may be something highly desirable to which I would not want to make 
    a point of order. Off hand it looks to me clearly like legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, but perhaps it may be desirable 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: This language was 
    included to facilitate the handling of the program which is set out 
    above in the bill. It is merely technical, as is apparent, and is 
    just in order to facilitate the handling of the matter by the 
    Treasury Department and, as I understand, was originally included 
    at the insistence of the Treasury Department to so facilitate it. I 
    am not prepared to say whether it is or is not legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I do say that it is economy to keep it in 
    rather than strike it out. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair would invite attention to the fact that the language 
    appearing in this proviso, ``the Secretary of the Treasury is 
    authorized to use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from 
    the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond 
    Act,'' and so forth, would appear to be clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Secretary of Treasury to Adjust Levels of Appropriations

Sec. 35.12 In a general appropriation bill a provision authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the Bureau of the 
    Budget, to make specified adjustments in appropriations made by the 
    paragraph to reflect the amount of certain tax receipts was held to 
    constitute legislation and such paragraph was ruled out.

[[Page 5833]]

    On Apr. 18, 1951,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Labor and Federal Security 
Agency appropriation bill (H.R. 3709), a point of order was raised 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 4093, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Title V--Railroad Retirement Board

            Payment to railroad retirement account: For an annual 
        premium to provide for the payment of all annuities, pensions, 
        and death benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 
        Railroad Retirement Acts of 1935 and 1937, as amended (45 
        U.S.C. 228-228s), and for expenses necessary for the Railroad 
        Retirement Board in the administration of said acts as may be 
        specifically authorized annually in appropriation acts, there 
        is hereby appropriated for crediting monthly to the railroad 
        retirement account for the fiscal year 1952, and for each 
        fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to the amount covered 
        into the Treasury (minus refunds) during each such fiscal year 
        under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 1500-1538): 
        [Provided, That the appropriation made herein for the fiscal 
        year 1952 shall be adjusted by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
        with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, in such manner 
        as may be necessary to insure that the railroad retirement 
        account shall be credited for an amount equal to the amounts 
        covered into the Treasury (minus refunds) prior to July 1, 
        1951, under said Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and under the 
        Carriers Taxing Act of 1937, as amended, less (1) amounts 
        credited as premiums to the railroad retirement account 
        (excluding $334,429,100 heretofore appropriated for military 
        service credits) and (2) amounts properly chargeable as 
        administrative expenses of the Railroad Retirement Board, prior 
        to July 1, 1951.]

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 36, the proviso 
    beginning after the colon on line 4 and going down to the period on 
    line 16. This is legislation on an appropriation bill. Obviously, 
    this goes beyond the scope of the bill and beyond the appropriation 
    provisions of the bill. It is similar in nature to the language to 
    which I made objection last year at the same time.
        The Chairman: (17) Will the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania define the specific language in the bill to which he 
    raises the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: The point of order is to the legislative intent and 
    the legislative provision of the entire proviso.
        As I read this, I construe (it) in effect as amounting to a 
    repealer of existing legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Do I understand that the 
    gentleman makes a point of order only to the language on page 36 
    beginning at line 4, that is under the proviso?
        Mr. Flood: That is correct.
        The Chairman: And ending on line 16?
        Mr. Flood: That is correct.
        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 5834]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: Would not the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman go to the entire paragraph?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania so made the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania a moment ago if his point of order was to the proviso 
    only and I understand the gentleman to say that it was.
        Mr. Flood: That was true. That was the point of order I made, 
    but I have no objection to making a subsequent point of order this 
    time to make a point of order against the entire paragraph.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Wolverton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, so 
    that there may be no misunderstanding about the situation, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York concede the 
    point of order to the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph, in view of the discussion which has just taken 
    place.
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order now takes in the entire 
    paragraph beginning on page 35 and ending at line 16, page 36. . . 
    .
        And the gentleman from New York [Mr. McGrath] concedes the 
    point of order. The point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 36. Changing Prescribed Methods of Allocation or Distribution of 
    Funds; Mandating Expenditures

    Generally, if a provision in an appropriation bill would require an 
allocation or distribution of appropriated funds that is contrary to an 
express legislative formula for apportionment of the funds, it is not 
permitted. Thus, it is held that an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill which mandates a distribution of funds therein in 
contravention of an allocation formula in existing law and which 
interferes with an executive official's discretionary authority under 
that law is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. (See Sec. 36.16, infra.) 
On the other hand, amendments or provisions in bills have been 
permitted which have been drafted simply as negative restrictions or 
limitations on the use of funds. Such limitations may affect the 
allocation of funds as contemplated in existing law, but do not 
explicitly change a statutory formula for distribution.(18) 
Exam

[[Page 5835]]

ples may be found in those sections of this chapter relating to 
``permissible limitations on the use of funds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. In one instance, where existing law authorized an appropriation of 
        $600,000,000 for the fiscal year and provided that of the 
        amount actually appropriated, allotments to the various states 
        should be computed by a formula, the factors of which were to 
        be state population, per capita income therein, the amount 
        appropriated and the amount authorized, a provision in the 
        appropriation bill H.R. 13111 (for the Departments of Labor and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare) specifying that none of the 
        funds used therein should be available for making allotments on 
        a basis in excess of $500,000,000, thus changing one of the 
        legislatively established figures in the authorized formula, 
        was nevertheless held in order as a limitation, the argument 
        not having been explicit on this crucial point. 115 Cong. Rec. 
        21471, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1969. (For an example of 
        a similar limitation based on a prior year's appropriation, see 
        118 Cong. Rec. 21104, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1972 [H.R. 
        15417].) But the ruling today would arguably be different, on 
        the basis that the provisions did in fact change one part of a 
        legislatively established formula. See also Sec. 77.2, infra, 
        in which an amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill 
        providing that no part of the funds therein contained shall be 
        distributed to states on a per capita income basis was held to 
        be a proper limitation restricting the use of funds and in 
        order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Theoretically, if an authorizing statute provided that a particular 
percentage of total funds would be allocated to each of several 
specified areas, a purported limitation which eliminated funds for one 
of those areas would constitute legislation in that it changed a 
prescribed formula. This result, however, does not clearly emerge from 
the precedents.                          -------------------

General Rule

Sec. 36.1 It is not in order in a general appropriation bill to direct 
    that certain funds therein shall be distributed without regard to 
    the provisions of the authorizing legislation.

    On June 15, 1972,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15417), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 21131, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 22, line 4, change 
        the period to a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided 
        that the funds herein appropriated for bilingual education 
        under the Bilingual Education Act shall be distributed in 
        accordance with the authority contained in Section 703(b) of 
        said Act requiring that the Commissioner shall give highest 
        priority to states and areas within states having the greatest 
        need for programs under the Act, and that

[[Page 5836]]

        such priority shall take into consideration the number of 
        children of limited English-speaking ability between the ages 
        of three (3) and eighteen (18) in each state; and provided 
        further that such distribution of funds shall be made [without 
        regard to the provisions of Section 704(a) of the Bilingual 
        Education Act that distribution be `from families (A) with 
        incomes below $3,000 per year, or (B) receiving payments under 
        a program of aid to families with dependent children under a 
        State plan approved under title IV of the Social Security Act', 
        and of Section 704(c) of the Bilingual Education Act that 
        distribution be `from families (A) with incomes below $3,000 
        per year, or (B) receiving payments under a program of aid to 
        families with dependent children under a State plan approved 
        under title IV of the Social Security Act.' '']

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and very briefly.
        Mr. Chairman, it is very clear and I read now from Cannon's 
    Procedures in the House of Representatives, page 46, which reads as 
    follows:

            Any deviation however slight from the text of existing law.

        It says that no deviation however slight. This is certainly 
    that, if you heard it as I did. I had a copy of the amendment and I 
    read it carefully in some detail.
        Mr. Chairman, I could not make it any plainer if I wrote it 
    myself.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Yates: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I conceive of this amendment as being a 
    limitation on an appropriation bill in determining the manner in 
    which funds be spent. I, therefore, think it is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment does 
    not restate existing law but changes existing law. Therefore, it 
    becomes legislation on an appropriation bill, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Mandating Spending Levels

Sec. 36.2 Language in an appropriation bill mandating a certain 
    allotment of funds appropriated therein was ruled out as 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 29, 1960,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11390), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 6862, 6863, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Defense Educational Activities

        For grants, loans, and payments under the National Defense 
    Education Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 1580-1605), $171,000,000, of which 
    $44,000,000 shall be for capital contributions to student loan 
    funds and loans for non-Federal capital contributions to stu

[[Page 5837]]

    dent loan funds, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be for 
    such loans for non-Federal capital contributions; $57,750,000 shall 
    be for grants to States and loans to nonprofit private schools for 
    science, mathematics, or modern foreign language equipment and 
    minor remodeling of facilities and for grants to States for 
    supervisory and other services, [but allotments pursuant to section 
    302 or 305 of such Act for the current fiscal year shall be made on 
    the basis of the maximum amounts authorized to be appropriated 
    under section 301 of such Act;] $9,000,000 shall be for grants to 
    States for area vocational education programs; and $15,000,000 
    shall be for grants to States for testing, guidance, and 
    counselling: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
    shall be available for the purchase of science, mathematics, and 
    modern language teaching equipment, or equipment suitable for use 
    for teaching in such fields of education, which can be identified 
    as originating in or having been exported from a Communist country, 
    unless such equipment is unavailable from any other source. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 17, line 19, which reads as follows:

            But allotments pursuant to section 302 or 305 of such act 
        for the current fiscal year shall be made on the basis of the 
        maximum amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 301 
        of such act.

        I make the point of order that this language constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I am in 
    no other position than to concede that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; but it will change the basic effect of the act, 
    throw it out of control. However, if the gentleman insists on his 
    point of order, there is nothing else I can do.
        Mr. Gross: I insist on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa insists on his point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Requiring a Certain Apportionment of Funds

Sec. 36.3 To a general appropriation bill including funds for 
    educational programs authorized by law, an amendment denying the 
    use of such funds until the Commissioner of Education makes an 
    apportionment thereof contrary to the formula prescribed by 
    existing law was held to impose additional duties on the 
    Commissioner and to change existing law and was thus ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On June 26, 1968,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5838]]

Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill (H.R. 18037), a point of order was raised against 
the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 18894, 18895, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie: On page 13, line 24, strike 
        the word ``Provided'' and all the language that follows through 
        the word ``grants'' on page 14, line 3, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: [``Provided, That no part of this 
        appropriation shall be made available to any local educational 
        agency in any State from funds appropriated to carry out such 
        title II for the fiscal year 1969 until there has been made 
        available from this appropriation to each local educational 
        agency in the State in whose schools the number of children 
        counted under section 103(a)2 of such title II exceeds 25 per 
        centum of the total enrollment in such schools an amount at 
        least equal to the amount made available to it for the fiscal 
        year 1968 from funds appropriated to carry out such title:] 
        Provided further, That the Commissioner shall make no part of 
        this appropriation available to any local educational agency 
        which fails to give priority in carrying out programs under 
        such title II to schools serving school attendance areas of 
        greatest need:''.

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. I propose to make a 
    point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman reserves a point of 
    order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order. 
    This amendment obviously and clearly changes the entire system of 
    allocations. It attempts to create a formula. If ever I have seen 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, this is it.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Quie: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        My amendment is a limitation on the payment of $1,064,000,000. 
    It is a similar limitation to that placed on the expenditure in 
    other parts of the bill; for instance, pages 13 and 14, as the 
    provisos. Also, as to the impact aid, we see some of the same kinds 
    of limitations, where there could be no reduction for category A 
    students but the reduction all would have to be for category B 
    students.
        My amendment is written in the same way, as a limitation on 
    payments under this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to read the amendment and has 
    listened to the arguments for the point of order and against the 
    point of order.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Quie] provides that:

             No funds may be made available from this appropriation 
        until there has been made available from this appropriation (to 
        certain local edu

[[Page 5839]]

        cational agencies) an amount at least equal to the amount made 
        available to it in fiscal 1968.

        The Chair has examined the amendment, the bill, and the 
    provisions of title II of the act of September 30, 1950, as 
    amended. The effect of the amendment is to prohibit the 
    Commissioner of Education from making any payments to any State 
    from this appropriation until there is an amount made available to 
    local educational agencies in certain States at least equal to that 
    provided last year.
        The Chair feels that to make an appropriation contingent upon 
    certain actions to be taken by the Commissioner which impose 
    additional duties that are contrary to the apportionment formula in 
    existing law constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, in 
    violation of rule XXI, clause 2.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Permitting Reapportionment of Unused Funds

Sec. 36.4 In an appropriation bill providing funds for the Office of 
    Education, language ``[t]hat the amount of allotment which States 
    and Territories are not prepared to use may be reapportioned among 
    other States and Territories applying therefor for use in the 
    programs for which the funds were originally apportioned'', was 
    conceded and held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 29, 1957,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 4805, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              office of education

            Promotion and further development of vocational education: 
        For carrying out the provisions of section 3 of the Vocational 
        Education Act of 1946, as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 2), and 
        section 202 of said act (70 Stat. 925), section 4 of the act of 
        March 10, 1924 (20 U.S.C. 29), section 1 of the act of March 3, 
        1931 (20 U.S.C. 30), the act of March 18, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 31), 
        including $4 million for extension and improvement of practical 
        nurse training, $33,442,081: Provided, That the apportionment 
        to the States under section 3 (a), (1), (2), (3), and (4) of 
        the Vocational Education Act of 1946 shall be computed on the 
        basis of not to exceed $29,267,081 for the current fiscal year: 
        [Provided further, That the amount of allotment which States 
        and Territories are not prepared to use may be reapportioned 
        among other States and Territories applying therefor for use in 
        the programs for which the funds were originally apportioned.]

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: I wish to raise the point of order against the 
    proviso on

[[Page 5840]]

    line 14, page 17, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Coming as it does, it would make a change, you 
    might say, in the formula that has been adopted in the basic act; 
    the formula for the distribution of funds.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    no other recourse but to agree that it is subject to a point of 
    order. But, when you do strike this out, you are going to penalize 
    those States who have the best programs for vocational training.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order, and 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Exemption From Mandatory Funding Levels

Sec. 36.5 A provision in a general appropriation bill requiring that 
    the mandatory funding levels prescribed by existing law shall not 
    be effective during the current fiscal year was conceded to change 
    existing law and was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    2.

    On July 23, 1970,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515), the following 
point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Office of Economic Opportunity

                        economic opportunity program

        For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
    Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved 
    August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000 . . . . Provided 
    further, [That those provisions of the Economic Opportunity 
    Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory funding levels shall 
    not be effective during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.]
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 38, line 25, 
    and on page 39 through line 3. The language reads:

            Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic 
        Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory 
        funding levels shall not be effective during the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1971.

        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    sets aside all the earmarking that we provided for in the Economic 
    Opportunity Authorization Act.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and the Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5841]]

Requiring Priorities in Allocating Funds

Sec. 36.6 To a paragraph in a general appropriation bill making an 
    appropriation for grants to states for hospital construction, an 
    amendment providing that funds for new obligations must be allotted 
    on a basis of priority to projects most advanced as determined by 
    the several states was ruled out as constituting legislation.

    On Apr. 18, 1951,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Labor and Federal Security 
Agency appropriation bill (H.R. 3709), the following transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 4078, 4081, 4082, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Grants for hospital construction: For payments for hospital 
        construction under part C, title VI, of the act, as amended, to 
        remain available until expended, $175,000,000, of which 
        $100,000,000 is for payment of obligations incurred under 
        authority heretofore granted under this head: Provided, That 
        allotments under such part C to the several States for the 
        current fiscal year shall be made on the basis of an amount 
        equal to that part of the appropriation granted herein which is 
        available for new obligations.

        Mr. [Foster] Furcolo [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Furcolo: Page 21, line 13, strike 
        out ``$175,000,000'' and insert in its place the figure 
        ``$250,000,000.''

        Mr. Furcolo: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer is on page 21, 
    line 13, where there will be a substitution of the figure 
    $175,000,000 to make it read $250,000,000. . . .
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. H. Carl Andersen as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Furcolo: Page 21, line 19, 
        after ``obligations'' strike out the period and insert 
        ``Provided, That the funds provided for new obligations shall 
        be allotted on a basis of priority to those projects most 
        advanced in the planning and financing as determined by the 
        several States.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the substitute that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The Chair will notice in line 16 the 
    provision ``That allotments under such part C to the several 
    States'' and so forth and so on. If that provision is germane and 
    in order, as it appears to be why should not a further provision as 
    to how the State shall allot the money, based upon the degree of 
    advancement, be germane? The gentleman from Arkansas should either 
    make a point of order against that provision also or withdraw his 
    opposition to mine.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 5842]]

        After studying the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair feels that this is a change in 
    existing law, and therefore sustains the point of order that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        In regard to the second point raised by the gentleman, the 
    Chair holds that because other legislative language may be 
    permitted to remain in the bill, that does not make in order 
    language adding legislation in violation of the rules.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order submitted by 
    the gentleman from New York.

Changing Allotment in Authorization by Line-item Appropriations

Sec. 36.7 To a supplemental appropriation bill containing funds for 
    hospitals under the Hill-Burton Act, an amendment making funds 
    available for 35 specific hospitals, itemized individually and by 
    states, was held to change the apportionment formula for hospital 
    construction funds in the basic act and to constitute legislation 
    on an appropriation bill in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 7, 1970,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
17399), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 14566, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry C.] Schadeberg [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Schadeberg: On page 11, between 
        lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

          ``Health Services and Mental Health Administration Hospital 
                                  Construction

            ``For an additional amount for `Hospital Construction', 
        $8,703,078, for thirty-five hospitals in Kansas, Nebraska, 
        Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, 
        Wisconsin, and Indiana under title III of the Public Health 
        Service Act as follows:
            ``The State of Kansas, $1,130,245:
            ``(1) the Saint Francis Hospital in Topeka, $288,496.
            ``(2) the Saint John's Hospital in Salina, $68,328.
            ``(3) the Mount Carmel Hospital in Pittsburg, $273,312. . . 
        .
            ``The State of Indiana, $250,443:
            ``(1) the Saint Mary Mercy Hospital in Gary and the Union 
        Hospital in Terre Haute.''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that there is no 
    authorization in law for the appropriations earmarked for these 
    specific hospitals.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schadeberg: Only, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the 
    hospitals that are mentioned have had priority under

[[Page 5843]]

    the Hill-Burton Act and are under construction.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin, as the Chair 
    understands it, takes the position that these funds are authorized 
    by the Hill-Burton Act. Is that correct?
        Mr. Schadeberg: They have had construction started under the 
    Hill-Burton Act, yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to 
    respond to that?
        Mr. Flood: Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman. The Hill-Burton 
    Hospital Construction Act authorizes appropriations only to States 
    and to territories under a very, very specific mathematical 
    formula. There is nothing in that law at any place which authorizes 
    appropriations for individual hospitals. As a matter of fact, the 
    law provides that eligibility for individual hospitals shall be 
    determined only by the States. There is no authorization either for 
    appropriations to specific hospitals or for the U.S. Public Health 
    Service to designate by hospital where appropriated funds are to be 
    used.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The Chair holds that the provisions of title VI of the 
    Public Health Service Act are as described by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. The authorizing legislation provides for 
    appropriations on an allotment formula to the States and does not 
    authorize appropriations in any way for the construction of 
    individual hospitals or permit the selection of individual 
    hospitals for appropriation. The Chair, therefore, is constrained 
    to sustain the point of order on the ground that the proposed 
    amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.

State Educational Aid--``Hold Harmless'' Provision

Sec. 36.8 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    amounts to be paid to state educational agencies for certain 
    elementary and secondary school aid during fiscal 1971 shall not be 
    more than amounts made available for those purposes during the 
    preceding fiscal year, and providing that amounts for other 
    categories of such aid in fiscal 1971 shall not be less than 
    amounts available for that purpose in the preceding fiscal year, 
    was held to change the ratable reduction formula in existing law 
    and to impose new duties on an executive official, and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 7, 1971,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Education appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7016), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 10061, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5844]]

                          Title I--office of education

                       elementary and secondary education

            For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
        title I ($1,500,000,000), title II ($85,000,000), title III 
        ($143,393,000), title V-A ($33,000,000), title VII, and section 
        807 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, section 402 
        of the General Education Provisions Act, and title III-A of the 
        National Defense Education Act of 1958 ($20,000,000), 
        $1,822,218,000: Provided, That (1) the amounts made available 
        to State agencies for the purposes of section 103(a) (5), (6), 
        and (7) of title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act and to the States for the purposes of title I-B shall not 
        be more than the amounts made available in fiscal year 1971 for 
        these purposes and (2) the aggregate amounts made available to 
        each State under title I-A for grants to local educational 
        agencies within that State shall not be less than such amounts 
        as were made available for that purpose in fiscal year 1971.

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order to the language of the provisos in the paragraph 
    just read, beginning at line 9 on page 2, and running through line 
    18 on page 2.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    language in the provisos constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It provides for adjustments different than 
    those provided in the authorizing legislation, to wit: Section 144 
    of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that, in 
    addition, the provisos require the exercise of judgmental and 
    discretionary functions on the part of the administrator; imposing 
    those conditions upon him.
        For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language of the provisos.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this is the classical problem that arises in this 
    bill since we first brought it here a few years ago. It is purely 
    and simply a limitation, and no more and no less. We have heard the 
    point of order before.
        I suggest that the point of order not be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has listened with care to the presentations of the 
    gentleman from Michigan and the chairman of the subcommittee. The 
    Chair has also examined the provisions of title I of the Elementary 
    and Secondary Education Act.
        It seems to the Chair that the argument is essentially this: 
    certain appropriations are authorized for programs under title I of 
    the act. The Committee on Appropriations has reduced this amount 
    and has appropriated $1.5 billion. There are within title I of the 
    act certain legislative directions to the Commissioner of Education 
    about how entitlements for the various State educational agencies 
    are to be computed. These are rather complicated and the Chair does 
    not think it necessary to ex

[[Page 5845]]

    plain them in detail. But the Chair does wish to refer to the 
    explicit language of section 144 of the act, and will paraphrase a 
    portion of that section:

            If the sums appropriated for any fiscal year for making the 
        payments provided in this title are not sufficient to pay in 
        full the total amounts which all local and State education 
        agencies are eligible to receive--

        And that is the case now before this Committee.
        the amount available for each grant to a state agency under 
        paragraphs (5), (6) or (7) of section 103(a) shall be equal to 
        the maximum grant as computed under such paragraph . . .

        The section then provides for certain ratable reductions for 
    other programs under that title.
        The Chair has also examined certain precedents relating to the 
    doctrine of limitations on appropriation bills. It is clear from 
    those precedents that while it is proper in an appropriation bill 
    to deny an appropriation or refuse to appropriate for a specific 
    object or program which may be authorized by law, it is not in 
    order, under the guise of a limitation, to impose new duties on an 
    executive officer, to curtail the discretion given that officer 
    under law or to change the law.
        The Chair feels that the provision in the bill to which the 
    point of order is directed conflicts with these well-established 
    doctrines. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 36.9 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    grants to be paid to states for certain elementary and secondary 
    school aid during fiscal 1973 shall not be less than amounts 
    available for that purpose in the preceding fiscal year was 
    conceded to change the ratable reduction formula in existing law 
    and to impose new duties on executive officials (to determine new 
    minimum amounts) and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 15, 1972,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15417), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 21104, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              office of education

                       elementary and secondary education

            For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
        title I ($1,597,-500,000), title III ($146,393,000), and title 
        V, Parts A and C ($43,000,000), of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act, $1,786,893,000: Provided, That grants to States 
        on behalf of local education agencies under said title I-A 
        shall not be less than grants made to such agencies in the 
        fiscal year 1972.

        The Chairman: (16) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5846]]

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order to 
    the proviso beginning on line 10, page 19, and extending through 
    line 13, page 19.
        The Chairman: That is as to the language beginning on line 10, 
    with the word ``Provided,''?
        Mr. O'Hara: That is right, Mr. Chairman, and continuing on 
    through line 13 on page 19.
        Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    proviso constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, 
    therefore, ought to be stricken.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the ruling made by the 
    Chair on a very similar point which is found in the Congressional 
    Record, vol. 116, part 3, page 4019.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood: Mr. Chairman, the same point of order 
    was raised last year, and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania concedes the 
    point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Local Education Aid; Changing Allotment Formula

Sec. 36.10 A provision in a general appropriation bill which changes 
    the legislative formula governing allotment of certain funds to 
    local educational agencies in federally affected areas was conceded 
    and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15431), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4015, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Compare Sec. 73.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                 School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas

            For carrying out title I of the Act of September 30, 1950, 
        as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 13), and the Act of September 23, 
        1950, as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 19), $440,167,000 of which 
        $425,000,000 shall be for the maintenance and operation of 
        schools as authorized by said title I of the Act of September 
        30, 1950, as amended, and $15,167,000 which shall remain 
        available until expended, shall be for providing school 
        facilities as authorized by said Act of September 23, 1950: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available to pay 
        local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any 
        other section of said title I until payment has been made of 90 
        per centum of the amounts to which such agencies are entitled 
        pursuant to section 3(a) of said title and 100 per centum of 
        the amounts payable

[[Page 5847]]

        under section 6 of said title: Provided further, That the 
        amount to be paid to an agency pursuant to said title (except 
        section 7) for the current fiscal year shall not be less, by 
        more than 5 per centum of the current expenditures for free 
        public education made by such agency for the fiscal year 1969, 
        than the amount of its entitlement under said title (except 
        section 7) for the fiscal year 1969.

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise for 
    the purpose of making a point of order against the second proviso 
    of the paragraph in question, beginning on line 18 and down through 
    line 24, on the ground that it is not a valid limitation, a 
    definitive direction. It is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and, therefore, forbidden.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and I most reluctantly 
    concede.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The point of order 
    is sustained.

Changing Computation Formula in Law

Sec. 36.11 To separate paragraphs in a general appropriation bill, both 
    making appropriations for payments to local educational agencies, 
    similar amendments providing bases for computation of the 
    recipients' contributions and for computation of the federal 
    payments different from the criteria specified by the law 
    authorizing such payments were conceded and held to constitute 
    legislation in violation of the rules.

    On Apr. 18,(19) during consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole of the Department of Labor and Federal Security Agency 
appropriation bill (H.R. 3709), a point of order was raised against the 
following amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 4074, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Payments to school district: For payments to local 
        educational agencies for the maintenance and operation of 
        schools as authorized by the act of September 30, 1950 (Public 
        Law 874), $28,000,000.

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell: On page 15, line 9, 
        strike out the period, insert a colon in lieu thereof and the 
        following: ``Provided, That, for the purposes of this 
        appropriation, (1) the local contribution rate computed for any 
        local educational agency under section 3 of such act of 
        September 30, 1950, shall be not less than 80 percent and not 
        more than 120 percent of the national average local 
        contribution rate during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, 
        and (2) the current expenditures per child determined for any 
        such agency under section 4 of such

[[Page 5848]]

        act of September 30, 1950, shall be not less than 80 percent 
        and not more that 120 percent of the national average current 
        expenditures per child for the purpose of providing free public 
        education during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950.''

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Norrell: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
    other amendment on page 16, line 3, may be considered at this time, 
    for I am sure the gentleman from Rhode Island will make a point of 
    order against it also on the same grounds. I make this request in 
    order that my remarks may be directed to both amendments at the 
    same time.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairmam: The Clerk will report the second amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell: On page 16, line 3, 
        strike out the period, insert in lieu thereof a colon and the 
        following: ``And provided further, That in the case of any 
        application by a local educational agency approved after July 
        1, 1951, for payment under section 202 of such act, the amount 
        made available by the Commissioner of Education out of this 
        appropriation shall not exceed $500 times the number of 
        children with respect to whom such agency is entitled to 
        receive payment under such section 202.''

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this 
    amendment also, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; and I reserve both points of order, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Norrell: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to consume the entire 
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the House Parliamentarian 
    with regard to both these amendments. They deal with the law that 
    we enacted last year regarding the school-aid program in defense 
    areas both as to construction and maintenance.
        I admit that my amendments, if adopted, would change the basic 
    law of the land regarding these matters and, therefore, they are 
    subject to points of order; this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. But the facts are that since the enactment of this law last 
    year certain weaknesses have arisen which should have the attention 
    of this Congress. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order against 
    both amendments.

Impacted Aid; No Funds Until Apportionment Made in Certain Manner

Sec. Sec. 36.12 A provision in an amendment to a general appropriation 
    bill denying the use of any funds for impacted school aid until the 
    official allocating the funds makes an apportionment thereof 
    contrary to the formula prescribed by existing

[[Page 5849]]

    law was held to impose additional duties upon that official, thus 
    changing existing law and constituting legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Education Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16916), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 16 Cong. Rec. 11676, 11677, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Michel: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

                          Title I--Office of Education

                 school assistance in federally affected areas

            For carrying out title I of the Act of September 30, 1950, 
        as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 13), and the Act of September 23, 
        1950, as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 19), $440,000,000 of which 
        $425,000,000 shall be for the maintenance and operation of 
        schools as authorized by said title I of the Act of September 
        30, 1950, as amended, and $15,000,000 which shall remain 
        available until expended, shall be for providing school 
        facilities as authorized by said Act of September 23, 1950: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available to pay 
        local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any 
        other section of said title I until payment has been made of 90 
        per centum of the amounts to which such agencies are entitled 
        pursuant to section 3(a) of said title and 100 per centum of 
        the amounts payable under section 6 of said title. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Then I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is that it 
    contains legislation in an appropriation bill, to wit, the language 
    on page 2, lines 6 to 12 is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill providing for different dispositions of funds under those 
    sections than are provided by law. Therefore I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, it is as 
    plain as the nose on my face, and I have got a nose, that this is 
    clearly a limitation upon the expenditure of funds. That is clearly 
    it. I suggest the point must be overruled.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I would 
    like to say first, Mr. Chairman, if the proviso to which I have 
    referred authorizes the use on a different formula than that 
    provided in the basic authorizing legislation, and I do not believe 
    that the proviso is a limitation or retrenchment

[[Page 5850]]

    of appropriations which would be an expansion, the proviso is 
    neither a limitation nor retrenchment of appropriations, because it 
    permits payment to be made in excess of the payments authorized by 
    the above quoted section of Public Law 81-874.
        It may be helpful to the Chairman and to my colleagues in 
    understanding the point that the reference contained in section 
    5(c) just quoted, that various other sections of entitlements to 
    payments are to the so-called familiar references to categories A 
    and B children under impacted aid.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara), has raised a point of order against the 
    proviso appearing in the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    and referred to in the original bill as the proviso on page 2 of 
    the bill on the ground that it constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. That proviso 
    would make appropriations in the bill unavailable for payment to 
    local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any other 
    section of title I of the act of September 30, 1950--which 
    authorizes school assistance in federally affected areas--until 
    payment has been made of 90 percent of entitled allotments pursuant 
    to section 3(a) of said title I and of 100 percent of amounts 
    payable under section 6 of that title. The gentleman from Michigan 
    contends that such a requirement for payments of funds propriated 
    in this bill has the effect of changing the allotment formula in 
    the authorizing legislation of funds for ``category A students,'' 
    and is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill prohibited by 
    clause 2, rule XXI.
        On June 26, 1968, during consideration of the Department of 
    Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for 
    fiscal year 1969, the Chair--the gentleman now occupying it--
    sustained a point of order against an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for educationally deprived children until 
    there was made available therefrom for certain local educational 
    agencies an amount at least equal to that allotted in the preceding 
    year, since that amendment would have required the Commissioner of 
    Education to make an apportionment of appropriated funds contrary 
    to the formula prescribed by existing law, thus imposing additional 
    duties on that official and changing existing law.
        The Chair feels that that decision is controlling in this 
    instance. To make the appropriations authorized under certain 
    sections of the ``impacted school aid'' legislation contingent upon 
    allotment of certain percentages of entitled funds under other 
    sections of that authorizing legislation is to impose additional 
    duties on the official making the allotment and to change the 
    enforcement formula in the authorizing legislation is in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Rural Electrification Grants; Changing Loan Program to Grant

Sec. 36.13 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    rural electrification loans, an amendment earmarking a portion of 
    the

[[Page 5851]]

    funds for nonrepayable grants to REA borrowers in Alaska was 
    conceded to be authorized by law and was ruled out as legislation.

    On May 20, 1964,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 11424-26, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: Page 26, line 22, after 
        the word ``program'', insert the following: ``Provided, That 
        not more than $5,300,000 of the foregoing amounts shall be made 
        available to the borrowers of the Rural Electrification 
        Administration in Alaska for the repair, rehabilitation or 
        reconstruction of all their facilities and properties damaged, 
        destroyed, or dislocated as a result of the earthquakes of 
        March 1964, and provided further that any amounts so made 
        available and used shall not be repayable by the borrowers.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. There is no authority in 
    law for making this direct grant from the REA program. May I point 
    out under the basic law the committee is limited to fixing a 
    ceiling upon what the REA may do under the basic act setting up 
    their authorities, obligations, and duties. This would in effect be 
    a direct grant from the REA which borrows from the Treasury, and 
    quite clearly, in my mind, it would be legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I realize as a member of the 
    committee that we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill and 
    that it is subject to a point of order. If the chairman persists in 
    it, naturally, I would have to give way.
        The Chairman: In view of the statement of the gentleman from 
    Illinois, the point of order is sustained.

Higher Education Funds: Funding For Program Not Authorized Unless 
    Others Funded First

Sec. 36.14 Where existing law authorizing programs of higher education 
    assistance provided that no payments for any fiscal year shall be 
    made for a certain category (4) unless funds have been appropriated 
    for three other student programs for that fiscal year, language in 
    a general appropriation bill containing funds for category (4) 
    which

[[Page 5852]]

    would remain available during a subsequent fiscal year for which no 
    funds for categories (1)-(3) were provided was conceded to change 
    the priority formula in the authorizing legislation and was ruled 
    out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 27, 1974,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15580), a point of 
order was raised and sustained as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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 . . . 
    section 421 of the General Education Provisions Act, and Public Law 
    92-506 of October 19, 1972, $2,145,271,000 . . . of which 
    $638,500,000 shall remain available through June 30, 1977, 
    $315,000,000 for subsidies on guaranteed student loans shall remain 
    available until expended: . . .

        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the language found on page 18, line 4, beginning with the 
    words ``of which'' through line 5 through ``1977,''.
        So the language I would make a point of order against, Mr. 
    Chairman, would read: ``of which $638,500,000 shall remain 
    available through June 30, 1977,''. My point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, is that this appropriates funds for the basic opportunity 
    grants through June 30, 1977. The law requires, and I cite, Mr. 
    Chairman, in the Education Amendments Acts of 1972 this language.

            No payments may be made on the basis of entitlements--

        Which is the basic opportunity grants--
        established under this subpart during any fiscal year unless--

        And then the language continues--
        funds have been appropriated for economic opportunity grants, 
        work study, and National Defense Education Act.

        This language was very carefully drawn to protect those three 
    student aid programs. The language which we find in the bill in 
    effect provides payments for the entitlements for a year, the year 
    ending June 30, 1977, the school year 1976-77, a year in which no 
    funds are appropriated for the three other student financial aid 
    programs which are required under the law.
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, we will 
    concede that point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Development; Mandating Obligation of Funds for Unauthorized 
    Program

Sec. 36.15 An amendment to a general appropriation bill

[[Page 5853]]

    providing that not less than a specific sum shall be used for a 
    particular purpose was held to violate Rule XXI clause 2, where its 
    proponent could not show that existing law mandated such an 
    expenditure.

    On June 18, 1976,(7) H.R. 14239 (Departments of State, 
Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriation bill for fiscal 
1977), was under consideration, which provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 19297, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For economic development assistance as authorized by titles I, 
    II, III, IV, and IX of the Public Works and Economic Development 
    Act of 1965, as amended, and title II of the Trade Act of 1974, 
    $300,000,000.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: In Title III, page 27, line 
        2, strike out ``$300,000,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof: 
        ``$329,500,000, of which not less than $77,000,000 shall be 
        used for economic adjustment as authorized by title IX of the 
        Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
        amended.''. . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment would violate clause 2 of rule XXI which provides:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditure not previously authorized by law. . . .

        The rule adopted earlier, waiving all points of order against 
    certain provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXI, applies only to those provisions 
    in the bill. The waiver does not apply to amendments which would 
    add additional provisions.
        This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would add a provision to the bill 
    earmarking $77 million for economic adjustment under title IX of 
    the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. 
    Extension of that legislation which is required for fiscal year 
    1977 has not been enacted. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the 
    funding level of title IX of this section from $47.5 to $77 
    million. It is my understanding that that section does fund 
    economic development assistance for titles I, II, III, IV, and IX 
    of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the amendment of the gentleman merely changed the 
    unauthorized figure permitted to remain in the appropriation bill, 
    it would be in order; but the amendment does mandate the 
    expenditure of not less than a certain amount of money for a 
    purpose which has not been authorized and as such constitutes 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5854]]

Changing Allocation Formula; Distribution Set in Authorizing Law 
    Changed

Sec. 36.16 Where existing law required allocation of 90 percent of 
    appropriations for public service jobs in accordance with a 
    distribution formula and permitted allotment of the remaining 10 
    percent at the discretion of an executive official, an amendment to 
    a general appropriation bill requiring that a certain amount 
    therein shall be available only to provide railroad maintenance 
    jobs by contract with private employers was ruled out (1) as not 
    specifically authorized as a public service program, and (2) as 
    directly changing the allocation formula and interfering with 
    executive discretion contained in that law.

    On Mar. 12, 1975,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4481 [the Emergency Employment 
Appropriation Act of 1975], a point of order was sustained against an 
amendment to the following bill text:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 6338, 6339, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        temporary employment assistance

            For an additional amount for ``Temporary employment 
        assistance'', $1,625,000,000, to remain available until 
        December 31, 1975.

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Devine: Page 7, line 6, strike out 
        the period and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``; of 
        which amount $250,000,000 shall be available only for use by 
        State and local prime sponsors to provide emergency jobs for 
        unemployed workers to perform needed railroad maintenance of 
        way services pursuant to contracts with railroads located 
        within the geographical jurisdiction of such sponsors.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that there is no 
    authorization for this action and it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
    . . .
        Mr. Devine: . . . I recognized when this amendment would be 
    offered it might be construed as legislation on an appropriation 
    measure, but I have gone back to the act and I have looked at the 
    act. The purpose of the act we passed in 1946, the Employment Act, 
    was consistent with those needs and obligations and other essential 
    considerations of national policy for the purpose of creating and 
    maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free 
    competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under 
    which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities--and I 
    repeat, useful employment opportunities. That is the purpose of the 
    act.

[[Page 5855]]

        What we are doing in this amendment is providing useful 
    employment opportunities--not leaf raking and not make work jobs, 
    but useful employment opportunities.
        The whole purpose of the bill is to provide funds for public 
    service jobs. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment, except 
    it earmarks that. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this does not 
    violate the rules and I think the point of order should be 
    overruled. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment specifies that this quarter billion dollars shall 
    be available for use only by State and local prime sponsors to 
    provide emergency jobs for unemployed workers to perform railroad 
    maintenance. The Chair has examined Public Law 93-567, and there is 
    no specific authorization for such purpose. The Chair finds that 
    the proposed amendment further changes the allocation formula 
    contained in Public Law 93-567, which is described on pages 34 and 
    35 of the report, and further interferes with the discretion given 
    the Secretary under section 603(b) of the public law as to the 
    utilization of the final 10 percent of the authorized amounts. In 
    chapter 26, section 6 of ``Deschler's Procedure,'' it provides very 
    clearly that there is ample precedent that such reallocations in 
    appropriation bills are legislation, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Veterans' Preference in Job Training Based on Duration of Unemployment

Sec. 36.17 A proviso in a general appropriation bill specifying that an 
    appropriation for veterans' job training be obligated on the basis 
    of those veterans unemployed the longest time, was conceded to be 
    legislation where existing law did not require that allocation of 
    funds, and was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(c).

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3959 
(supplemental appropriations, fiscal 1984), a point of order was raised 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For payment of expenses as authorized by the Emergency 
        Veterans' Job Training Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-77), 
        $150,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1986: 
        Provided, That $25,000,000 of the amount appropriated shall not 
        become available for obligation until July 1, 1984: Provided 
        further, That such $25,000,000 shall be obligated on the basis 
        of those veterans unemployed the longest period of time. . . .

        Mr. [Marvin] Leath of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the first and second provisos in the paragraph under the 
    heading ``Veterans Job Training,'' page 2 lines 21 through 25, 
    constitute legislation on an appropriation bill and are not in 
    order under rule XXI, clause 2. . . .
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.

[[Page 5856]]

        The Chairman: (12) The point of order is conceded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contravening Distribution Formula in Authorization

Sec. 36.18 Where existing law (42 USC Sec. 3056d) required an 
    allocation of funds appropriated for community service employment 
    programs for older Americans between national contractors and state 
    agencies at a designated percentage by setting a ceiling on 
    allocations to national contractors, language in a paragraph of a 
    general appropriation bill directing the availability of funds to 
    national contractors above the percentage ceiling was held to be 
    legislation changing the distribution formula in existing law.

    On July 29, 1982,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6863 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1982), a point of order was sustained against a provision 
therein, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 128 Cong. Rec. 18637, 18638, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Are there any points of order 
    with regard to this chapter?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against the language in the paragraph entitled ``Community 
    Service Employment for Older Americans.'' . . .
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                community service employment for older americans

            For an additional amount for ``Community service employment 
        for older Americans'', $210,572,000, of which $168,457,600 
        shall be for national grants or contracts with public agencies 
        and public or private nonprofit organizations under paragraph 
        (1)(A) of section 506(a) of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
        amended, and $42,114,400 shall be for grants to States under 
        paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of said Act. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, this is a clear example of legislating on an 
    appropriations bill which is expressly prohibited under clause 2, 
    rule XXI of the House. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this language 
    clearly changes the application of existing law for the title V 
    program through the appropriations process. The committee bill 
    ignores the language in the authorizing statute, section 506 of the 
    Older Americans Act as amended, by changing the current formula for 
    distribution of funds to national contractors, increasing it to 80 
    percent with the remaining 20 percent to be provided to the States. 
    Under current law, as reaffirmed by last year's reauthorization of 
    the Older Americans Act, the distribution of funds between national 
    contractors and States is 76 percent and 24 percent, respectively. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: . . . Mr. Chairman, I point out that 
    under the

[[Page 5857]]

    legislation that the gentleman refers to there is an attempt made 
    apparently to say that if more than a certain amount is 
    appropriated, then the Secretary shall reserve part of that for 
    another purpose. It does not prohibit the Congress from making the 
    appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi) makes a point of order 
    that the language on page 34, line 6, sets aside for national 
    grants or contracts a figure which is in excess of that specified 
    in the law as being permissible for national grants or contracts.
        Under the precedents it is not in order in a general 
    appropriation bill to direct that certain funds therein shall be 
    distributed without regard to the provisions of the authorizing 
    legislation.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the law cited by the gentleman 
    from New York (42 U.S.C. 3056d) is inconsistent with this 
    appropriation allocation. This language has the effect of 
    contravening the distribution formula on that law. The Chair 
    upholds the point of order.

Commodity Credit Corporation; Directing Minimum Spending

Sec. 36.19 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill directing that 
    not less than a specified sum be available for a certain purpose 
    was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, 
    constituting a direction to spend a minimum amount, rather than a 
    negative limitation.

    On July 29, 1982,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 6863 (supplemental 
appropriations, fiscal 1982), a point of order was sustained against 
the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 18623, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             As authorized by section 301 of Public Law 95-279, 
        $5,000,000,000 shall be available to the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation for necessary expenses in carrying out its 
        authorized programs, to remain available without regard to 
        fiscal year limitations: Provided, That not less than 
        $500,000,000 of this amount shall be available for export 
        credit loans as authorized by the Charter of the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation and the export authorities conferred upon 
        the Corporation by the Corporation's charter shall be 
        controlling without restriction. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order on that section. . . .
        On line 10, not less than $500 million of this amount shall be 
    available for export credit loans, and so forth, is forcing the 
    agency to spend a minimal amount. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    simply an earmarking of a given amount that is appropriated in the 
    bill, and it is within the rule.
        Mr. Chairman, this goes back to the charter of the Corporation, 
    the Com

[[Page 5858]]

    modity Credit Corporation. That being true under that charter, it 
    has authority to do this, and we are just directing that it use the 
    authority that already exists. So, it is a directive for the proper 
    use of funds in line with the authorization which is granted in the 
    charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation.
        Mr. Conte: The gentleman should have worded his language as 
    ``not to exceed $500 million.'' Furthermore, in line 13, ``. . . 
    and the export authorities conferred upon the Corporation by the 
    Corporation's charter shall be controlling without restriction.'' 
    That requires a positive act by the agency, and therefore a point 
    of order lies against it.
        Mr. Whitten: I present the statement of the section that makes 
    the authorization to which this applies. It appears in title 15, on 
    page 1203, and is section 1692 where it first appears.

            In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its 
        annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the 
        Congress pursuant to the Government Corporation Control Act [31 
        U.S.C. 841 et seq.], the Corporation is authorized to use its 
        general powers only to--
            (a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities through 
        loans, purchases, payments and other operations.
            (b) Make available materials and facilities required in 
        connection with the production and marketing of agricultural 
        commodities.
            (c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to other 
        Government agencies, foreign governments and domestic, foreign, 
        or international relief or rehabilitation agencies, and to meet 
        domestic requirements.
            (d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or 
        disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
            (e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural 
        commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic 
        markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new 
        and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such 
        commodities.
            (f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the 
        development of foreign markets for agricultural commodities.

        That being the authority they have, it is simply a matter of 
    advising what to do within the authority already granted.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the point of order and listened to the 
    arguments on both sides. It is the Chair's intention to sustain the 
    point of order on the grounds that this is not a negative 
    limitation on an expenditure, but is a legislative direction to the 
    agency involved.

Transferring Defense Funds for Local Use

Sec. 36.20 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill transferring 
    available funds from a department to another department and 
    directing the use to which those funds must be put was conceded and 
    held to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 as well as 
    a reappropriation violating Rule XXI clause 6.

[[Page 5859]]

    On Dec. 8, 1982,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill, 
a point of order was sustained to a portion of that bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 29449, 29450, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 793. Of the funds available to the Department of 
        Defense, $200,000 shall be transferred to the Department of 
        Education which shall grant such sum to the Board of Education 
        of the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery, New York, central school 
        district. The funds transferred by this section shall be in 
        addition to any assistance to which the Board may be entitled 
        under subchapter 1, chapter 13 of Title 20 United States Code. 
        . . .

        . . . I make a point of order against section 793, which 
    provides appropriations without authorization, and constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, which I believe to be in 
    violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    section is subject to a point of order, but this is a special case. 
    These are children of men and women at West Point who are attending 
    the public schools. If these funds are not allocated, the school 
    will close and there will be no school for these young people to 
    attend. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman insists 
    on his point of order, and the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Bailey (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will have to rule that, for the reasons conceded, the 
    point of order to section 793 as stated by the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Nichols) is sustained.

Indian Education; Mandating Expenditures Where Law Grants Discretion

Sec. 36.21 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for the operation of Indian programs, an amendment providing 
    that Indian tribes shall receive at least 90 percent of the amount 
    under an educational service contract for the ensuing fiscal year 
    as was received under the existing contract (thereby mandating 
    expenditures) was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2, where it was shown that existing law permitted the 
    cancellation of such contracts upon a finding of unsatisfactory 
    performance.

    On June 25, 1976,(19) it was held that, where existing 
law confers discretionary authority upon a federal official to cancel 
contracts, an amendment to a general appropriation bill requiring the 
expenditure of a certain amount

[[Page 5860]]

 under those contracts (a ``hold-harmless'' provision) is legislation 
and subject to a point of order. On that day, during consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior 
appropriation bill (H.R. 14231), a point of order was sustained against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 20557, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        (The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:)

            For expenses necessary to provide education and welfare 
        services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with 
        States and other organizations, including payment (in advance 
        or from date of admission), of care, tuition, assistance, and 
        other expenses of Indians in boarding homes, institutions, or 
        schools . . . and for the general administration of the Bureau 
        of Indian Affairs, including such expenses in field offices, 
        $602,610,000, of which not to exceed $32,952,000 for assistance 
        to public schools shall remain available for obligation until 
        September 30, 1978; and includes expenses necessary to carry 
        out the provisions of sections 8 and 19(a) of Public Law 93-
        531, $2,040,000 to remain available until expended, of which 
        not more than $250,000 shall be available for payments pursuant 
        to section 8(e) of said Act: Provided, That the Secretary of 
        the Interior is directed, upon the request of any tribe, to 
        enter into a contract or contracts with any tribal organization 
        of any such tribe for the provision of law enforcement, if such 
        contract proposal meets the criteria established by Public Law 
        93-638.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Page 18, 
        line 1, after ``1978'' insert: ``(Provided, however, That no 
        Indian tribe, tribal organization, or State education agency 
        having a contract for educational services with the Secretary 
        of the Interior under title I of the Indian Self-Determination 
        and Education Assistance Act shall receive an amount under such 
        contract during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, 
        which is less than 90 per centum of the amount received under 
        such contract during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
        the transitional quarter ending September 30, 1976).''

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Steiger's amendment 
    requires the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts in 
    fiscal year 1977 for educational services which are not less than 
    90 percent of the amount received under contract in fiscal year 
    1976. This amendment changes existing law and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

        Section 109 of title I of Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self 
    Determination and Education Assistance Act allows the Secretary of 
    Interior to cancel contracts when he determines that the Tribal 
    organization's performance is not satisfactory. This amendment 
    precludes the Secretary from cancelling any fiscal year 1976 
    contract and states they must be funded in fiscal year 1977 at not 
    less than 90 percent of the fiscal year 1976 level. . . .
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    nothing more than a proviso which would restrict what would happen 
    under the

[[Page 5861]]

    Johnson-O'Malley Act. It is similar in concept and in language to a 
    provision that was in last year's appropriation bill, where a hold-
    harmless provision was, in fact, provided for very similar to this 
    provision.
         It does seem to me that when we attempt, as this does, simply 
    to restrict within the framework of the Johnson-O'Malley Act and 
    the framework of the funds under this bill, that it is not, in 
    fact, legislation. It does not create any additional responsibility 
    for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is simply a clarification of 
    what could happen when we go down this road. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Yates) that the amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill appears to be well taken. The Chair has examined 
    section 109 of Public Law 93-638.
        The amendment definitely does not amount to a limitation of 
    funds in the pending bill. It is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The fact that it appeared in a prior appropriation act would 
    not protect the amendment at this time . . . and the Chair must 
    sustain the point of order.

Elementary Education; ``Hold Harmless'' Provision Mandating Expenditure 
    Level

Sec. 36.22 A ``hold harmless'' proviso in the education division 
    appropriation bill, the effect of which was to prevent states from 
    receiving less in the next fiscal year than they had received in 
    the current fiscal year, there being no similar provision in the 
    authorizing legislation, was conceded to be legislation and ruled 
    out.

    On Apr. 16, 1975,(1) language in a general appropriation 
bill providing that grants to be paid to states for certain elementary 
and secondary school aid during fiscal 1976 shall not be less than 
amounts available for that purpose in the preceding fiscal year was 
conceded to change the ratable reduction formula in existing law and 
was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
2.(2) The provision in question and point of order were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 10357, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Such language, in effect, mandates expenditures and is thus subject 
        to a point of order. See also Deschler's Procedure, Ch. 26, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.4, 16.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Provided further, That the amount made available to each 
        State from the sum heretofore appropriated for the fiscal year 
        1976 or from the sum appropriated herein for the fiscal year 
        1977 for title IV, part C of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act shall not be less than the amount made available 
        for comparable purposes for fiscal year 1975.

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of

[[Page 5862]]

    order that the language as it appears on page 3, line 1, through 
    line 6, is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . This is what is 
    sometimes referred to as the ``hold harmless'' provision, and the 
    effect, of course, of this language is simply to prevent the 
    reductions in State grants from last year. I will make that very 
    clear. I will say the formula for making these distributions will 
    certainly change under that new consolidated program enacted last 
    year, and there are about 20 States now that will receive less 
    under the so-called new consolidated program than they received 
    under the previous program.
        The language in the bill was an attempt to remedy that very 
    situation. This is the effect of the language.
        Of course, unfortunately, under title IV, part C, of the 
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act it does not specifically 
    authorize a ``hold harmless'' provision. We will have to concede 
    the point of order, but this is just so the Members will know.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    concedes the point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order. Therefore, the language appearing on page 3, lines 1 through 
    6, is stricken from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 37. Grant or Restriction of Contract Authority

    The precedents in this section, for the most part, pre-date the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 401(a) of that act (Pub. L. 
No. 93-344) prohibits the inclusion of new contract, spending or 
borrowing authority in legislative bills unless such authority is 
limited to the extent or in amounts provided in appropriation acts. 
Therefore, since the enactment of that law, the inclusion of proper 
limiting language in a general appropriation bill, if specifically 
permitted by law, would not render that language subject to a point of 
order under Rule XXI clause 2, since it would no longer ``change 
existing law.''                          -------------------

Grant of Contract Authority

Sec. 37.1 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing a 
    governmental agency to enter into contracts was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Jan. 18, 1940,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7922), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 508, 509, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            In addition to the contract authorizations of $115,000,000 
        contained in the Third Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal 
        year 1937, and

[[Page 5863]]

        $230,000,000 in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 
        1940, the Commission is authorized to enter into contract for 
        further carrying out the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act, 
        1936, as amended, in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. I refer to the paragraph beginning in 
    line 22, page 71, and ending in line 3, page 72.
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to be heard upon the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there is something to say on the point 
    of order. Almost every one of the sections that has been read 
    specifically says ``out of available funds.'' The general situation 
    is that these contracts cannot be entered into without specific 
    authority, and those things are not provided for in the general 
    legislation.

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5 Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes the point of 
    order that the paragraph now under consideration is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. Of course, it is well known that the United 
    States Maritime Commission has authority under the law to enter 
    into contracts. Assuming that to be true, what would be the purpose 
    in that Commission having authority under an appropriation bill to 
    enter into contracts, unless it was for some new purpose?
        An almost similar proposition of this kind came up on the 
    second deficiency bill on April 28, 1937, at which time the 
    Committee of the Whole was presided over by Mr. Vinson, of 
    Kentucky, when an amendment was offered dealing with the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority. The Chair, at that time, construed it to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The present occupant of the 
    chair so construes it, and sustains the point of order.

Sec. 37.2 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    authorizing the commissioners to enter into contracts for the 
    construction of the first unit of an extensible library building at 
    a cost not exceeding $1,118,000 and reappropriating balance of 
    $60,000 previously appropriated for preparation of plans and 
    specifications, to be available without regard to the 
    Classification Act of 1923 or section 3709 of the Revised Statutes 
    was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 6, 1939,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5610), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 3923, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Not to exceed $350,000 of the unexpended balance of the 
        appropria

[[Page 5864]]

        tion of $500,000 contained in the District of Columbia 
        Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1939 for beginning the 
        construction in square 533 of the first unit of an extensible 
        building for the government in the District of Columbia is 
        hereby reappropriated and made available for beginning the 
        construction in square 491 of the first unit of an extensible 
        library building, including quarters for the administrative 
        offices of the Board of Education, [and the Commissioners are 
        authorized to enter into contract or contracts for the 
        construction of such first unit at a total cost, including 
        improvement of grounds and all necessary furniture and 
        equipment, not to exceed $1,118,000: Provided, That the 
        unexpended balance of the appropriation of $60,000, contained 
        in such act for the preparation of plans and specifications for 
        a library building to be constructed on square 491 is continued 
        available for the same purpose during the fiscal year 1940, and 
        shall be available for the employment of professional and other 
        services, without reference to the Classification Act of 1923, 
        as amended, civil-service requirements, or section 3709 of the 
        Revised Statutes.]

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the language beginning on line 23, page 
    18, after the word ``education'', down to the end of the paragraph 
    on page 19, ending in line 10. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: The gentleman makes his 
    point of order to the language beginning with the word ``and'', in 
    line 23, and ending with line 10 on page 19?
        Mr. Rich: Yes.
        Mr. Collins: And not to the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Rich: Not to the entire paragraph.
        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Grant of Contract and Obligational Authority, Tennessee Valley 
    Authority

Sec. 37.3 Although under existing law it may be in order to appropriate 
    money for a certain object, it is not in order to grant authority 
    to incur obligations and enter into contracts for the acquisition 
    of such objects on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 28, 1937,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second deficiency appropriation bill, a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3909-11, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the act 
        entitled ``The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933'', 
        approved May 18, 1933 (U.S.C., title 16, ch. 12a), as amended 
        by the act approved August 31, 1935 (49 Stat. 1075-1081), 
        including

[[Page 5865]]

        the continued construction of Pickwick Landing Dam, 
        Guntersville Dam, Chickamauga Dam, and Hiwassee Dam, and the 
        continuation of preliminary investigations as to the 
        appropriate location and type of a dam on the lower Tennessee 
        River, and the acquisition of necessary land, the clearing of 
        such land, relocation of highways, and the construction or 
        purchase of transmission lines and other facilities, and all 
        other necessary works authorized by such acts, and for printing 
        and binding, law books, books of reference, newspapers, 
        periodicals, purchase, maintenance, and operation of passenger-
        carrying vehicles, rents in the District of Columbia and 
        elsewhere, and all necessary salaries and expenses connected 
        with the organization, operation, and investigations of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority, and for examination of estimates of 
        appropriations and activities in the field, fiscal year 1938, 
        $40,166,270: Provided, That this appropriation and any 
        unexpended balance on June 30, 1937, in the ``Tennessee Valley 
        Authority fund, 1937'', and the receipts of the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority from all sources during the fiscal year 1938 
        (except as limited by sec. 26 of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
        Act of 1933, as amended), shall be covered into and accounted 
        for as one fund to be known as the ``Tennessee Valley Authority 
        fund, 1938'', to remain available until June 30, 1938, and to 
        be available for the payment of obligations chargeable against 
        the ``Tennessee Valley Authority fund, 1937'': [Provided 
        further, That in addition to the amount herein appropriated, 
        the Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby authorized to incur 
        obligations and enter into contracts for the procurement of 
        equipment to be installed in dams and power-houses in an amount 
        not in excess of $4,000,000, and this action shall be deemed a 
        contractual obligation of the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
        the United States for payment of the cost thereof.]

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso on page 9, beginning with line 
    7, down to the end of line 14, on the ground it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, there may 
    be merit in the gentleman's point of order, but I call his 
    attention to the fact if the point of order is sustained and that 
    fund is cut out, the gross amount of the bill, $40,000,000, will 
    have to be increased by $4,000,000 if the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority is to buy equipment and machinery for these dams under 
    construction. Of course, I am frank to admit I am speaking to the 
    merits of the proposition and not to the point of order. This 
    $4,000,000 is not an appropriation. It is an authorization for them 
    to enter into contracts for equipment in connection with these dams 
    that will be constructed in the future. They are long-time 
    contracts for machinery that has to be built ahead of time. If we 
    cut out this item, they cannot buy the equipment for the dams which 
    we have spent millions of dollars to construct, or else we have to 
    appropriate the money and make it available to them. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Tennessee Valley Authority Act provides authority for the 
    appropria

[[Page 5866]]

    tion contained in this paragraph. However, the language in the 
    proviso authorizes the Tennessee Valley Authority to enter into 
    certain contracts and to incur certain obligations. The Chair rules 
    that the proviso is legislation upon an appropriation bill, and 
    therefore sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    New York.

Sec. 37.4 Although under existing law it may be in order to appropriate 
    money for a certain object it is not in order to grant authority to 
    incur obligations and enter into contracts for the acquisition of 
    such object on an appropriation bill: language in a general 
    appropriation bill authorizing the Tennessee Valley Authority to 
    incur obligations and enter into contracts was held to constitute 
    legislation and therefore not in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1939,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3743), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 1239, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the act 
        entitled ``The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933,'' 
        approved May 18, 1933, as amended by the act approved August 
        31, 1935 (16 U.S.C., ch. 12a) . . . and the acquisition of 
        necessary land . . . and all other necessary works authorized 
        by such acts . . . and for examination of estimates of 
        appropriations and activities in the field, fiscal year 1940, 
        $39,000,000: Provided, That this appropriation and any 
        unexpended balance on June 30, 1939, in the ``Tennessee Valley 
        Authority fund, 1939,'' and the receipts of the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority from all sources during the fiscal year 1940 
        (except as limited by sec. 26 of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
        Act of 1933, as amended), shall be covered into and accounted 
        for as one fund to be known as the ``Tennessee Valley Authority 
        fund, 1940'', to remain available until June 30, 1940, and to 
        be available for the payment of obligations chargeable against 
        the ``Tennessee Valley Authority fund, 1939,'' and for 
        contractual obligations for the procurement of equipment as 
        authorized in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, fiscal 
        year 1939: Provided further, That in addition to the amount 
        herein appropriated, the Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby 
        authorized to incur obligations and enter into contracts for 
        the procurement of equipment to be installed in dams and 
        powerhouses in an amount not in excess of $4,000,000, and this 
        action shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority and the United States for payment of 
        the cost thereof. . . .

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that, starting with line 17, page 48, 
    legislation is provided for granting authority to the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority in excess of that which it presently has by 
    statutory law. There is no existing law providing for the authority 
    that would be exer

[[Page 5867]]

    cised by the T.V.A. under this provision, and since it is 
    legislation attached to an appropriation bill I make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, this 
    language was carried in the appropriation act last year, but the 
    gentleman is correct. It is subject to a point of order, and I 
    concede the point of order. I offer the paragraph with that portion 
    eliminated.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A similar point of order as indicated by the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] was passed upon by Chairman Vinson, of 
    Kentucky, on the 28th of April 1937, to the effect that language in 
    a general appropriation bill authorizing the T.V.A. to incur 
    obligations and enter into contracts was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.
        In accordance with that ruling, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ditter].

Contract Authority Preceding Appropriation

Sec. 37.5 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing an 
    executive officer to enter into contracts where the money for such 
    contracts has not been appropriated was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 4595, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For the acquisition of lands, interest in lands, water 
        rights and surface rights to lands, and for expenses incident 
        to such acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the 
        act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 985), including personal 
        services, purchase of equipment and supplies, and other 
        necessary expenses, $900,000, together with the unexpended 
        balance of the appropriation for this purpose for the fiscal 
        year 1937, of which not to exceed $20,000 shall be available 
        for personal services in the District of Columbia: Provided, 
        That within the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming no 
        part of said sum shall be used for the acquisition of lands 
        outside of the boundaries of existing Indian reservations: 
        Provided further, That in addition to the amount herein 
        appropriated the Secretary of the Interior may also incur 
        obligations, and enter into contracts for the acquisition of 
        additional land, not exceeding a total of $500,000, and his 
        action in so doing shall be deemed a contractual obligation of 
        the Federal Government for the payment of the cost thereof, and 
        appropriations hereafter made for the acquisition of land 
        pursuant to the authorization contained in the act of June 18, 
        1934, shall be available for the purpose of discharging the 
        obligation or obligations so created.

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania] and Mr. [Cassius C.] 
    Dowell [of Iowa] rose.
        Mr. Ditter: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[[Page 5868]]

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ditter: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    entire paragraph that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    The particular portion starting with the words ``Provided further'' 
    is distinctly legislative in character, and, being legislation, it 
    kills the paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a point of 
    order against the paragraph appearing on page 21, beginning in line 
    9.
        Under existing law executive officers of the Government have 
    the authority to enter into contracts where money has already been 
    appropriated. Obviously, this is for the purpose of allowing 
    executive officers to enter into contracts where the money has not 
    been appropriated.
        Therefore this is legislation on an appropriation bill, not 
    authorized under the rules of the House, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order against the entire paragraph.

Authority to Make Binding Grants and Contracts as Obligations on Future 
    Appropriations

Sec. 37.6 An appropriation to permit the Surgeon General, upon the 
    recommendation of the National Advisory Council, to approve 
    applications for research and training grants, including grants for 
    drawing plans, erection of buildings, and acquisition of land 
    therefor, not to exceed a total of $3 million was held to be 
    authorized by section 405 of the Public Health Service Act, but the 
    inclusion of a provision for contract authorization beyond the 
    current fiscal year was held to constitute legislation.

    On Apr. 26, 1950,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Labor Department and Federal Security Agency 
chapter of the general appropriation bill for 1951. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 5799, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: On 
    page 139, line 18, strike out the period at the end of the 
    paragraph and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``; and in 
    addition to the amount appropriated herein, the Surgeon General is 
    authorized, upon the recommendation of the National Advisory Cancer 
    Council, to approve applications for research and training grants, 
    including grants for drawing plans, erection of buildings, and 
    acquisition of land therefor, not to exceed a total of $3,000,000 
    for periods beyond the current fiscal year, and such grants shall, 
    if approved during the current fiscal year, constitute a 
    contractual obligation of the Federal Government.''
        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a

[[Page 5869]]

    point of order. I raise the point of order that this is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill; and, further, that the basic legislation 
    does not authorize contract authorizations. . . .
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to 
    give contractual authority for cancer research construction grants. 
    The basic authorization for construction grants is found in section 
    405 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, which reads as 
    follows:

            Appropriations to carry out the purposes of this title, 
        cancer, shall be available for acquisition of land, or the 
        erection of buildings only if so specified.

        Under that language, Mr. Chairman, the Congress has, in 
    identical language as in the amendment submitted by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin, accepted appropriations, and appropriations have 
    been made with the identical language in fiscal years 1948 and 1949 
    appropriation bills. I think the language is certainly broad enough 
    to authorize this amendment.

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Yes, I do, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The appropriation bill passed a year ago, on page 175, included 
    practically the same language, it seems to me, when we said at that 
    time:

            And in addition to the amount herein, the Surgeon General 
        is authorized, upon the recommendation of the National Advisory 
        Cancer Council, to approve applications for research and 
        training grants, including grants for drawing plans, erection 
        of buildings, and acquisition of land therefor, not to exceed a 
        total of $6,000,000, for periods beyond the current fiscal 
        year, and such grants shall, if approved during the current 
        fiscal year, constitute a contractual obligation on the Federal 
        Government.

        It seems to me that this language and similar language having 
    been in the bill in past years, it would be in order at this time.
         I go along with the views expressed by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] that this is in order at this time.
        Mr. Keefe: May I say further, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the 
    basic act, under which this national cancer program was set up in 
    the bill to which I have referred, constitutes basic authority for 
    this proposal.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    McGrath] has made a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground that it contains legislation on an appropriation bill, in 
    violation of the rules of the House.
         The Chair has examined the amendment and section 405 of the 
    Public Health Service Act referred to by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.
        The Chair might comment on the statement made by the gentleman 
    from Rhode Island to the extent of saying that although a provision 
    of this nature may have been included in previous acts there may 
    not have been any point of order made against it; so

[[Page 5870]]

     that could not be decisive in considering the question now 
    presented.
        The Chair is of the opinion that section 405 cited by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin does constitute legislative authority for 
    the appropriation. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    pending amendment includes a provision for contract authorization 
    beyond the present fiscal year, which, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    would constitute legislation on an appropriation bill and would be 
    in violation of the rules of the House. For that reason the Chair 
    is compelled to sustain the point of order.

Restriction on Contract Authority Contained in Bill

Sec. 37.7 To a section of an Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    containing legislation authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    make such additional commitments as may be necessary in order to 
    provide full parity payments, an amendment providing that the 
    payments shall not exceed an amount necessary to equal parity 
    ``when added to the market price and the payment made . . . for 
    conservation . . . of agricultural land resources,'' was held a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of funds which did 
    not add further legislation to that already contained in the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
bill, the Clerk read the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2124, 2125, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              parity payments

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make parity payments 
    to producers of wheat, cotton, corn (in the commercial corn-
    producing area), rice, and tobacco pursuant to the provisions of 
    section 303 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, there are 
    hereby reappropriated the unobligated balances of the 
    appropriations made under this head by the Department of 
    Agriculture Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1941 and 1942, 
    to remain available until June 30, 1945, and the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to make such additional commitments or 
    incur such additional obligations as may be necessary in order to 
    provide for full parity payments: . . . Provided further, That such 
    payments with respect to any such commodity shall be made with 
    respect to a farm in full amount only in the event that the acreage 
    planted to the commodity for harvest on the farm in 1943 is not in 
    excess of the farm acreage allotment established for the commodity 
    under the agricultural conservation program, and, if such allotment 
    has been exceeded, the parity payment with respect to the commodity 
    shall be reduced by not more than 10 percent for each 1 percent, or 
    fraction thereof, by which the acreage planted to the commodity is 
    in excess of such allotment. The Secretary

[[Page 5871]]

    may also provide by regulations for similar deductions for planting 
    in excess of the acreage allotment for the commodity on other farms 
    or for planting in excess of the acreage allotment or limit for any 
    other commodity for which allotments or limits are established 
    under the agricultural conservation program on the same or any 
    other farm.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Taber [as subsequently modified by 
    unanimous consent]: On page 77, line 5, after the word ``farm,'' 
    strike out the period, insert a colon and a proviso as follows: 
    ``Provided further, That parity payments, under the authority of 
    this paragraph, shall not exceed such amount as is necessary to 
    equal parity when added to the market price and the payment made or 
    to be made for conservation and use of agricultural land resources 
    under sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act approved February 29, 1936, as amended; and 
    the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as 
    amended; Provided further, That the total expenditures made and the 
    contracts entered into in pursuance of this paragraph shall not 
    exceed in all $212,000,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I submit a 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber]. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber: . . . The bill, on page 75, provides that the 
    Secretary is authorized and directed to make such additional 
    commitments or incur such additional obligations as may be 
    necessary in order to provide for full parity payments.
        That is legislation. It is brought in order under the rule. The 
    language that I have submitted is clearly germane to that provision 
    because it provides a method. It is purely a limitation to the 
    payments that shall be made for parity under the authority of this 
    paragraph. For this reason it is clearly germane and it is clearly 
    in order.
        It would be in order if there was no legislation in the 
    paragraph because it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I make the 
    observation that if the proposal is clearly a limitation, even 
    though it embraces some legislation, it is in order under the 
    Holman rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] if there are any funds other than those 
    appropriated in this bill to be used for parity payments?
        Mr. Taber: None.
        The Chairman: Just the funds in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The amendment the gentleman is offering is to 
    limit the funds offered in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is my intention. I think perhaps I ought to 
    insert after the word ``payments'' in the third line

[[Page 5872]]

    the words ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' With that in, 
    it would clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] ask 
    to modify his amendment?
        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word 
    ``payments'' ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber]?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has 
    offered an amendment, on page 77, line 5, undertaking to provide 
    further limitations on the payment and the administration of parity 
    payments, to which the gentleman from Georgia has made a point of 
    order.
        It seems to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York constitutes a limitation 
    upon the funds appropriated by this paragraph or proposed to be 
    appropriated by this paragraph and does not constitute legislation.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Secretary of the Interior--Contracts to Acquire Land Before 
    Appropriation Therefor

Sec. 37.8 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts for the 
    acquisition of additional land and making future appropriations 
    available to liquidate those obligations was held legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill, a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 2636, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For the acquisition of lands, interest in lands, water 
        rights and surface rights to lands, and for expenses incident 
        to such acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the 
        act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 985), including personal 
        services, purchase of equipment and supplies, and other 
        necessary expenses, $500,000, together with the unexpended 
        balance of the appropriation for this purpose for the fiscal 
        year 1938, of which not to exceed $20,000 shall be available 
        for personal services in the District of Columbia: Provided, 
        That within the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and 
        Wyoming no part of said sum shall be used for the acquisition 
        of land outside of the boundaries of existing Indian 
        reservations: Provided further, That in addition to the amount 
        herein appropriated the Secretary of the Interior may also 
        incur obligations and enter into contracts for the acquisition 
        of additional land, not exceeding a total of $500,000, and his 
        action in so doing shall be deemed a contractual obligation of 
        the Federal Government for the payment of the cost thereof, and 
        appropriations hereafter made for the acquisition of land 
        pursuant to the au

[[Page 5873]]

        thorization contained in the act of June 18, 1934, shall be 
        available for the purpose of discharging the obligation or 
        obligations so created.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language contained in the proviso on page 24, 
    line 23, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This proviso, beginning in line 23, on page 24, and extending 
    through line 8, on page 25, authorizes the Secretary of the 
    Interior to incur obligations and to enter into contracts for the 
    acquisition of additional land not exceeding a total of $500,000.
        Practically the same language was ruled upon last year when the 
    Interior Department bill was before the Committee of the Whole and 
    the bill contained a similar proviso. This proviso at that time was 
    held to be subject to the point of order that it was legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order to this 
    proviso.

-- Authority to Incur Obligations and Complete Construction

Sec. 37.9 To an appropriation bill an amendment authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Interior to incur obligations and enter into 
    contracts for certain construction work was held to be legislation.

    On Apr. 6, 1954,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8680), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 4721, 4722, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fernandez: On page 24, line 21, 
        strike out ``$8,056,099'' and insert ``$8,556,099 and, in 
        addition, the Secretary is hereby authorized to incur 
        obligations and enter into contracts, not exceeding $950,000, 
        to complete the construction of a public-use building and 
        appurtenant facilities in Carlsbad Cavern National Park, N. 
        Mex.''

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment: That it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from New Mexico 
    to the following language in his proposed amendment: ``and, in 
    addition, the Secretary is hereby authorized to incur obligations 
    and enter into contracts, not exceeding $950,000 to complete the 
    construction of a public use building and appurtenant facilities in 
    Carlsbad Caverns National Park, N. Mex.,'' which is clearly 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5874]]

--Limitation on Funds to Pay Contract Approved Pursuant to Law

Sec. 37.10 An appropriation in the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill for the payment of an Indian agent employed under a contract 
    approved by the Secretary was held to be authorized by the Snyder 
    Act and to be merely descriptive of contract authority contained in 
    existing law and therefore not legislative in character.

    On May 14, 1937,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 4605, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Utah: Uintah and Ouray, $7,100, of which amount not to exceed 
    $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent employed 
    under a contract, approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make the point of order on the paragraph beginning in line 11 and 
    ending in line 14 of page 57 that there is no authorization in law 
    for the appropriation recommended. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes a 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 57, lines 11 
    to 14, inclusive, on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by existing law.
        The Chair has examined the statement in the hearings to which 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts has invited attention, and 
    especially is impressed by the following statement contained in the 
    hearings:

             The contract was approved on March 2, 1937, by the 
        Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the 
        Interior in accordance with sections 2103 and 2106 of the 
        Revised Statutes of the United States.

        This would clearly indicate to the Chair that the law to which 
    reference is here made would be authority for the contract. It 
    appears that the contract was made and the discharge of the duty 
    entered upon under the provisions of the contract.
        Attention is also invited again to the so-called Snyder Act 
    which, among other things, provides for the employment of 
    inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, clerks, field matrons, 
    farmers, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges, and other 
    employees. The language of the bill to which the point of order is 
    directed provides for the sum of $7,100, of which amount not to 
    exceed $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent 
    employed under a contract approved by the Secretary of the 
    Interior.
        The Chair is of the opinion that this provision is clearly 
    within the scope of existing law to which attention has been 
    invited, and therefore is not legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in viola

[[Page 5875]]

    tion of the rules of the House. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

--Granting Authority to Compromise Claims and Negotiate Health 
    Contracts for Employees

Sec. 37.11 Language in a general appropriation bill providing in part 
    an appropriation for payment of damages caused to the owners of 
    lands by reason of the operations of the United States in the 
    construction of irrigation works which may be ``compromised by 
    agreement between the claimants and the Secretary of the Interior, 
    or such officers as he may designate,'' was held to constitute 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point, points of order were directed to portions of the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Administrative provisions and limitations: For all expenditures 
    authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof 
    or supplementary thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all 
    other acts under which expenditures from said fund are authorized, 
    including . . . payment of damages caused to the owners of lands or 
    other private property of any kind by reason of the operations of 
    the United States, its officers or employees, in the survey, 
    construction, operation, or maintenance of irrigation works, and 
    which may be compromised by agreement between claimant and the 
    Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may designate . . 
    . Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
    administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
    contract for medical attention and service for employees and to 
    make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the employees 
    therefor. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and contains items not authorized by law.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the language on page 72, 
    line 22, ``examination of estimates for appropriations in the 
    field,'' and at the bottom of the page, ``for lithographing, 
    engraving, printing, and binding,'' and in line 20 of the same 
    page, ``for photographing and making photographic prints,'' and 
    then at the top of page 73, ``purchase of rubber boots for official 
    use by employees,'' and in the middle of the page, at line 12, 
    ``and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
    and the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may 
    designate,'' giving him authority to do things that the law does 
    not authorize. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject

[[Page 5876]]

    to the point of order for two reasons. First, page 73, line 12, 
    after the word ``works'', the language--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
        and the Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may 
        designate.

        Then, going down to the last line on page 73, after the colon, 
    the language:

            Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
        administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
        contract for medical attention and services for employees and 
        to make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the 
        employees therefor.

        For these reasons the Chair sustains the point of order.

Institute for Inter-American Affairs; Contract Authority

Sec. 37.12 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Institute of Inter-American Affairs, prior to June 30, 1953, to 
    enter into contracts for the purposes of the Institute for Inter-
    American Affairs Act in an amount not to exceed $7 million was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and was ruled 
    out absent citation to the existing law authorizing inclusion of 
    such limitation on contract authority in appropriation acts.

    On Apr. 20, 1950,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 5480, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    The Institute of Inter-American Affairs

            For necessary expenses in carrying out the provisions of 
        the Institute of Inter-American Affairs Act of August 5, 1947 
        [61 Stat. 780] as amended by the act of September 3, 1949 
        (Public Law 283), including purchase (not to exceed 18 for 
        replacement only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
        $5,500,000, to remain available until expended; and in 
        addition, the Institute is authorized, prior to June 30, 1953, 
        to enter into contracts for the purposes of such act, as 
        amended, in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language beginning on line 1, page 46, ``and 
    in addition, the Institute is authorized, prior to June 30, 1953, 
    to enter into contracts for the purposes of such act, as amended, 
    in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000,'' on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber] made the point

[[Page 5877]]

    of order against the language beginning in line 1, page 46. 
    However, there is nothing that the Committee can do about it, 
    because I feel that the Chair must sustain his point of order. 
    However, there will be nothing gained insofar as economy is 
    concerned, because this amount will be added to the bill either in 
    cash or in contract authority when it gets to the Senate.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes the point of 
    order against the language quoted by him, and the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Rooney] concedes the point of order; therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Note: Pub. L. No. 81-283 gave the Institute authority within the 
        limits of funds approved or specific contract authorizations 
        thereinafter granted, to make contracts for periods not to 
        exceed five years. The inclusion of contract authority in an 
        appropriation bill would probably be allowed today, given such 
        a provision in an authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority to Contract Without Advertising

Sec. 37.13 While 41 USC Sec. 5 provides that ``unless otherwise 
    provided in the appropriation concerned or other law, purchases and 
    contracts for supplies or services for the Government may be made 
    or entered into only after advertising a sufficient time previously 
    for proposals'', language in a general appropriation bill 
    authorizing the Congressional Budget Office to contract without 
    regard to that provision was held to constitute legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, based upon a prior ruling of the 
    Chair and also upon the language of the statute itself permitting 
    an appropriation or other law, but not a bill, to waive its 
    provisions.

    On Nov. 13, 1975,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 10647 (a supplemental appropriation 
bill), a point of order was sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 36271, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 
        93-344), $4,736,340: Provided, That none of these funds shall 
        be available for the purchase or hire of a passenger motor 
        vehicle: Provided further, That the Congressional Budget Office 
        shall have the authority to contract without regard to the 
        provisions of 41 U.S.C. 5. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 10, lines 20 
    through 22 which read:

            Provided further, That the Congressional Budget Office 
        shall have

[[Page 5878]]

        the authority to contract without regard to the provisions of 
        41 U.S.C. 5.

        Mr. Chairman, 41 United States Code 5 is a statutory 
    requirement that requires all governmental agencies, in excess of 
    $10,000 to publish and seek bids on the contract or purchase of 
    goods and services. I submit that this is a statutory waiver 
    written into an appropriation bill and is therefore legislation on 
    an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Casey [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, with reference 
    to the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) let me state that unless this language is in this bill this 
    agency cannot contract for computer services. I think it is 
    entirely in order for the purposes of carrying out the duties of 
    the office. It is not requiring any additional effort on anybody 
    else's part. In other words, it is not legislation as I consider it 
    at all. It is existing law, and it requires this language in order 
    for them to contract for services that they must have in the 
    operation of their office.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair perceives that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) has made a point of order as to the language appearing in 
    lines 20 through 22 on page 10 beginning with the words ``Provided 
    further.'' The same issue was before the committee and decided in 
    1940, on February 7--Record pages H1192-H1193--where Chairman Beam 
    held that--

            The language in a general appropriation bill which says 
        ``without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, 
        and without regard to Section 3709, revised statutes, 41 U.S.C. 
        5,'' is legislation and is not in order on appropriation bill.

        Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the proviso 
    will be stricken.

Environmental Protection Agency; Contract Authority for Review by 
    National Academy of Sciences

Sec. 37.14 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    to enable the Environmental Protection Agency to contract with the 
    National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the performance of the EPA 
    was conceded to contain new contract authority not in existing law 
    and to violate Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 15, 1973,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 8619 (the agriculture-environmental and 
con- sumer protection appropriation bill) a point of order was raised 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 19852, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For an amount to provide for a complete and thorough 
        review, analysis, and evaluation of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, its programs, its accomplishments and its

[[Page 5879]]

        failures, and to recommend such changes, cancellations, or 
        additions as necessary, to be conducted under contract with the 
        National Academy of Sciences, $5,000,000, to remain available 
        until expended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    point I make a point of order against the language appearing at 
    lines 20 through 24 on page 32, and on through the first two lines 
    of page 33.
        The reason for my point of order, Mr. Chairman, is twofold. 
    First, this is legislation in an appropriation bill; and it 
    constitutes an appropriation of funds not previously authorized by 
    law.
        So that the language referred to is again violative of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, and I would point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    rule should be so interpreted as to require strict compliance.
        Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from page 466 of the Manual of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, as follows:

            In the administration of the rule, it is the practice that 
        those upholding an item of appropriation should have the burden 
        of showing the law authorizing it.

        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that neither the statute 
    setting up the National Academy of Sciences affords the National 
    Academy of Sciences the duty, responsibility, or power to 
    investigate or to study EPA. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I make 
    this point of order.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    additional point of order that the language in the paragraph 
    appearing at the top of page 33, containing the words, ``to remain 
    available until expended,'' is also subject to a point of order. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (12) Does the Chair understand that 
    the gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do. And I beg the 
    indulgence of the Chair that we may write an amendment to replace 
    the section. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained, and the language 
    is stricken.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 38. Reimbursements

    As used in this section, the term ``reimbursements'' refers to the 
use of generated proceeds to repay funds.(13) This section 
also addresses the consequences of provisions requiring repayments, 
refunds and other mechanisms generating funds from other than direct 
appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also Sec. 30 (Transfer of Funds Not Limited to Same Bill), 
        supra. And see Ch. 25 Sec. 3, supra, for discussion of 
        reappropriations.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refunds Credited to Current Appropriation

Sec. 38.1 Language in an appropriation bill for emergencies arising in 
    the Diplomatic and

[[Page 5880]]

    Consular Service providing that ``all refunds, repayments, or other 
    credits on account of funds disbursed under this head shall be 
    credited to the appropriation for this purpose current at the time 
    obligations are incurred or such amounts are received'' was 
    conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2305, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and Consular Service: To 
    enable the President to meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the 
    Diplomatic and Consular Service, to be expended pursuant to the 
    requirement of section 291 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 107), 
    $16,000,000, of which not to exceed $25,000 shall, in the 
    discretion of the President, be available for personal services in 
    the District of Columbia: Provided, That all refunds, repayments, 
    or other credits on account of funds disbursed under this head 
    shall be credited to the appropriation for this purpose current at 
    the time obligations are incurred or such amounts are received.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language contained in the paragraph, 
    beginning in line 11--

            That all refunds, repayments, or other credits on account 
        of funds disbursed under this head shall be credited to the 
        appropriation for this purpose current at the time obligations 
        are incurred or such amounts are received--

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crediting Proceeds From Sales

Sec. 38.2 A provision in a general appropriation bill that 
    appropriations contained in the Act may be reimbursed, from the 
    proceeds of sales of certain material and supplies, for 
    expenditures incident to such sales, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 29, 1938,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the military appropriation bill (H.R. 9995), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 4315, 4316, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5881]]

            Sec. 4. Appropriations contained in this act may be 
        reimbursed from the proceeds of sales of old material, 
        condemned stores, supplies, or other property of any kind on 
        account of expenditures from such appropriations incident to 
        the handling, preparation for sale, sale, and disposition of 
        such property.

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the section that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. If the chairman of the subcommittee requests me 
    to withhold the point of order so that he may explain to the House 
    the justification which he or his committee has for including this 
    section in the bill I shall withhold the point of order for the 
    time being. . . .
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    concedes the point of order to be well taken that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Luther A. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.3 Language in an appropriation bill for maintenance and 
    operation of air-navigation facilities, for the purchase of food 
    and other subsistence supplies for resale to employees ``the 
    proceeds from such resales to be credited to the appropriation from 
    which the expenditure for such supplies was made'' was conceded and 
    held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 2376, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The appropriations ``Maintenance and operation of air-
        navigation facilities,'' Office of Administrator of Civil 
        Aeronautics; ``Salaries and expenses,'' Civil Aeronautics 
        Board; and ``Salaries and expenses,'' Weather Bureau, shall be 
        available, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary, 
        for furnishing to employees of the Civil Aeronautics 
        Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Weather 
        Bureau in Alaska free emergency medical services by contract or 
        otherwise and medical supplies, and for the purchase, 
        transportation, and storage of food and other subsistence 
        supplies for resale to such employees, [the proceeds from such 
        resales to be credited to the appropriation from which the 
        expenditure for such supplies was made;] and appropriations of 
        the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Weather Bureau, 
        available for travel, shall be available for the travel 
        expenses of appointees of said agencies from the point of 
        engagement in the United States to their posts of duty at any 
        point outside the continental limits of the United States or in 
        Alaska.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. On page 75, line 3, the last word ``the'', all of line 4 and 
    all of line 5. It is legislation on an appropriation bill and in 
    violation of law.

[[Page 5882]]

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commissary Revenue

Sec. 38.4 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that any 
    part of the appropriation for salaries and expenses, penal and 
    correctional institutions, shall be reimbursed from commissary 
    earnings was conceded and held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 2366, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Salaries and expenses, penal and correctional institutions: 
        . . . $13,300,000: Provided, That any part of the 
        appropriations under this heading used for payment of salaries 
        of personnel employed in the operation of prison commissaries 
        shall be reimbursed from commissary earnings, and such 
        reimbursement shall be in addition to the amounts appropriated 
        herein. . . .

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the language on page 51, beginning with 
    ``Provided'', in line 15. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (1) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.5 Language in an appropriation bill for contingent expenses, 
    foreign service, providing that ``reimbursements incident to the 
    maintenance of commissary service authorized . . . shall be 
    credited to the appropriation for this purpose current at the time 
    obligations are incurred or such amounts are received,'' was 
    conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 91 Cong. Rec. 2304, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Contingent expenses, Foreign Service: For stationery; 
        blanks, record and other books; seals, presses, flags; signs; 
        military equipment and supplies; repairs, alterations, 
        preservation, and maintenance of

[[Page 5883]]

        Government-owned and leased diplomatic and consular properties 
        in foreign countries. . . . Provided further, That 
        reimbursements incident to the maintenance of commissary 
        service authorized under this head shall be credited to the 
        appropriation for this purpose current at the time obligations 
        are incurred or such amounts are received.

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in the proviso beginning on 
    line 25, page 15, including all of lines 1, 2, 3, and 4 on page 16, 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Available for Administrative Expenses

Sec. 38.6 A provision in an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    for the United States Housing Authority and providing ``not to 
    exceed $1,500,000 shall be available for such expenses incurred at 
    the site and in connection with the construction of the United 
    States Housing Authority non-Federal projects and shall be 
    reimbursed in the discretion of the Administrator by the public 
    housing agencies constructing such projects and such reimbursements 
    shall be available for administrative expenses of the Authority,'' 
    was conceded and held to be legislation and not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 2780, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      United States Housing Authority

        Salaries and expenses . . . Provided, That of the $4,500,000 
    hereby made available for administrative expenses of the Authority, 
    not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be available for such expenses 
    incurred at the site and in connection with the construction of the 
    United States Housing Authority non-Federal projects and shall be 
    reimbursed in the discretion of the Administrator by the public 
    housing agencies constructing such projects and such reimbursements 
    shall be available for administrative expenses of the Authority: . 
    . .
        Mr. [Dudley A.] White of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. White of Ohio: . . . Then the language beginning in line 
    13, on page 14, the entire clause, which reads:

            Provided, That of the $4,500,000 hereby made available for 
        adminis

[[Page 5884]]

        trative expenses of the Authority, not to exceed $1,500,000 
        shall be available for such expenses incurred at the site, and 
        in connection with the construction, of the United States 
        Housing Authority non-Federal projects, and shall be 
        reimbursed, in the discretion of the Administrator, by the 
        public housing agencies constructing such projects, and such 
        reimbursements shall be available for administrative expenses 
        of the Authority.

        That is a delegation of authority. It enlarges the scope of the 
    existing authority under the original law, and therefore the entire 
    paragraph should be stricken out on these points of order. This is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    points of order.
        The Chairman: The points of order are sustained.

Waiver of Reimbursement Requirements in Law

Sec. 38.7 Provisions in a paragraph of a general appropriation bill (1) 
    authorizing the General Services Administration to acquire 
    leasehold interests in property; (2) removing limitations imposed 
    by law on the value of surplus strategic materials which may be 
    transferred without reimbursement to the national stockpile; and 
    (3) authorizing materials in certain stockpiles and inventories to 
    be available without reimbursement for transfer to contractors as 
    payment for expenses, were conceded to be legislation and were 
    stricken from the bill.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 27288, 27289, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Property Management and Disposal Service

                             operating expenses

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for 
    carrying out the functions of the Administrator with respect to the 
    utilization of excess property; the disposal of surplus property; 
    the rehabilitation of personal property; the appraisal of real and 
    personal property; the national stockpile established by the 
    Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98-
    98h); the supplemental stockpile established by section 104(b) of 
    the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (68 
    Stat. 456, as amended by 73 Stat. 607); including services as 
    authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and reimbursement for security guard 
    services, $33,000,000, to be derived from proceeds from transfers 
    of excess property, disposal of surplus property, and sales of 
    stockpile mate

[[Page 5885]]

    rials: [Provided, That during the current fiscal year the General 
    Services Administration is authorized to acquire leasehold 
    interests in property, for periods not in excess of twenty years, 
    for the storage, security, and maintenance of strategic, critical, 
    and other materials in the national and supplemental stockpiles 
    provided said leasehold interests are at nominal cost to the 
    Government: Provided further, That during the current fiscal year 
    there shall be no limitation on the value of surplus strategic and 
    critical materials which, in accordance with section 6 of the 
    Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e), 
    may be transferred without reimbursement to the national 
    stockpile:] Provided further, That during the current fiscal year 
    materials in the inventory maintained under the Defense Production 
    Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061-2166), and excess 
    materials in the national stockpile and the supplemental stockpile, 
    the disposition of which is authorized by law, shall be available, 
    without reimbursement, for transfer at fair market value to 
    contractors as payment for expenses (including transportation and 
    other accessorial expenses) of acquisition of materials, or of 
    refining, processing, or otherwise beneficiating materials, or of 
    rotating materials, pursuant to section 3 of the Strategic and 
    Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98b), and of 
    processing and refining materials pursuant to section 303(d) of the 
    Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 
    2093(d)): Provided further, That none of the funds available under 
    this heading shall be available for transfer to any other account 
    nor for the funding of any activities other than those specifically 
    authorized under this heading.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. This last proviso was deemed a proper limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise again out of diligence to 
    protect myself as to points of order.
        At page 22, the first point of order is as to the words 
    following the word ``Provided'' on page 22, line 6, down through 
    the semicolon following the word ``Government'' at page 22, line 
    12.
        I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, together with another 
    point of order on the same rule beginning with the words, 
    ``Provided further'' down through the word ``stockpile,'' at page 
    22, line 18, in that both of these provisos are violative of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, and constitute legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, on the 
    second point of order, I believe the gentleman does not intend to 
    stop on line 22, does he? I believe he would have to go on to the 
    end of the proviso.
        Mr. Dingell: I intend to get the next proviso as soon as we 
    dispose of these points of order.
        Mr. Steed: The gentleman stopped in the middle of a proviso.
        Mr. Dingell: I am going to get the ``Provided further,'' next.
        Mr. Steed: There is no ``Provided further,'' next. This stops 
    with the ``supplemental stockpile'' in line 22.

[[Page 5886]]

        Mr. Dingell: In order, Mr. Chairman, to assist my good friend 
    from Oklahoma, I will make another point of order against the 
    language beginning on page 22, line 18, with ``Provided further,'' 
    down through the conclusion of that ``Provided further,'' on page 
    23, line 7; and then I will make a further point of order against 
    the ``Provided further,'' language on page 23, line 7, down through 
    the end of line 10 on page 23; in that all of these provisos and 
    ``Provided furthers'' do constitute violations of rule XXI, clause 
    2, and constitute legislation in an appropriation bill violation of 
    the rules.
        I again cite the requirement of the rules as set forth in the 
    House rules, that the burden of establishing the soundness of an 
    appropriation is upon the committee which offers it to the House, 
    and I point out that that burden cannot be borne, and that these 
    are violative of the rules, constituting legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained, and the language beginning with the word 
    ``Provided'' on line 6, page 22, down through line 10, on page 23, 
    ending with ``this heading'' is stricken.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the proviso was one starting on page 
    22 and going down to the word ``stockpile'' on line 18. That was 
    the point of order made, against that language.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes the gentleman from Michigan 
    made a point of order against the language in that proviso, the 
    language in the second proviso of ``Provided further,'' and in the 
    third proviso, beginning on line 18, ``Provided further,'' and then 
    another ``Provided further,'' beginning on line 7, page 23.
        In other words, the Chair was under the impression that the 
    gentleman made points of order against all the provisions beginning 
    with ``Provided,'' on page 22, line 6, through page 23, line 10.
        Mr. Dingell: The Chair is correct.
        The Chairman: Which would have the effect of striking all the 
    language the Chair just described?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the points of order made against the 
    language are conceded down to line 7, page 23, but the language of 
    that ``Provided further,'' is a simple limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is not subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair agrees with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.
        The various points of order that are conceded are sustained, 
    and that language is stricken. The language:

            Provided further, That none of the funds available under 
        this heading shall be available for transfer to any other 
        account nor for the funding of any activities other than those 
        specifically authorized under this heading.
    Which is a proper limitation and appears beginning in line 7, page 
    23, through line 10, remains in the bill, since the point of order 
    has not been made against the entire paragraph.

[[Page 5887]]

Waived for Lands Not Producing Revenue

Sec. 38.8 A proposition in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    reimbursement shall not be required for expenditures in connection 
    with Indian lands for which no production or compensatory royalty 
    accrues, or for expenditures in excess of 10 percent of such 
    royalties accruing from mineral-lease operations within any 
    reservation or agency jurisdiction was conceded and held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 7, 1940,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8745), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 2532, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order. On page 29, beginning with the last word on the page, 
    ``to,'' I make a point of order against the following language:
        to be reimbursed under the provisions of the Act of February 
        14, 1920, as amended (25 U.S.C. 413), except that reimbursement 
        shall not be required for expenditures in connection with 
        Indian lands for which no production or compensatory royalty 
        accrues, or for expenditures in excess of 10 percent of such 
        royalties accruing from mineral-lease operations within any 
        reservation or agency jurisdiction.

        My point of order is that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    (Mr. Johnson) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

For Presidential Use Without Reimbursement to Appropriation Accounts

Sec. 38.9 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that in 
    addition to the sum appropriated, supplies or funds shall be 
    available for disposition by the President under the Act of Mar. 
    11, 1941, to carry out the provisions of the Act of Mar. 28, 1944, 
    ``without reimbursement of the appropriations from which such 
    supplies or services were procured or such funds were provided,'' 
    was conceded and held to be legislation where that law did not 
    permit disposition without reimbursement.

[[Page 5888]]

    On June 3, 1944,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4937), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 5252, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Page 6, after 
        line 17, insert:
            ``Sec. 202. In addition to the sum appropriated by section 
        201 of this title, any supplies, services, or funds available 
        for disposition or expenditure by the President under the act 
        of March 11, 1941, as amended (22 U.S.C. 411-419), and acts 
        supplementary thereto, may be disposed of or expended by the 
        President to carry out the provisions of the act of March 28, 
        1944, without reimbursement of the appropriations from which 
        such supplies or services were procured or such funds were 
        provided.''

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: I desire to make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon], because it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order at this time. . . . 
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Minnesota 
    makes a point of order against the amendment and particularly 
    emphasizes that the amendment provides that the appropriation is 
    ``without reimbursement'' and that ``without reimbursement'' is not 
    contained in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will hear the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Receipts From Operations to Repay Federal Investment--District of 
    Columbia Airport

Sec. 38.10 Language in an appropriation bill providing for repayment of 
    federal appropriations for an additional airport for the District 
    of Columbia from income derived from operations was conceded and 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Aug. 6, 1957,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9131), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 13780, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5889]]

                                   Chapter I

                             Department of Commerce

                        Civil Aeronautics Administration

          Construction and Development, Additional Washington Airport

            For necessary expenses for the construction and development 
        of a public airport in the vicinity of the District of 
        Columbia, as authorized by the act of September 7, 1950 (64 
        Stat. 770), including acquisition of land, $12,500,000, to 
        remain available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed a 
        total of $250,000 may be advanced to the applicable 
        appropriations of the Civil Aeronautics Administration for 
        necessary administrative expenses: Provided further, That 
        beginning on June 30, 1965, and not later than June 30 of each 
        year thereafter, the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics 
        Administration shall pay from income derived from operation of 
        the airport an amount which will repay to the Treasury of the 
        United States the full capital investment from Federal 
        appropriations in a period of 35 years.

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Friedel: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph on page 2, lines 1 to 20 inclusive, on the ground 
    that the last proviso thereof contains legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. This proviso requires repayment of Federal 
    appropriations made for the airport, and in that respect amends the 
    basic law which authorized the airport.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it is, perhaps, a 
    close point, whether this comes under the Holman rule; but we 
    concede the point of order and offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] concedes 
    the point of order made by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Friedel]. The Chair sustains the point of order.

--Receipts Generated From Irrigation Projects

Sec. 38.11 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    money received by the United States in connection with any 
    irrigation project constructed by the federal government shall be 
    covered into the general fund until such fund has been reimbursed, 
    was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not a Holman rule retrenchment of funds covered by the bill.

    On Nov. 29, 1945,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the first deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
4805), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 11192, 11193, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Total, general fund, construction, $42,765,000: Provided, 
        That all mon

[[Page 5890]]

        eys hereafter received by the United States in connection with 
        any irrigation project, including the incidental power features 
        thereof, constructed by the Secretary of the Interior through 
        the Bureau of Reclamation, and financed in whole or in part 
        with moneys heretofore or hereafter appropriated or allocated 
        therefor by the Federal Government from the general fund, shall 
        be covered into the general fund until the general fund has 
        been reimbursed in full for allocations and appropriations made 
        to such project from the general fund, except in cases where 
        provision has been made by law or contract for the use of such 
        revenues for the benefit of users of water from such project: 
        Provided further, That the portion of appropriations or 
        allocations invested in the power features of such projects 
        shall be fully amortized and repaid within 50 years with 
        interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum.

        Mr. (J. W.) Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the proviso commencing on page 30, line 15, and 
    continuing on page 31 down to the end of line 6 that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the committee 
    concedes the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard on the point of order. It is manifest that this item requires 
    that funds received shall be covered into the general fund of the 
    Treasury until the general fund has been fully reimbursed for the 
    amount that it has expended. In my opinion that is in order under 
    the Holman rule. It saves money to the Treasury on the face of the 
    document.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair thinks it is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and so holds. The point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: To justify legislative language in an 
appropriation bill under the Holman rule, the provision must show a 
retrenchment as a necessary result; and if an amendment, must be 
germane to the bill.

--Tennessee Valley Authority

Sec. 38.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    resource development activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
    stating that part of the funds therefor should be derived from the 
    appropriated funds and part from proceeds of operation, was held to 
    be legislation and not in order.

    On May 28, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill (H.R. 11319), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        . . . On page 3, lines 1 to 3 ``, of which $400,000 shall be 
    derived from this appropriation and $750,000 shall

[[Page 5891]]

    be derived from proceeds of operations of the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that all of the 
    language to which I have referred is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . It is clearly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Travel Expenses Paid by States

Sec. 38.13 In an appropriation bill providing funds for salaries and 
    expenses, Office of Education, a provision that ``all receipts from 
    non-Federal agencies representing reimbursement for expenses of 
    travel of employees of the Office of Education performing advisory 
    functions to the said agencies shall be deposited in the Treasury 
    of the United States to the credit of this appropriation,'' was 
    conceded and held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 2, 1957,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 4972, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For expenses necessary for the Office of 
    Education, including surveys, studies, investigations, and reports 
    regarding libraries; fostering coordination of public and school 
    library service; coordination of library service on the national 
    level with other forms of adult education; developing library 
    participation in Federal projects; fostering nationwide 
    coordination of research materials among libraries, interstate 
    library coordination and the development of library service 
    throughout the country; purchase, distribution, and exchange of 
    educational documents, motion-picture films, and lantern slides; 
    collection, exchange, and cataloging of educational apparatus and 
    appliances, articles of school furniture and models of school 
    buildings illustrative of foreign and domestic systems and methods 
    of education, and repairing the same; and cooperative research, 
    surveys, and demonstrations in education as authorized by the act 
    of July 26, 1954 (20 U.S.C. 331-332); $7 million, of which not less 
    than $550,000 shall be available for the Division of Vocational 
    Education as authorized: Provided, That all receipts from non-
    Federal agencies representing reimbursement for expenses of travel 
    of employees of the Office of Education performing advisory 
    functions to the said agencies shall be deposited in the Treasury 
    of the United States to the credit of this appropriation.
        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning in line 17, page 19, 
    down through line 22.
        The Chairman: (20) Beginning where?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

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

[[Page 5892]]

        Mr. Hiestand: This language:

            Provided, That all receipts from non-Federal agencies 
        representing reimbursement for expenses of travel of employees 
        of the Office of Education performing advisory functions to the 
        said agencies shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United 
        States to the credit of this appropriation.

        We would redistribute the money, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, 
    that that is definitely legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: This was only an 
    attempt to have the States reimburse the Federal Government for the 
    technical assistance that the States call on the Department of 
    Education to give. Now, if you want it all to come out of the 
    Federal Treasury and not have the States make this reimbursement, 
    this is the way to do it. It is clearly subject to a point of 
    order, and I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the language in the bill 
    and sustains the point of order.

Reimbursements for Indian Educational Expenses

Sec. 38.14 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating money to be 
    advanced for certain purposes coupled with a direction that such 
    advances shall be reimbursable during a fixed period under rules 
    and regulations prescribed by an executive officer was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000, which sum may be used for the purchase of 
    seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, and other equipment 
    necessary . . . Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 may be 
    advanced to worthy Indian youths to enable them to take educational 
    courses, including courses in nursing home economics, forestry, and 
    other industrial subjects in colleges, universities, or other 
    institutions, and advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to 
    exceed 8 years, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary 
    of the Interior may prescribe.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    it imposes discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. 
    The language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make

[[Page 5893]]

     rules and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would like to inquire 
    further of the gentleman with reference to the language appearing 
    in lines 7 and 8, page 27, reading as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 
        years under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
        Interior may prescribe.

        Will the gentleman advise the Chair as to any provision of 
    existing law upon which this language is based?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is the exact 
    language that has been used for several years and the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma knows of no specific basis of law for it.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New York.

[[Page 5894]]


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 39. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Sharecropper Participation in Conservation

Sec. 39.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing that 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States and who comply with the 
    agriculture conservation program shall be entitled to receive 
    payment for their participation in said program as other producers, 
    was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3492, 3494, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman has other points of 
    order against the paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Yes.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman indicate those?
        Mr. Fulmer: On page 67, line 16, down to and including line 3, 
    on page 68, which language is as follows: ``Provided further, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States Government and who comply with 
    the terms and conditions of the 1943 agricultural conservation 
    program, formulated pursuant to sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, shall be 
    entitled to apply for and receive payments, or to retain payments 
    heretofore made, for their participation in said program to the 
    same extent as other producers'' . . . on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill without any authorization in 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 16 and running down to and 
    including the word ``producers'' in line 25 that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. With the information available to the 
    Chair, the Chair is of the opinion that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and sustains the point of order.

Soil Conservation Payments

Sec. 39.2 Where existing law provides a flat $10,000 limitation on the 
    amount any person may receive as soil conservation payments, an 
    amendment limiting such payments to $10,000 unless the pay

[[Page 5895]]

    ment is in respect to more than one farm and adding a reporting 
    requirement was held legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5269), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 3428, 3429, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
        Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert: ``Provided further, 
        That no payment from these funds for any one year shall be made 
        to any person or corporation in excess of $10,000 unless the 
        payment is with respect to more than one farm and then only if 
        the excess be in the total of payments to a landlord who shall 
        furnish to the Secretary of Agriculture a certificate from the 
        county committee in which his farms are located stating that 
        his division of the proceeds of that farm's benefit payments 
        with the renter or sharecropper are fair and customary in the 
        community.

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a moment.
        On page 5, section 102, of the present act there is a flat 
    $10,000 limitation on the amount that any person may receive. 
    Insofar as this amendment is effective at all, it changes this 
    provision, but it stipulates that if there is more than one farm 
    the $10,000 shall apply only to each farm. That is a clear change 
    in the law because he stipulates if there is more than one farm 
    then the $10,000 flat limitation in the present law shall be of no 
    force and effect. Certainly that is a change in the law. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that the amendment, although in the guise of a limitation, is 
    legislative in nature and not in order on an appropriation bill. 
    The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level of Federal Taxable Income as Eligibility for Payments

Sec. 39.3 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that a 
    participant in the soil conservation program could not qualify ``if 
    his net individual income for Federal income-tax purposes is in 
    excess of $10,000 in 1952'' was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On May 20, 1953,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5227), a point of order was raised against an amendment offered 
to the following portion of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 5244, 5263, 5264, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5896]]

            . . . Provided further, That none of the funds herein 
        appropriated or made available for the functions assigned to 
        the Agricultural Adjustment Agency pursuant to the Executive 
        Order Numbered 9069, of February 23, 1942, shall be used to pay 
        the salaries or expenses of any regional information employees 
        or any State information employees . . . Provided further, That 
        such amount shall be available for salaries and other 
        administrative expenses in connection with the formulation and 
        administration of the 1954 program of soil-building practices 
        and soil- and water-conserving practices, under the act of 
        February 29, 1936, as amended (amounting to $195 million, 
        including administration, and formulated on the basis of a 
        distribution of the funds available for payments and grants 
        among the several States in accordance with their conservation 
        needs as determined by the Secretary, except that the 
        proportion allocated to any State shall not be reduced more 
        than 15 percent from the distribution for the next preceding 
        program year, and no participant shall receive more than 
        $2,500); but the payments or grants under such programs shall 
        be conditioned upon the utilization of land with respect to 
        which such payments or grants are to be made in conformity with 
        farming practices which will encourage and provide for soil-
        building and soil- and water-conserving practices in the most 
        practical and effective manner and adapted to conditions in the 
        several States, as determined and approved by the State 
        committees appointed pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
        590h (b)), for the respective States. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fulton: Page 31, line 22, strike 
        out the figure ``$2,500'' and insert ``$1,000 nor qualify as a 
        participant for payments of grants of assistance under such 
        program if his net individual income for Federal income-tax 
        purposes is in excess of $10,000 in 1952.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William M. McCulloch (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: This amendment would require affirmative action by 
    the Secretary of Agriculture or someone acting for him. It would 
    require the disclosure of income of individual citizens, which 
    information is prohibited by law from being made public. It would 
    require affirmative and special action by someone in the 
    Government, which would make it legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As has been 
    indicated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton], the 
    amendment imposes a qualification upon participants in this 
    program. Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the offered 
    amendment proposes legislation on an appropriation bill and is, 
    therefore, subject to a point of order. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Price Minimum on Agricultural Purchases

Sec. 39.4 A provision in a general appropriation bill that ``agri

[[Page 5897]]

    cultural products . . . purchased or obtained under this program 
    shall be at not less than'' a designated price was conceded and 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 28, 1952,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8370), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 8501, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on lines 16 to 22 on page 36 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. That language is 
    as follows:

             Provided further, That agricultural products or products 
        produced from agricultural products purchased or obtained under 
        this program shall be at not less than the average market price 
        prevailing for such commodity or commodities within the United 
        States or the support price for such commodity or commodities, 
        whichever is the greater.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    the author of that language in the bill. I confess that it is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman concede the 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Restriction on Uses of Loans, Rural Electrification

Sec. 39.5 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    providing that certain loans under the Rural Electrification 
    Administration shall be exclusively for purchasing and financing 
    the construction and operation of generating plants and facilities 
    for furnishing electric energy to persons in rural areas who are 
    not receiving central station service, was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following ruling was made by Chairman William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 3588, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] in 
    the following words:

            Provided, That these loans shall be exclusively for the 
        purpose of financing the construction and operation of 
        generating plants, electric transmission and distribution lines 
        or systems for the furnishing of electric energy to persons in 
        rural areas who are not receiving central station service.

[[Page 5898]]

         The Chair is unable to see where there is any limitation in 
    the language used and concludes it is legislation, therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation Loan Authority Extended

Sec. 39.6 A provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating 
    money for the purchase of property by the Rural Electrification 
    Administration and providing that such sum be borrowed from the 
    Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and directing the corporation 
    to lend such amount notwithstanding certain provisions of law, was 
    conceded and held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 2, 1940,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8202), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 1033, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5, 
        and the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of 
        the Rural Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7 
        U.S.C. 901-914), $40,000,000, which sum shall be borrowed from 
        the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 3(a) of said act, and shall be considered 
        as made available thereunder; and the Reconstruction Finance 
        Corporation is hereby authorized and directed to lend such sum 
        in addition to the amounts heretofore authorized under said 
        section 3(a) and without regard to the limitation in respect of 
        time contained in section 3(e) of said act.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning on page 84, line 7, with the 
    word ``which'', and ending with the word ``act'', in line 15, that 
    it is legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Missouri 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidation and Continuation of Authorities

Sec. 39.7 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill to 
    enable the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Farm Credit 
    Administration and through existing agencies under its 
    administration to administer all activities, projects, and 
    functions heretofore carried on under the caption ``Loans, grants, 
    and rural rehabilitation'' was conceded and held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5899]]

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 3592, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Loans and Rural Rehabilitation

            Making and servicing loans: To enable the Secretary, 
        through the Farm Credit Administration and through existing 
        agencies under its supervision, including the Crop and Feed 
        Loan Division and production credit associations, to administer 
        all activities, projects, facilities, and functions heretofore 
        carried on under the caption, ``Loans, grants, and rural 
        rehabilitation,'' the continuance of which is authorized under 
        the terms of this appropriation, and to provide assistance to 
        needy farmers in the United States, its Territories and 
        possessions, unable to obtain credit elsewhere, through making 
        and servicing of loans under this and prior law, $12,000,000. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph just read on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.

        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Money From Timber Sales

Sec. 39.8 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    proposing that 10 percent of all moneys received from timber sales 
    by each national forest during each fiscal year shall be available 
    to be expended by the Secretary of Agriculture for recreational 
    purposes within such national forest was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1949,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3997), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 3948, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: On page 39, line 13, 
        insert the following paragraph:
            ``Forest recreational purposes: Ten percent of all moneys 
        received from timber sales by each national forest during each 
        fiscal year shall be available at the end thereof to be 
        expended by the Secretary of Agriculture for recreational 
        purposes within such national forest.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I regret 
    to

[[Page 5900]]

    have to make a point of order against the amendment, but I must do 
    so. I make the point of order that the amendment is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        I think the approach the gentleman is making is sound, but I 
    believe it should be considered by the appropriate legislative 
    committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair considers the amendment to be strictly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill by virtue of the fact that it does not call 
    for money to be appropriated out of the Treasury but directs that 
    certain things be done with the receipts from the sale of timber.
        For that reason the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bank Audits

Sec. 39.9 A proviso in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    that the federal land banks and joint stock land banks shall be 
    examined once a year instead of at least twice as provided by law, 
    and changing the law with reference to salaries of employees 
    engaged in such examinations, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 3590, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Farm Credit Administration

                             salaries and expenses

            For salaries and expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
        in the District of Columbia and the field . . . Provided, That 
        the requirement (12 U.S.C. 952) that Federal land banks and 
        joint stock land banks shall be examined at least twice each 
        year is hereby modified so that such examinations need be made 
        only once each year: Provided further, That the expenses and 
        salaries of employees engaged in such examinations shall be 
        assessed against the said corporations, banks, or institutions 
        in accordance with the provisions of existing laws except that 
        the amounts collected from the Federal land banks, joint stock 
        land banks, and Federal intermediate credit banks pursuant to 
        the act of July 17, 1916, as amended (12 U.S.C. 657) shall be 
        covered into the Treasury and credited to a special fund. . . .

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the language beginning with the word 
    ``proviso'', line 15, page 84, continuing on down to and including 
    the word ``thereto'' in line 4, page 86, is legislation not 
    authorized by law on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: The point of order is 
    conceded.
        The Chairman: (19) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Whittington (Miss.).

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

[[Page 5901]]

Definition of Terms

Sec. 39.10 To an agricultural appropriation bill, an amendment 
    curtailing the use of funds therein for price support payments to 
    any person in excess of $30,000 per year and providing that ``for 
    the purpose of this (amendment) the term `person' shall mean an 
    individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company,'' or the like, 
    was ruled out as legislation.

    On May 26, 1965,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8370), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 11655, 11656, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

        I respectfully submit that this not only would require some new 
    duties but also would require the opening up of individual 
    accounts. This makes it quite clearly subject to a point of order.
        I might point out that subsection (b), where the definitions 
    are given, would require a determination and also would call for 
    special duties.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the Chair correctly 
    understand that the gentleman from Mississippi has stated his point 
    of order against the pending amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Yes.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order. I submit, Mr. Chairman, it falls strictly within 
    the Holman rule on retrenching, as a limitation. The Department of 
    Agriculture has all kinds of statisticians. We appropriate money 
    for them. They have the wherewithal to make any kind of 
    determination we see fit to legislate. In this sense, it is a 
    retrenchment, in my opinion.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has read the amendment offered by 
    the

[[Page 5902]]

    gentleman from Illinois. The Chair is of the opinion that even 
    though any limitation imposed upon an executive agency may add to 
    the burdens of that executive agency, a limitation of an 
    appropriation is in good order. The Chair, therefore, would say to 
    the gentleman from Illinois that in the opinion of this occupant of 
    the Chair, he has offered an amendment which is in form a 
    limitation. But in addition thereto, he has added language which 
    defines a person, and in the opinion of the Chair that language is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is therefore out of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Agricultural Conservation Committees; Capping Allotments for Soil 
    Conservation Services

Sec. 39.11 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the county 
    agricultural conservation committee in any county ``with the 
    approval of the State Committee'' may allot not to exceed five per 
    centum of its allocation for the agriculture conservation program 
    to the Soil Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
    carrying out the program, was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) during consideration of H.R. 7786 
[the Department of Agriculture chapter, general appropriation bill, 
1951], a point of order was raised against language as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 5915, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the following language beginning in line 17 
    on page 191--

            Provided further, That the county agricultural conservation 
        committee in any county with the approval of the State 
        committee may allot not to exceed 5 percent of its allocation 
        for the agricultural conservation program to the Soil 
        Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
        formulating and carrying out the agricultural conservation 
        program and the funds so allotted shall be utilized by the Soil 
        Conservation Service for technical and other assistance in such 
        county--

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The language 
    contained in these lines has to do with the administration of the 
    programs in two separate agencies of the Department of Agriculture, 
    which ought to come before a proper legislative committee to have 
    legal determination made. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    answer to the statement by the gentleman from Minnesota, I point 
    out that this provision was written in the bill last year after 
    conference with and with the approval of the members of the 
    legislative Committee on Agriculture. It is an

[[Page 5903]]

    effort on the part of our committee to more properly utilize the 
    various specialists of the two agricultural programs.
        Under the present law, these two agricultural agencies are 
    authorized to utilize the services of other agencies. In effect, by 
    fixing it at 5 percent, I think we are on sound ground in insisting 
    on the limitation. It is a limitation in the amount which can be 
    used for a particular purpose, whereas, in the absence of the 5-
    percent figure, each agency could use the services of the other, 
    and under the general law would have a right to compensate the 
    other for services rendered. I think under the general provisions 
    of the law that is true. The 5-percent provision is a limitation 
    rather than legislation or an authorization. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Is it the contention of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi that, under existing law, without 
    this limitation an allotment might be made in excess of 5 percent?
        Mr. Whitten: I do not know as to the use of the word 
    ``allotment,'' but under the Economy Act of 1932, section 601, any 
    agency is entitled to use and is authorized to use the services of 
    another agency and to pay for such services.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the basic act, the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, is it not true that these 
    technical and other services could be provided?
        Mr. Whitten: They could be. The point that we are trying to get 
    at here is that the Production and Marketing Administration is 
    entitled to this type of service, and in many cases has to go out 
    and hire and train additional specialists while the Federal 
    Government is paying such specialists, who are doing the same kind 
    of work.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: That is right.
        Mr. Whitten: They would be authorized to use the services of 
    the Soil Conservation Service beyond this 5 percent. May I point 
    out that the citation of the act is 31 United States Code, section 
    686. The 5-percent provision here is not compulsory. By its 
    insertion we hope to be able to get these two agencies to use the 
    services of the other, instead of going out in two directions. I 
    think we are on sound ground in our objective and in our approach 
    to reach that objective. They already have authority to use these 
    services, but by putting this provision in we stress our intention 
    that they make use of the services. I think it will result in 
    economy, if they do make use of the services. I may say that the 
    Department has just begun to make use of them, and, from the 
    reports that I am now getting, it is doing a great deal of good.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: If I understand the gentleman 
    correctly, this service could be carried on by the Production and 
    Marketing Administration itself?
        Mr. Whitten: And in most cases it is, with absolute disregard 
    of the fact that technical people are already drawing pay from the 
    Federal Government who could do the work.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman has cited the act and 
    also pointed out that existing law authorizes the agency to utilize 
    the services of another agency to carry out its authorized 
    functions.

[[Page 5904]]

        Mr. Whitten: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Marshall] has made a point of 
    order against the language appearing in that section of the bill on 
    page 191 beginning with the word ``Provided'' in line 17, and 
    continuing through the remainder of that paragraph down to and 
    including the word ``county'' in line 25, on the ground that it 
    includes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the language here in question and is of 
    the opinion that it could be drawn so as to constitute a 
    limitation, but as the language appears now in the bill it does 
    appear to the Chair that it contains legislation. The Chair, of 
    course, has to pass on the question as it is here presented and 
    invites attention to the fact that among other things it includes 
    the words ``with the approval.'' It appears to the Chair that the 
    language quoted does include legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in violation of the rules of the House.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A subsequent amendment to the bill that 
day, providing, inter alia, that ``not to exceed 5 percent of the 
allocation for the agricultural conservation program for any county may 
be allocated to the Soil Conservation Service'' for services of its 
technicians in carrying out the agricultural conservation program, was 
held to be a limitation, restricting the availability of funds and 
therefore in order. See Sec. 67.13, infra.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 40. Commerce

Delegation of Authority of Secretary of Commerce

Sec. 40.1 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of Commerce to designate an officer of the Department to sign minor 
    routine official papers and documents during the temporary absence 
    of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary, 
    was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 2367, 2368, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Title III--Department of Commerce

                            office of the secretary

            Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the 
        office of the Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in

[[Page 5905]]

        this title referred to as the Secretary) including personal 
        services in the District of Columbia [and] teletype news 
        service . . . Provided, That hereafter the Secretary may 
        designate an officer of the Department to sign minor routine 
        official papers and documents during the temporary absence of 
        the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary 
        of the Department.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language on page 54, line 15, as follows: 
    ``teletype news service (not to exceed $1,000)'' as not authorized 
    by law, and to the language beginning in line 21, same page, 
    starting with the word ``Provided'' and continuing to the bottom of 
    that page and including the first two lines on page 55. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    both points of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The points of order are sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.2 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of Commerce may delegate his authority to approve payment 
    of travel and other expenses of employees on change of official 
    station was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2376, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            During the fiscal year 1946 the Secretary of Commerce may 
        delegate his authority to subordinate officials of the Coast 
        and Geodetic Survey, and Weather Bureau, and the Civil 
        Aeronautics Administration, to authorize payment of expenses of 
        travel and transportation of household goods of officers and 
        employees on change of official station: Provided, That in no 
        case shall such authority be delegated to any official below 
        the level of the heads of regional or field offices.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. On page 75, beginning with line 12, the entire paragraph 
    down to and including line 20, on the ground it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entertainment Expenses

Sec. 40.3 An appropriation under the heading of Office of Administrator 
    of Civil Aeronautics, Department of Commerce, ``for entertainment 
    of officials in the field of aviation of other countries when 
    specifically authorized and

[[Page 5906]]

    approved by the Administrator,'' was conceded and held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 2369, 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  Office of Administrator of Civil Aeronautics

            General administration, Office of the Administrator: For 
        necessary expenses of the Office of Administrator of Civil 
        Aeronautics in carrying out the provisions of the Civil 
        Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended (49 U.S.C. 401), including 
        personal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; 
        contract stenographic reporting services; not to exceed $14,000 
        for expenses of attendance at meetings of organizations 
        concerned with aeronautics, when specifically authorized by the 
        Administrator; newspapers (not exceeding $200); not to exceed 
        $5,000 in fiscal year 1946 for entertainment of officials in 
        the field of aviation of other countries when specifically 
        authorized and approved by the Administrator; fees and mileage 
        of expert and other witnesses; expenses of examination of 
        estimates of appropriations in the field; hire, maintenance, 
        repair, and operation of passenger-carrying automobiles; 
        $2,680,000.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 57, line 22: ``not to 
    exceed $5,000 in fiscal year 1946 for entertainment of officials in 
    the field of aviation of other countries when specifically 
    authorized and approved by the Administrator,'' on the ground that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Foreign Trade Statistics, Site of Compilation; Permanent Provision of 
    Law

Sec. 40.4 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating for current 
    census statistics providing that ``after October 1, 1947, all 
    functions necessary to the compilation of foreign trade statistics 
    shall be performed in New York, N.Y.'' instead of Washington, D.C., 
    was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On May 14, 1947,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order

[[Page 5907]]

was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 5303, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Current census statistics: For expenses necessary for 
        collecting, compiling, and publishing current census statistics 
        provided for by law . . . Provided, That on and after October 
        1, 1947, all functions necessary to the compilation of foreign 
        trade statistics shall be performed in New York, N.Y., and of 
        the foregoing amount $1,200,000 shall be available exclusively 
        for this purpose.

        Mr. [J. Glenn] Beall [of Maryland]: I make a point of order 
    against the language on page 43, line 18, beginning with the word 
    ``provided'' and going through line 22 on the same page, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order and I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The point of order is conceded. 
    The Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business Statistics; Waiver of Classification Act

Sec. 40.5 A paragraph carrying an appropriation for all expenses of the 
    Bureau of the Census necessary to collect, compile, analyze, and 
    publish a sample census of business was conceded to include 
    legislation and was ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 9066, 9067, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sample census of business: For all expenses of the Bureau 
        of the Census necessary to collect, compile, analyze, and 
        publish a sample census of business, including the employment 
        by the Director, at rates to be fixed by him, of personnel at 
        the seat of government and elsewhere without regard to the 
        Classification Act . . . $1,200,000, to remain available until 
        June 30, 1946.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the paragraph just read on the ground it 
    contains legislation unauthorized by law in an appropriation bill. 
    The paragraph is cited in the report of the committee as one of 
    those paragraphs containing legislation.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Cannon] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri concedes the point of 
    order.

Census of Manufactures; Waiver of Classification Act

Sec. 40.6 An appropriation for all expenses of the Bureau of

[[Page 5908]]

    the Census necessary to collect, compile, and analyze a census of 
    manufactures for 1944, was conceded and held to contain a provision 
    unauthorized by law and to be legislation.

    On Dec. 7, 1944,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 8995, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Census of manufactures for 1944: For all expenses of the 
        Bureau of the Census necessary to collect, compile, analyze, 
        and publish a census of manufactures for 1944, including the 
        employment by the Director, at rates to be fixed by him, of 
        personnel at the seat of government and elsewhere without 
        regard to the Classification Act . . . $2,400,000, to remain 
        available until June 30, 1946.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order against the paragraph just read on the 
    ground it contains legislation and is not authorized in an 
    appropriation bill. The paragraph is one of those cited in the 
    report as embodying legislation.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Snyder] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

    Immediately following this ruling, an appropriation for compiling 
census reports, ``including the objects specified under this head in 
the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, and including expenses . 
. . for sample surveys . . . for the purpose of estimating the size, 
characteristics and distribution of the nation's population,'' was held 
to be legislation and unauthorized by law.(16) The point of 
order was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 8995, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is not authorized by law, it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and I make the same statement made before, 
    namely, it is cited in the report.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Snyder] 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order, and 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Consumer Income

Sec. 40.7 An appropriation for all expenses of the Bureau of the Census 
    to collect, compile, and analyze statistics with respect to 
    consumer income was conceded and held

[[Page 5909]]

    to contain legislation not authorized.

    On Dec. 7, 1944,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 90 Cong. Rec. 8995, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Consumer income study: For all expenses of the Bureau of the 
    Census necessary to collect, compile, and analyze statistics with 
    respect to the consumer income, and to publish the results thereof, 
    including the employment by the Director, at rates to be fixed by 
    him, of personnel at the seat of government . . . $3,500,000, to 
    remain available until June 30, 1946.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 41. Defense and Foreign Relations

Military Activities in Cambodia and Laos

Sec. 41.1 To an amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill as well as funds already appropriated by other 
    acts to support United States combat activities in Cambodia or 
    Laos, an amendment making it illegal to participate in or order any 
    such military activities was held to constitute additional 
    legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 29, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9055), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 22352, 22362, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: Page 57, line 21, strike 
        out all of section 307 and insert a new section 307, as 
        follows:
            Sec. 307. None of the funds herein appropriated under this 
        Act or heretofore appropriated under any other act may be 
        expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities 
        in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos 
        by the U.S. forces. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett to the amendment offered 
        by

[[Page 5910]]

        Mr. Flynt: At the end of the Flynt Amendment strike the period 
        and insert a semicolon and the words ``and from the date of the 
        enactment of this law it shall be illegal for anyone to 
        participate in, or order, any such activities.'' . . .

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cederberg: Legislation on an appropriation bill is subject 
    to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) was protected by the rule. An amendment to 
    that amendment which would add language making an act illegal would 
    be in effect legislation on an appropriation bill, in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.

Defense Department General Counsel

Sec. 41.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing that no part 
    of the appropriation therein be paid to any commissioned officer or 
    any civilian employee in the office of the Judge Advocate, unless 
    such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a general 
    counsel appointed by the President, who shall be the chief legal 
    officer, was conceded and held to be legislation and therefore not 
    in order.

    On May 12, 1955,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6042), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 6245, 6246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: 
    Page 30, immediately after line 20, insert:
        ``Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used to pay the pay and allowances of any commissioned 
    officer, or the wages of any civilian employee, who is assigned to 
    or employed in--
        ``(1) the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 
    unless such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a 
    general counsel of the Navy. . . .''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious 
    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and subject to a 
    point of order and I make the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point 
    of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 5911]]

Size of Army; ``Not Less Than''

Sec. 41.3 An amendment to a general appropriation bill establishing a 
    minimum size for a branch of the armed services was ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On June 3, 1959, (3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7454), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 9715, 9716, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: 
        Page 4, line 9, after the figure, strike out the period, add a 
        semicolon, and the words ``Provided, That the average strength 
        of the Reserve personnel, Army, shall be maintained at not less 
        than 300,000 during the fiscal year 1960.''
            Page 5, line 16, strike out the period, add a semicolon and 
        the words, ``Provided further, That the Army National Guard 
        shall be maintained at not less than 400,000 during the fiscal 
        year 1960.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. I believe there are ample precedents to sustain such a point 
    of order.
        May I say, however, that I join the gentleman from Florida and 
    others on the subcommittee in increasing the appropriation for the 
    Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, to raise the number on 
    active duty in the guard from 360,000 to 400,000 and for the Army 
    Reserve from 270,000 to 300,000.
        I am in full accord with the desire for larger strength, but I 
    do feel that it is unwise to put this kind of language in an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sikes: No, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The Clerk will read.

Sense of Congress on Foreign Policy Issue

Sec. 41.4 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill expressing the 
    sense of the Congress concerning the representation of the Chinese 
    government in the United Nations was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 24, 1971,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 21892, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 105 Cong. Rec. 14529, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        28, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 105. It is the sense of the Congress that the 
        Communist Chi

[[Page 5912]]

        nese Government should not be admitted to membership in the 
        United Nations as the representative of China.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against section 105, lines 20 through 22, as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Rooney) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas G. Abernethy (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this provision has been in this bill for many 
    many years. It goes back to the time that the late Senator from 
    Nevada, Pat McCarran, was chairman of Senate appropriations for 
    this bill.
        However, I am constrained to have to concede that the point of 
    order has merit.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

International Organizations; Limiting U.S. Contribution to Percent of 
    Total Cost

Sec. 41.5 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,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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: (8) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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

[[Page 5913]]

    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.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The ruling would also be justified on grounds that the language at 
        issue was not limited to funds in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade With Cuba

Sec. 41.6 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,(10) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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: (11) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    care to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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--

[[Page 5914]]

        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.

Penalty on Subversives' Accepting Employment

Sec. 41.7 To a bill making supplemental appropriations for national 
    defense, an amendment in the form of a limitation prohibiting 
    payment of salary and wages of any person who advocates overthrow 
    of the government, and fixing a penalty for accepting such work or 
    wages, was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Oct. 10, 1941,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5788), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 7833, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Title III--General Provisions

            Sec. 301. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        act shall be used to pay the salary or wages of any person who 
        advocates or who is a member of an organization that advocates, 
        the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force 
        or violence . . . Provided further, That any person who 
        advocates, or who is a member of an organization that 
        advocates, the overthrow of the Government of the United States 
        by force or violence and accepts employment the salary or wages 
        for which are paid from any appropriation in this act shall be 
        guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be fined not more 
        than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year. . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation which 
    would interfere with our relations with our friend and ally, Joseph 
    Stalin, and the Soviet Government.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Missouri 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Mandating Domestic Use of Foreign Aid Funds

Sec. 41.8 To an amendment proposing to increase the amount appropriated 
    for economic assistance (defense

[[Page 5915]]

    support) under the Mutual Security Act program, an amendment 
    imposing a minimum availability of that amount for aid to 
    distressed areas in the United States was conceded to be 
    legislation as well as nongermane and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On June 17, 1960,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
12619), a point of order was raised, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 13117-19, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Economic Assistance

        Defense support: For assistance authorized by section 131(b), 
    $600,000,000.
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford: On page 2, line 18, strike 
        out ``$600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$650,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ford: On page 2, line 18, after the figure 
        ``$600,000,000'', strike out the period and insert a colon and 
        add the following: Provided, That no less than $200,000,000 of 
        the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be made 
        available to the distressed areas of the less developed States 
        of the United States including but not limited to the States of 
        West Virginia and Pennsylvania.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.

        Such action as proposed is not authorized, and I do not think 
    the language of the bill would permit this type of amendment. I was 
    not really expecting an amendment of such type, and it caught me 
    just a little bit off guard. However, I do not think the gentleman 
    from Iowa really wants to press the point.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Michigan on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman of the 
    subcommittee. I want to indicate that, in my opinion, this 
    amendment is subject to a point of order. It is not germane to the 
    bill and it is not authorized. In my opinion, therefore, it is 
    subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Foreign Aid; Earmarking of ``Reasonable Amount'' for Domestic Use

Sec. 41.9 To an appropriation bill providing funds for technical

[[Page 5916]]

    cooperation programs of the Organization of American States, an 
    amendment to provide that ``a reasonable amount of the funds 
    provided herein may be'' available for distribution in 
    underdeveloped areas in the United States was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On Aug. 15, 1957,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
9302), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 14952, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: Page 3, line 15, after the 
        word ``program'' strike out the semicolon, insert a colon, and 
        add the following:
            ``Provided further, That a reasonable amount of the funds 
        provided herein may be used for the underdeveloped areas of the 
        United States of America where women's wearing apparel is made 
        from feedbags, such funds to be made available to and 
        distributed by the University of Pennsylvania.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Gross: . . . I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sense of Congress Regarding Panama Canal

Sec. 41.10 To a provision in a general appropriation bill (permitted to 
    remain by failure to raise a point of order) stating the sense of 
    Congress that any new Panama Canal treaty must protect the vital 
    interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
    operation, maintenance, and defense of the Canal, an amendment 
    striking that provision and inserting a statement that it was the 
    sense of Congress that any such treaty must not abrogate or vitiate 
    the ``traditional interpretation'' of past Panama Canal treaties, 
    with special reference to territorial sovereignty, was ruled out as 
    constituting a different statement of legislative policy, not 
    merely perfecting in nature, which was further legislation.

    On June 10, 1977,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5917]]

the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 18402, 18403, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eldon J.] Rudd [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        (The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:)

            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must protect the vital 
        interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the 
        operation, maintenance, property and defense of the Panama 
        Canal.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rudd: Page 14, delete lines 1 
        through 5 and insert in lieu thereof:
            Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new 
        Panama Canal treaty or agreement must not abrogate or vitiate 
        the traditional interpretation of the treaties of 1903, 1936, 
        and 1955, with special reference to matters concerning 
        territorial sovereignty. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order reluctantly, because the amendment deals with 
    matters not addressed in the bill and is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Rudd: . . . This is simply a clarification to section 104. 
    We have heard many statements here this afternoon and this morning 
    regarding the desire by many of our distinguished colleagues here, 
    and I think that they are in favor of retaining the Panama Canal. 
    All this does is to clarify this language, put it in proper 
    perspective, so that there will be no question about the retention 
    of the Panama Canal.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) offered an amendment to 
    section 104, which is a sense of the Congress section.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd) 
    would change the sense of the Congress legislation permitted to 
    remain in the bill and would clearly alter it. The gentleman's 
    amendment would be further legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    subject to a point of order. The Chair must sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack).



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 42. District of Columbia

Office of Corporation Counsel; Salary Rates Fixed by Commissioner

Sec. 42.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill for the District 
    of Columbia permitting the use of funds in the bill by the Office 
    of the Corporation Counsel to retain professional experts at rates 
    fixed by the commissioner was conceded to be legislation and was 
    ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 18, 1973,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5918]]

the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill (H.R. 8685), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 11, lines 5 through 
    10, as not being a limitation upon an appropriation bill, and not 
    authorized.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 5. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and shall be available 
        to the Office of the Corporation Counsel to retain the services 
        of consultants including physicians, diagnosticians, 
        therapists, engineers, and meteorologists at rates to be fixed 
        by the Commissioner.

        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Gross)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to say to the members of the Committee that this is a new 
    provision that is carried in the bill at this time. This was sent 
    up from downtown. We at this time, Mr. Chairman, concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Mandating Equal Expenditure for all Races

Sec. 42.2 A proposed amendment to the District of Columbia 
    appropriation bill providing that ``whenever . . . it is proposed 
    to expend any sum for any thing or service from the benefit of 
    which members of any race are excluded an equal sum shall be 
    expended . . . for the benefit . . . of the race so excluded'' was 
    held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 3222, 3232, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: On 
    page 55, after line 5, insert a new section as follows:
        ``3. Whenever under this bill it is proposed to expend any sum 
    for any thing or service from the benefit of which members of any 
    race are excluded, an equal sum shall be expended for things and 
    services for the benefit of the members of the race so excluded and 
    in proportion to the percent of the population the members of the 
    excluded race bear to the whole population of the municipality 
    where the proposed expenditure is to be made.''
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the 
    point of order. I make the point of

[[Page 5919]]

    order the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    requiring affirmative action by District officials.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill now being considered contains no provision for equal 
    appropriations and there is no authorization to make equal 
    appropriations.
        The Chair therefore feels that it is very clearly legislation, 
    and sustains the point of order.

Conferring Discretionary Method of Expenditure

Sec. 42.3 Language in a general appropriation bill making funds 
    available for the District of Columbia Civil War Centennial 
    Commission for expenses ``by contract or otherwise, as determined 
    by the Commissioners'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         District of Columbia Funds

                             Operating Expenses

                              Executive Office

        For an additional amount for ``Executive Office'', including 
    expenses of the District of Columbia Civil War Centennial 
    Commission and the National Capital Downtown Committee, 
    Incorporated, by contract or otherwise, as may be determined by the 
    Commissioners, $47,700.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order.

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 3, beginning with line 14 through line 
    21, as being legislation on an appropriation bill, with particular 
    reference to the language in line 20 which reads as follows: ``by 
    contract or otherwise, as may be determined by the Commissioners.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thomas) care 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, this is in the normal course 
    of their duties, and I doubt if the point of order is good.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        After examining the language referred to by the gentleman from 
    Iowa, it appears to the Chair that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, subject to a point of order; therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Setting Maximum Hospital Rates for Treatment of Indigent Patients

Sec. 42.4 Language in a general appropriation bill author

[[Page 5920]]

    izing the treatment of indigent patients in hospitals in the 
    District of Columbia, and setting maximum rates to be charged for 
    such treatment, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    On June 26, 1962, (6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12276), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 11731, 11732, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the following language beginning in line 24 on page 
    6, and ending in line 2 on page 7: ``and for care and treatment of 
    indigent patients in institutions, including those under sectarian 
    control, under contracts to be made by the Director of Public 
    health;''.
        And the following language beginning in line 2 of page 7 and 
    ending in line 9 of page 7:

            Provided, That the outpatient rate under such contracts and 
        for services rendered by Freedmen's Hospital shall not exceed 
        $5 per visit and the inpatient rate shall not exceed rates 
        established by the Commissioners based on audited costs, and 
        such contract rates and rates for services rendered by 
        Freedmen's Hospital shall not exceed comparable costs at the 
        District of Columbia General Hospital.

        Leaving in on line 2 of page 7 the dollar sign and figures: 
    ``$66,528,000:''.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language I 
    seek to have stricken is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . 
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    discussed this matter with my distinguished colleague, the ranking 
    minority member [Mr. Rhodes]. As pointed out to the Committee a few 
    moments ago, this is a feature that has been carried in the 
    District of Columbia appropriation bill for a great number of 
    years; a provision that the members of the subcommittee do not 
    favor. I believe, also, that this matter can be worked out after 
    the bill goes to the other body, and in the conference report we 
    can work out a provision that will not only meet with the approval 
    of the committee but also, I think, with that of the distinguished 
    gentleman from Iowa.
        We concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The point of order is conceded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granting Commissioners Authority to Supervise, Control, and Operate 
    Building in District of Columbia

Sec. 42.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    placing under the commissioners the supervision, control, and 
    operation of the Police Court Building was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5921]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3109, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For completing construction of a building in Judiciary Square 
    to house the Police Court of the District of Columbia, including 
    furniture and equipment, and inspection, $450,000, and the 
    supervision, control, and operation of said building shall be under 
    the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, who are authorized 
    to assign surplus space in said building to other activities of the 
    municipal government.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against that portion of the last paragraph on page 49 
    beginning after the word ``control'', in line 20, which reads, 
    ``and operation of said building shall be under the Commissioners 
    of the District of Columbia, who are authorized to assign surplus 
    space in said building to other activities of the municipal 
    government'' for the reason it is legislation and changes the 
    provisions of existing law.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Nichols: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: Why does not the gentleman include in his point 
    of order the words ``and the supervision, control, and operation'', 
    beginning on line 20? In other words, all after the figure 
    ``$450,000.''
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
    observation. I modify my point of order to include the language 
    beginning in line 20 referred to by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: No, Mr. Chairman. I do 
    not know what we are going to do with the available space there, 
    but it is, perhaps, all right.
        Mr. Nichols: May I state to the gentleman the custodians of the 
    particular buildings will assign the space in the orderly manner as 
    they have always done.
        The Chairman: Patently, the language referred to is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Explicit Change in Lawful Policy; Restrictions on Newspaper 
    Advertisements

Sec. 42.6 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that an appropriation shall not be available for costs of 
    advertisements in newspapers published outside the District of 
    Columbia ``notwithstanding the requirement for such advertising 
    provided by existing law'' was held not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill.

[[Page 5922]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3105, 3106, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general advertising, authorized and required by law, 
        and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in 
        regulations, $7,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
        not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers 
        published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding 
        the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law.

        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the proviso beginning on line 11, page 13:

            Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available 
        for the payment of advertising in newspapers published outside 
        of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the requirement 
        for such advertising provided by existing law.

        I make the point of order that is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the law 
    provides that all purchases over $1,000 shall be advertised in 
    newspapers outside the District of Columbia. The purpose of this 
    amendment is to save the District a little money, and if the 
    gentleman from Maryland does not want to do that, it suits me.
        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, it is not that the gentleman from 
    Maryland does not want to save the District any money. This is a 
    question of whether or not we are going to permit the Committee on 
    Appropriations to come in here and change laws that are now on the 
    statute books. If we are going to permit that in the case of the 
    District of Columbia, we might as well wipe out all legislative 
    committees in this House. That is the question involved.

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair inquires of the 
    gentleman from Maryland whether his point of order is made to the 
    proviso, beginning on line 11 and extending through line 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Palmisano: It is.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is of 
    opinion that especially the last part of the proviso, beginning 
    with the word ``notwithstanding'' clearly waives the provisions of 
    existing law, and therefore changes existing law and would be 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, which is prohibited by 
    the rules of the House. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec.  43. Federal Employment

Conditions of Employment--Restricting Employment to Citizens

Sec.  43.1 Provisions in a section of a general appropriation bill 
    denying the use of funds to pay federal employees in a certain 
    category, declaring in part that an affidavit

[[Page 5923]]

    signed under that section shall be considered prima facie evidence 
    of fulfilling requirements of the provision, and further imposing 
    penalties for making a false affidavit were ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), 
points of order were raised seriatim against the four provisos in the 
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 27290, 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 602. Unless otherwise specified and during the current 
        fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this or 
        any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
        officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
        (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
        owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
        duty is in continental United States unless such person (1) is 
        a citizen of the United States, (2) is a person in the service 
        of the United States on the date of enactment of this Act, who, 
        being eligible for citizenship, has filed a declaration of 
        intention to become a citizen of the United States prior to 
        such date, (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the United 
        States, or (4) is an alien from Poland or the Baltic countries 
        lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence: 
        Provided, That for the purpose of this section, an affidavit 
        signed by any such person shall be considered prima facie 
        evidence that the requirements of this section with respect to 
        his status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
        person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
        and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $4,000 or 
        imprisoned for not more than one year, or both: Provided 
        further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
        and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
        law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer or 
        employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall be 
        recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This section 
        shall not apply to citizens of the Republic of the Philippines 
        or to nationals of those countries allied with the United 
        States in the current defense effort, or to temporary 
        employment of translators, or to temporary employment in the 
        field service (not to exceed sixty days) as a result of 
        emergencies.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order as follows: Line 20, beginning with the word 
    ``Provided,'' at page 31 . . . The language continues to the word 
    ``Provided'' at page 31, line 24, the word ``with'' and the colon.
        The point of order is that this is violative of clause 2, rule 
    XXI, as constituting legislative action in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this proviso has been in the bill for many years. 
    This may

[[Page 5924]]

    impose a duty upon the person seeking, but it does not impose any 
    additional duties on the Government side of it, and it is a strict 
    limitation, it is a limitation in the sense that it requires only a 
    type of qualification which is standard.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language,
        an affidavit signed by such person shall be considered prima 
        facie evidence . . .

        Seems to the Chair clearly to be legislation, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order to page 
    31, line 24, beginning with ``Provided further,'' down through the 
    word ``both'' and the colon on page 32, line 2.
        The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this is again 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. I would point out to the 
    Chair that we are creating a new crime by this legislation, which 
    says:
        That any person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a 
        felony, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than 
        $4,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both:

        Obviously this is a legislative effort by the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, in view of the ruling of the Chair on 
    the previous point of order, we concede this point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I raise the same point of order 
    again as to rule XXI, clause 2, to the words, beginning on page 32, 
    line 2:
        Provided further, That the above penal clause shall be in 
        addition to, and not in substitution for, any other provisions 
        of existing law:

        I cite again the earlier ruling of the Chair, and the point of 
    order previously stated.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: I do, Mr. Chairman. This is an entirely different 
    proposition. This is a very obvious limitation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It would appear to the Chair that this proviso relates to the 
    language that has already been stricken, and that the same ruling 
    that applied to the stricken language would apply to it: therefore 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, skipping over to the next ``Provided 
    further,'' going down to the words, beginning on page 32, line 7:

            This section shall not apply to citizens of the Republic of 
        the Philippines or to natives of those countries allied with 
        the United States in the current defense effort, or to 
        temporary employment of translators or to temporary employment 
        in the

[[Page 5925]]

        field service (not to exceed sixty days) as a result of 
        emergencies.

        Mr. Chairman, I make note of the fact that this again 
    constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. I point out that 
    it imposes upon the Government agencies involved the duty to make 
    findings as to the citizenship of persons involved. Obviously this 
    is an additional burden which this legislative act would apply. It 
    again refers, Mr. Chairman, to earlier language which has been 
    stricken by points of order, and constitutes a hold on those 
    provisions which have previously been stricken by points of order.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order with regard to the 
    language appearing on page 32, commencing on line 7, with the 
    words, ``This section'' through the end of the paragraph in line 
    12.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and the point of 
    order is sustained.

-- Exclusion of Persons Advocating Right to Strike

Sec. 43.2 A provision in a general appropriation bill making it a 
    felony for a person ``who is a member of an organization of 
    Government employees that asserts the right to strike against the 
    Government'' to accept employment the salary or wages for which are 
    paid from funds contained in such bill was held to be legislation 
    and not in order.

    On May 2, 1951, (14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4741, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 301. 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 engages in a strike against the Government of the 
    United States or who is a member of an organization of Government 
    employees that asserts the right to strike against the Government 
    of the United States [and any such person who accepts] employment 
    the salary or wages for which are paid from any appropriation or 
    fund contained in this act shall be guilty of a felony. . . .
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire section on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Washington 
    makes a point of order against the entire section on the ground it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5926]]

-- Prohibition on Salary Until Security Clearance Certified

Sec. 43.3 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no part 
    of the appropriation shall be used to pay any person employed in 
    the State Department subsequent to a certain date, until essential 
    clearance as to loyalty has been certified by the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation and the appropriate security committee of the State 
    Department, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 27, 1946,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second Defense Department appropriation 
bill (H.R. 5890), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 2695, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wigglesworth: On page 23, line 16, 
        after the figures ``$133,456'' strike out the period, insert a 
        comma, and the following: ``Provided,'' That no part of any 
        appropriation in this act shall be used to pay the salary or 
        wage of any person appointed or transferred to the Department 
        of State after September 1, 1945, until essential clearance as 
        to loyalty has been certified by the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation and the appropriate security committee of the 
        Department of State.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, while the 
    proposed amendment is in the form of a limitation, it is coupled 
    with an affirmative direction which amounts to a change of law. For 
    this reason, although presented in the guise of an exception to the 
    rule, it is, in effect, legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    therefore subject to the point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment as drawn is in the form of a limitation but it 
    does have in it positive language which gives it the effect of 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri.

Granting Authority to Terminate Employment

Sec. 43.4 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of State may, in his discretion, terminate the employment 
    of any employee of the Department of State or of the Foreign 
    Service whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or 
    advisable in the interests of the United States, was held to be 
    legislation on

[[Page 5927]]

    an appropriation bill and not to be within the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.

    On Apr. 20, 1950, (18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5480, 5481, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 104. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of any officer or employee of the Department of 
        State or of the Foreign Service of the United States whenever 
        he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the 
        interests of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The language of section 104 gives to the Secretary of 
    State--and I quote from the section--``in his absolute discretion'' 
    power to terminate the employment of any employee. I do not believe 
    we have ever had legislation in the entire history of this Nation 
    which contained this language ``absolute discretion.''. . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion 
    this will result in a saving. It is in accordance with the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. When the power authorized in this 
    language is exercised and the Secretary terminates the employment 
    of any officer or employee in his absolute discretion that will 
    result in a saving. That will save money and is in order.
        The Chairman: (19) . . . The gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Marcantonio) has made a point of order against the language 
    appearing in section 104 on page 46 of the bill on the ground that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has examined 
    the language. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    language does confer definite authority and requires certain acts 
    on the part of the Secretary of State. In response to the argument 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) as to the 
    application of the Holman rule it is clearly shown by the 
    precedents and decisions of the House that the saving must be 
    apparent and definite on its face in the language of the bill in 
    order for the Holman rule to apply. Certainly an examination of the 
    language in question clearly shows that any saving would be 
    speculative. In view of the long line of precedents and decisions 
    dealing with the question of legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    which is clearly prohibited under the rules of the House, the Chair 
    has no alternative other than to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Right to Work'' Amendment

Sec. 43.5 To a bill making appropriations to enable the Works Progress 
    Administration to continue to provide employment, an amendment 
    providing ``that no person

[[Page 5928]]

    shall be deprived of work . . . because he does not belong . . . to 
    any organization'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 12, 1941,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 3204), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 920-24, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hoffman: On page 3, line 5, after 
        the figures, insert ``Provided, That no person shall be 
        deprived of work where work is provided because he does not 
        belong, refuses to join, or pay dues to any organization.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Hoffman) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. James M. Barnes (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Yes.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a limitation, in fact, on the right of a 
    certain group to prevent this money reaching those for whom it is 
    appropriated, therefore it is proper.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        Rule XXI of the House, referring to general appropriation 
    bills, provides:

            Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order.

        This being a supplementary appropriation bill, the amendment is 
    not in order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Employment by Judiciary

Sec. 43.6 To a general appropriation bill including funds for the 
    federal judiciary and placing a limitation on the total salaries 
    which may be paid by any judge for clerk and secretarial hire, a 
    provision specifying that without regard to such dollar 
    limitations, ``each circuit judge may appoint an additional law 
    clerk at not to exceed grade (GS) 9'' was ruled out as legislation, 
    no authority being cited to the Chair.

    On May 28, 1968,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17522), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 15357, 15358, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 42, beginning on line 3, which 
    reads as follows:

            Provided further, That without regard to the aforementioned 
        dollar

[[Page 5929]]

        limitations, each circuit judge may appoint an additional law 
        clerk at not to exceed grade (GS) 9.

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this language on 
    the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that 
    this is authorized by law. The additional law clerk is most 
    certainly authorized. The committee inserted this language in the 
    bill so that they would not hire law clerks at higher grades that 
    GS-9. It is in the bill to save money or to keep down the amount of 
    money that would be required to pay these law clerks.
        The Chairman: (3) Before the Chair rules on the 
    point of order, can the gentleman from New York cite to the Chair 
    the authority the gentleman says is already existing? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wayne L. Hays (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that if the additional clerk is authorized 
    somewhere in law, this would be a limitation upon the grade at 
    which the clerk could be appointed. What is sought to be found out 
    is whether there is existing legislation.
        Mr. Gross: I point out, Mr. Chairman, ``without regard to the 
    aforementioned dollar limitations,'' and so on and so forth. It is 
    not a limitation.
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I am sure this is 
    authorized. However, we will concede the point of order in the 
    interest of saving time and bring it back to the House after the 
    conference. This does not affect the amount of money for these law 
    clerks.
        The Chairman: In view of that statement, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Establishing Salary Levels

Sec. 43.7 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to set levels 
    for salaries of all officials and employees of the federal 
    judiciary, not otherwise specifically provided for, was conceded 
    and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in 
    order.

    On May 15, 1947,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 5385, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rooney: On page 66, after line 17, 
        insert a new paragraph to read as follows:
            ``Miscellaneous salaries: For salaries of all officials and 
        employees of the Federal judiciary, not otherwise specifically 
        provided for, $1,833,500: Provided, That the compensation of 
        secretaries and law clerks of circuit and district judges 
        (exclusive of any additional compensation under the Federal 
        Employees Pay Act of 1945 and any other acts of similar purport 
        subsequently enacted) shall be fixed by the Director of the 
        Administrative Office without regard to the Classification Act 
        of 1923, as amended, except that the salary of a secretary 
        shall conform with that of the main

[[Page 5930]]

        (CAF-4), senior (CAF-5) or principal (CAF-6) clerical grade, or 
        assistant (CAF-7) or associate (CAF-8) administrative grade, as 
        the appointing judge shall determine, and the salary of a law 
        clerk shall conform with that of the junior (P-1), assistant 
        (P-2), associate (P-3), full (P-4), or senior (P-5) 
        professional grade, as the appointing judge shall determine, 
        subject to review by the judicial council of the circuit if 
        requested by the Director, such determination by the judge 
        otherwise to be final: Provided further, That (exclusive of any 
        additional compensation under the Federal Employees Pay Act of 
        1945 and any other acts of similar purport subsequently 
        enacted) the aggregate salaries paid to secretaries and law 
        clerks appointed by one judge shall not exceed $6,500 per 
        annum, except in the case of the senior circuit judge of each 
        circuit and senior district judge of each district having five 
        or more district judges, in which case the aggregate salaries 
        shall not exceed $7,500.''

        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Rooney] on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney: No, Mr. Chairman; I must concede the point of 
    order. There is no authorization in law for this expenditure, 
    although it has been in this bill year after year for many years.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 43.8 Language in a general appropriation bill providing additional 
    compensation for secretaries and law clerks to district and circuit 
    judges was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2376, 2377, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Miscellaneous salaries: For salaries of all officials and 
        employees of the Federal judiciary, not otherwise specifically 
        provided for, $1,400,000: Provided, That the compensation of 
        secretaries and law clerks of circuit and district judges 
        (exclusive of any temporary additional compensation) shall be 
        fixed by the Director of the Administrative Office without 
        regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, except 
        that the salary of a secretary shall conform with that of the 
        main (CAF-4), senior (CAF-5), or principal (CAF-6) clerical 
        grade, or assistant (CAF-7), or associate (CAF-8) 
        administrative grade, as the appointing judge shall determine, 
        and the salary of a law clerk shall conform with that of the 
        junior (P-1), assistant (P-2), associate (P-3), full (P-4), or 
        senior (P-5) professional grade, as the appointing judge shall 
        determine, subject to review by the judicial council of the 
        circuit if requested by the Director, such determination by the 
        judge otherwise to be final: . . .

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of

[[Page 5931]]

    order against the language on page 83, line 11, beginning with the 
    word ``provided'' down through the remainder of page 84, to and 
    including the word ``final'', page 84, line 1, on the ground that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill and not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, to amplify 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from Kansas, I make the 
    point of order against the entire paragraph that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The Chair is particularly 
    interested in whether or not the paragraph is authorized by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we will have 
    to concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Tarver: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to rule first upon the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Georgia, in view of the 
    fact that it goes to the language of the entire paragraph. The 
    Chair must hold that the language is subject to a point of order 
    and, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Georgia.

Providing New Position

Sec. 43.9 In a bill appropriating funds for United States participation 
    in the New York World's Fair, a provision for a ``United States 
    Commissioner'' for the fair, to be appointed by the President at a 
    rate not to exceed $19,500 per annum, was conceded to be 
    legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11038), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 5932, 5933, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             General Administration

                     Participation in New York World's Fair

            For expenses necessary to provide for United States 
        participation in the New York World's Fair, as authorized by 
        the provisions of the Act of September 21, 1961 (75 Stat. 527), 
        including compensation of a United States Commissioner, who 
        shall be appointed by the President, at a rate not to exceed 
        $19,500 per annum, and services as authorized by section 15 of 
        the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), but at rates for 
        individuals not to exceed $75 per diem, $17,000,000, to remain 
        available until expended. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I make a point of order against the following 
    language beginning in line 16 and ending in line 18:

[[Page 5932]]

            Including compensation of a United States Commissioner, who 
        shall be appointed by the President, at a rate not to exceed 
        $19,500 per annum,

        I make the point of order that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and is so stated on page 9 of the report of the 
    committee accompanying the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is good.
        The agency states that this position would be considered in 
    addition to the 10 persons authorized to be employed without regard 
    to the provisions of the Classification Act.
        The act itself sets up 10 positions. What makes it subject to a 
    point of order is that the agency admits that it is not 1 of the 10 
    but is the 11th job and so it, as the 11th job, is subjected to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Authorizing Employment of Specialists at Salary Levels To Be Authorized 
    by the Department Head

Sec. 43.10 Language in an appropriation bill providing for employment 
    in the Customs Division, Department of Justice, ``of special 
    attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may be 
    authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his assistant,'' 
    was conceded and held to be legislation conferring new authority on 
    an executive official.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 2353, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses, Customs Division: For necessary 
    expenses, including travel expenses, purchase and exchange of 
    lawbooks and books of reference, and employment of special 
    attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may be 
    authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his 
    Administrative Assistant, $146,000.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 10 on page 38 and continuing 
    down into line 13, which reads as follows: ``and employment of 
    special attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may 
    be authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his 
    Administrative Assistant,'' on the ground that that is legislation 
    in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.

[[Page 5933]]

        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 43.11 Language in an appropriation bill providing for employment 
    in the Lands Division, Department of Justice, of experts ``at such 
    rates of compensation as may be authorized or approved by the 
    Attorney General'' was conceded and held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 2354, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Id. at p. 2362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses, Lands Division: For personal services in 
    the District of Columbia and for other necessary expenses, 
    including travel expenses, employment of experts at such rates of 
    compensation as may be authorized or approved by the Attorney 
    General, stenographic reporting services by contract, and notarial 
    fees or like services, $3,400,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning in line 17, including all of 
    the language in that line and through the words ``Attorney 
    General'' in line 18.
        The Chairman: (13) Beginning with the word ``at'' in 
    line 17, and ending with the word ``General'' in line 18?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: That is correct; on the ground it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Pay of Witnesses

Sec. 43.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds to be 
    available as compensation and expenses of witnesses or informants 
    as may be authorized or approved by the Attorney General ``or his 
    administrative assistant'' was conceded and held to be legislation 
    as a new delegation of authority.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2363, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Fees of witnesses: For expenses, mileage, and per diems of 
    witnesses and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, such payments 
    to be made on the certification of the attorney for the United 
    States and to be conclusive as provided by section 846, Revised 
    Statutes (28 U.S.C. 577), $700,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
    $25,000 of this amount shall be available for such

[[Page 5934]]

    compensation and expenses of witnesses or informants as may be 
    authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his 
    administrative assistant, which approval shall be conclusive: 
    Provided further, That no part of the sum herein appropriated shall 
    be used to pay any witness more than one attendance fee for any one 
    calendar day, which fee shall not exceed $1.50 except in the 
    District of Alaska: Provided further, That whenever an employee of 
    the United States performs travel in order to appear as a witness 
    on behalf of the United States in any case involving the activity 
    in connection with which such person is employed, his travel 
    expenses in connection therewith shall be payable from the 
    appropriation otherwise available for the travel expenses of such 
    employee.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language appearing on page 43, line 5, reading 
    ``or his administrative assistant'' on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order. May I say that the appropriation for this item 
    in 1936 was $2,100,000. The amount suggested in this bill for 1946 
    is $750,000. This will bring to the attention of the Committee the 
    savings that have been attempted to be made by the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizing Employment and Specifying Grade Level

Sec. 43.13 Language in a general appropriation bill providing for 
    positions of employment in certain grades, in addition to the 
    number authorized in existing law, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 11, 1959,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7040), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 7904, 7905, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 104 Cong. 
        Rec. 9065, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Civil Aeronautics Board, 
    including contract stenographic reporting services; employment of 
    temporary guards on a contract or fee basis; hire, operation, 
    maintenance, and repair of aircraft; hire of passenger motor 
    vehicles; and services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of 
    August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates for individuals not to 
    exceed $50 per diem; $6,925,000: Provided, That the Chairman is 
    authorized without regard to any other provision of law, to place 
    five General Schedule positions in the following grades: one in 
    grade GS-18, one in grade GS-17, and three in grade GS-16, and such 
    positions shall be in addition to positions previously allocated to 
    this agency. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language contained in the bill beginning on line 
    11 through line 16, page 4, as being legislation on an

[[Page 5935]]

    appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, it may well be that the Civil 
    Aeronautics Board needs more super grades, but this is not the way 
    to get it.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the 
    point of order. Let me make this explanation to my distinguished 
    friend. You will recall that this language was put in the bill and 
    thoroughly argued and debated last year. It was covered by a rule, 
    you remember that, only it was for 10 of these jobs, and the Civil 
    Service Commission, through some misunderstanding, only granted 5 
    of them. Now, the same language was in for FAA, and they were 
    granted those 10. . . .
        Mr. Gross: I must insist on my point of order in protection of 
    the committee and in protection of the Civil Service Commission.
        Mr. Thomas: I oppose the point of order because the paragraph 
    was read.
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks the gentleman from Iowa was 
    within his rights to make the point of order. He observed the 
    gentleman standing when unanimous consent was granted to go back to 
    the previous section.
        Mr. Thomas: Well, the point of order is good, then. We admit 
    it, then.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Providing Civil Service Rating for Officer

Sec. 43.14 A provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing a GS-16 rating for the budget officer was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On Mar. 28, 1952,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7216), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 3137, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 9. Appropriations in this act shall be available for 
        personal services including under the executive office the 
        budget officer in GS-16 and, when authorized by the 
        Commissioners or by the purchasing officer and the auditor, 
        acting for the Commissioners, printing and binding may be 
        performed by the District of Columbia Division of Printing and 
        Publications without reference to fiscal-year limitations.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in lines 18 and 19 on page 45, as 
    follows: ``including under the executive office the budget officer 
    in GS-16 and,'' that it is legislation upon an appropriation bill 
    and provides for paying a higher salary than the law under which 
    the District of Columbia operates allows.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    (Mr. Bates) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: We concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 5936]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Exempting Certain Persons From Employment Statutes

Sec. 43.15 Language in an appropriation bill exempting persons 
    appointed to part time employment as members of a civil service 
    loyalty board from application of certain statutes was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 20, 1957,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6070), the 
following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 4046, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language beginning at line 23, page 3, and 
    running through line 4 on page 4 reading as follows:

            Provided further, That nothing in sections 281 or 283 of 
        title 18, United States Code, or in section 190 of the Revised 
        Statutes (5 U.S.C. 99) shall be deemed to apply to any person 
        because of appointment for part-time or intermittent service as 
        a member of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty 
        Board in the Civil Service Commission as established by 
        Executive Order 10422, dated January 9, 1953, as amended.

        I make the point of order on the ground that this language 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction of Personnel

Sec. 43.16 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    in reducing personnel the determination as to which employees shall 
    be retained shall be made by the head of the agency concerned was 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 28, 1952,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8370), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 8503, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. No arguments were here 
        raised as to possible application of the Holman rule, which is 
        discussed in Sec. Sec. 4 and 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham A.] Ribicoff [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ribicoff to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Jensen: After (b), No. 3, add a new paragraph as 
        follows:
            ``4. That 90 days after the enactment of this act, the 
        number of civilian employees who are United States citizens, 
        receiving compensation or allowances from the administrative 
        expense appropriations provided by this act, employed in the 
        United States and overseas by or assigned

[[Page 5937]]

        to the Mutual Security Agency . . . shall be in the aggregate 
        at least 15 percent less than the number so employed or 
        assigned on June 1, 1952 . . . Provided further, That after the 
        Director has determined the reduction to be effected in each 
        agency, the determination as to which individual employees 
        shall be retained shall be made by the head of the agency 
        concerned.'' . . .

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    make his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Yes. Mr. Chairman, as I 
understand the amendment, it leaves the discharge of employees entirely 
to the Administrator, which contravenes existing laws with reference to 
veterans' preference and also the civil-service laws. It is 
legislation; it contravenes existing legislation. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Part of the language 
    of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, after 
    the proviso, reads:

            That after the Director has determined the reduction to be 
        effected in each agency, the determination as to which 
        individual employees shall be retained shall be made by the 
        head of the agency concerned.

        This portion of the amendment does, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, alter the civil-service laws and laws relating to veterans' 
    preferences, and therefore constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained.

Establishing Level of Salary

Sec. 43.17 A provision in a general appropriation bill that an 
    appropriation shall be available for compensation of the Director 
    of Defense Mobilization at the rate of $22,500 per annum was 
    conceded and held to be legislation and stricken by the point of 
    order.

    On June 28, 1952,(4) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8370), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 8504, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   Chapter X

                               Emergency Agencies

                       Executive Office of the President

                         office of defense mobilization

            For expenses necessary for the Office of Defense 
        Mobilization, including compensation of the Director of Defense 
        Mobilization, at the rate of $22,500 per annum; printing and 
        binding without regard to section 89 of the act of January 12, 
        1895, as amended (44 U.S.C. 213); hire of passenger-motor 
        vehicles; reimbursement of the General Services Administration 
        for security guard service; not to exceed $5,000 for emergency 
        and extraordinary expenses, to be expended under the direction 
        of the Director for such purposes as he deems proper, and his 
        determination thereon shall be final and conclusive; and 
        expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the purposes 
        of

[[Page 5938]]

        this appropriation; $1,000,000: Provided, That contracts under 
        this appropriation for temporary or intermittent services as 
        authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
        55a), may be renewed annually.

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 37, line 9, which 
    reads, 'at the rate of $22,500 per annum.' It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setting Salary of Commissioner of Public Buildings

Sec. 43.18 Language in the independent offices appropriation bill 
    fixing the salary of the Commissioner of Public Buildings at 
    $10,000 per annum was ruled out as legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1762), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 1055, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            General administrative expenses: For architectural, 
        engineering, mechanical, administrative, clerical, and other 
        personal services, including the salary of the Commissioner of 
        Public Buildings at $10,000 per annum. . . .

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
    against the language on page 17, line 15, beginning with the word 
    ``including'' and ending with the word ``annum'' in line 16, the 
    language reading ``including the salary of the Commissioner of 
    Public Buildings at $10,000 per annum,'' upon the ground that that 
    particular wording is legislation upon an appropriation bill and is 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: The gentleman objects to the language beginning 
    in line 15, after the word ``services''?
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: After the word ``services'' and including 
    the word ``annum'' in line 16.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the item 
    had the unanimous support of the subcommittee, but it is subject to 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Limitation on Average Salary

Sec. 43.19 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a 
    limitation on the average salary in cases

[[Page 5939]]

    ``where separate agencies have been set up under the Defense 
    Production Act or the Civilian Defense Act,'' was held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Aug. 20, 1951,(8) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5215), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 10409, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jenson: Page 44, line 10, insert a 
        new section as follows:
            ``None of the funds provided by this act shall be used to 
        pay employees at an average rate in excess of that paid from 
        the regular appropriations provided to the departments 
        concerned in the regular 1952 appropriation bills. Provided 
        further, That where separate agencies have been set up under 
        the Defense Production Act or the Civilian Defense Act, such 
        average salary shall not exceed $4,500 per annum.

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It proposes to fix salaries and that is 
    manifestly legislation and not in order.
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is purely and simply a limitation 
    on the amount of money that may be paid to Federal employees. In 
    the regular agencies of Government employees receive an average of 
    about $3,700 per annum. This simply limits other employees to a 
    minimum. I believe the amendment is germane because it does not 
    increase the authority of any agency which has appropriations in 
    this act.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair that section of the amendment 
    beginning after the word ``further'' and especially that part which 
    seeks to set a maximum upon the salaries which may be paid is 
    clearly not a limitation but is legislation, and, therefore, 
    subject to a point of order.

Limit on Number of Employees

Sec. 43.20 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    limiting the appropriation for administrative personal services of 
    the Bureau of Reclamation and providing further that the total 
    number of employees in the bureau holding certain appointments 
    shall not exceed 3,500 at any one time during the current fiscal 
    year, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    in order.

[[Page 5940]]

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3838), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 3528, 3529, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: On page 36, line 13, after 
        ``work'' and before the period insert the following: ``Provided 
        further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 of appropriations 
        available for expenditure by the Bureau of Reclamation during 
        the current fiscal year shall be used for administrative 
        personal services and other personal services; Provided 
        further, That the total number of employees in the Bureau of 
        Reclamation holding permanent, temporary, or other appointments 
        in grades CAF-9 and P-3, or both, shall not exceed 3,500 at any 
        one time during the current fiscal year.''

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Iowa offers an amendment, which the Clerk 
    has reported, against which the gentleman from Washington makes a 
    point of order on the ground that it contains legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care. 
    The gentleman from Iowa points out that the amendment is only a 
    limitation on an appropriation bill. The first proviso contained in 
    the amendment probably meets the description given by the gentleman 
    from Iowa. If the amendment contained only the first proviso, the 
    Chair would be inclined to agree that it is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. However, the Chair invites attention to the 
    second proviso contained in the amendment, which does not make any 
    reference to a limitation of funds but seeks to control the number 
    of employees that may be used in a department, and also has 
    reference to the Classification Act and other matters which the 
    Chair thinks very clearly constitute legislation. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Repealing Limit on Salaries and Expenses

Sec. 43.21 A provision in an appropriation bill repealing a legislative 
    provision in a prior appropriation law that certain expenditures 
    during the fiscal year 1939 by the National Bituminous Coal 
    Commission ``shall not exceed an amount equal to the aggregate 
    receipts covered into the Treasury under the provisions of'' a 
    specified statute was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and consequently was held not in order.

[[Page 5941]]

    On Mar. 22, 1939,(12) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 5219), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 3123, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The paragraph in the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, 
        fiscal year 1938, under the caption ``National Bituminous Coal 
        Commission,'' is hereby amended by striking out the following 
        proviso: ``Provided, That expenditures during the fiscal year 
        1939 under this head and under the head `Salaries and expenses, 
        office of the Consumers' Counsel, National Bituminous Coal 
        Commission,' shall not exceed an amount equal to the aggregate 
        receipts covered into the Treasury under the provisions of 
        section 3 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937.''

        Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The point of order of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is conceded by the gentleman from 
    Virginia, and is therefore sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denial of Status to Aliens Not Holman Retrenchment

Sec. 43.22 Language in an appropriation bill providing ``that no alien 
    employed on the Canal Zone may secure United States civil-service 
    status,'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not within the exception of the Holman rule.

    On July 2, 1947,(14) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the War Department civil functions 
appropriation, a point of order was raised against a provision, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 8171, 8172, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 18, 
    subdivision (7), ``that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may 
    secure United States civil-service status,'' is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it clearly changes existing law.
        The existing law, Mr. Chairman, is found in the treaty which 
    was signed between the Republic of Panama and the Government of the 
    United States. The treaty was ratified by the Senate of the United 
    States in 1939. . . .
        In February of this year an Executive order was issued by the 
    President modifying the civil-service rules. One portion of that 
    Executive order distinctly permits Panamanians to take civil 
    service examinations and be enrolled in the United States Civil 
    Service. Consequently, this language against which I have raised a 
    point of order forbids Panamanian citizens from securing civil-
    service status.

[[Page 5942]]

    Thus, it changes the law as set forth in the treaty and changes the 
    law as set out in the Executive order. It is clearly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, if I may 
    be heard on the point of order, the first part of that section 
    reads as follows:

            No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be 
        used directly or indirectly, except for temporary employment in 
        case of emergency, for the payment of any civilian for services 
        rendered by him on the Canal Zone while occupying a skilled, 
        technical, clerical, administrative, executive, or supervisory 
        position unless such person is a citizen of the United States 
        of America or of the Republic of Panama: Provided, however--

        Then going to subdivision (7)--
        that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may secure United 
        States civil-service status.

        Under the Holman rule, even legislation on an appropriation 
    bill is permitted if it succeeds in the reduction of an 
    expenditure. If aliens are to be given United States civil-service 
    status, it will increase the liability of the United States for the 
    payment of civil-service retirement and other provisions of that 
    sort. Consequently, it seems to me that in that sense the inclusion 
    of this language is a protection of the Treasury of the United 
    States and may be permissible under the Holman rule. Clause 7, of 
    course, is directly related to the ``provided, however,'' and the 
    language of limitation in the first part of the section.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that an act of 
    Congress takes precedence over a treaty or even an Executive order 
    in the form of a treaty. So this language is clearly in order. 
    Congress has the right to enact this legislation.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. So 
    far as the remark just made by the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    concerned, as the Chair remembers, it is in the last analysis an 
    act of Congress, whether it be a treaty or whether it be a law. 
    Therefore, that remark is not germane to the question now before 
    the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As far as the statement of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. 
    Case] is concerned, regarding the Holman rule, at most, this 
    suggests that there might be a saving; there is the possibility of 
    a saving. The Holman rule is very clear that legislation must in 
    its language show an absolute saving. Therefore, that point would 
    not be of any value in sustaining the position which the gentleman 
    takes.
        Section 7 provides that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may 
    secure United States civil-service status. So far as the Chair has 
    been advised, there is no law anywhere providing for that very 
    thing, excepting this legislation found in an appropriation bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Defining Personal Liability of Federal Employees

Sec. 43.23 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    providing that

[[Page 5943]]

    employees of the United States on whose certificate or approval 
    loans are made shall not be liable for loss by fraud, if the 
    Governor of the Farm Credit Administration determines that such 
    employee has exercised reasonable care in the circumstances, was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 3591, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Farmers' crop production and harvesting loans: For loans to 
        farmers under the act of January 29, 1937 . . . Provided, That 
        no employee of the United States on whose certificate or 
        approval loans under said act of January 29, 1937, as amended, 
        or other acts of the same general character, are or have been 
        made, shall be held personally liable for any loss or 
        deficiency occasioned by the fraud or misrepresentation of 
        applicants or borrowers, if the Governor of the Farm Credit 
        Administration shall determine that such employee has exercised 
        reasonable care in the circumstances, and has complied with the 
        regulations of the Farm Credit Administration in executing such 
        certificate or giving such certificate or giving such approval. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fulmer: I make the point of order against the language on 
    page 87, beginning with line 1, down to and including line 16, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 44.  Congressional Salaries and Allowances

Congressional Salaries

Sec. 44.1 For a limiting amendment to a general appropriation bill, a 
    substitute amendment increasing the salary of Members of Congress 
    was conceded and held to be subject to a point of order.

    On Apr. 22, 1953,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4663), a point of order was raised against a substitute for the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 3608, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John Bell] Williams of Mississippi: 
    Page 49,

[[Page 5944]]

    after section 303, add a new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 304. No part of the funds appropriated in this act shall 
    be used to pay the salary of any employee provided for in this 
    appropriation at a rate in excess of the salary now paid to Members 
    of the Senate and House of Representatives: Provided, however, That 
    such limitations shall not apply to the office of the President of 
    the United States.''. . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Mississippi:
            ``The salaries of Members of the Congress after the 
        enactment of this bill shall be $22,500 per year.''

        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Mr. McCormack: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jackson E. Betts (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.2 An appropriation for ``additional salaries'' at a specified 
    annual rate of Senators, Representatives in Congress, Delegates, 
    and Commissioners was held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 8936, 8937), 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For payment to the widow of Hampton P. Fulmer, late a 
    Representative from the State of South Carolina, $10,000 to be 
    disbursed by the Sergeant at Arms of the House.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler, of New York: On page 2, 
        after line 6, insert a new paragraph as follows:
            ``For additional salaries at the additional rate of $2,500 
        per annum, from January 1, 1945, to June 30, 1945, of Senators, 
        Representatives in Congress, Delegates from Territories, the 
        Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from the Philippine Islands, $668,750.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret to 
    have to make a point of order against the amendment, that there is 
    no legislation authorizing such an appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) . . . The Chair sustains the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in Members' Clerk-hire

Sec. 44.3 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment

[[Page 5945]]

    providing that the clerk-hire roll of each Member be increased by 
    one employee was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 27, 1968,(2) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
18038), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 19093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. H. Res. 416, 89th 
        Congress, authorized Members to employ a student intern on a 
        temporary basis in the summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 6, line 20, strike 
        out the period, insert a colon, and add the following: 
        ``Provided, That each Member's clerk-hire roll may be increased 
        by one employee for the purposes and to the extent authorized 
        in House Resolution 416, 89th Congress.''

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Alabama will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Ryan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I would argue that the amendment is in order because the 
    amendment relates to the purposes of House Resolution 416, which is 
    referred to in the bill, and clearly, if lines 17 to 20 were in 
    order and were included in the bill, then the proviso which my 
    amendment adds to those lines is equally in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has had 
    the opportunity to study the amendment of the gentleman from New 
    York and the Chair finds the question of one additional employee 
    is, under the subject of clerk hire, within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on House Administration. The amendment of the gentleman 
    from New York would add legislation to an appropriation measure and 
    therefore (be) in violation of clause 2, rule XXI, of the House of 
    Representatives. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Staff Salaries--Making House Resolutions Permanent Law

Sec. 44.4 A provision in a supplemental appropriation bill declaring 
    that certain House resolutions such as those relating to Members' 
    clerk-hire, should be the permanent law with respect to their 
    subject matter, was ruled out as legislation.

    On Sept. 22, 1964,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appro

[[Page 5946]]

priation bill (H.R. 12633), a point of order was raised against the 
following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 22431, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Contingent Expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Miscellaneous items'', 
        $92,000, for payment to the Architect of the Capitol in 
        accordance with section 208 of the Act approved October 9, 1940 
        (Public Law 812).
            The provisions relating to allowances, positions, and 
        salaries carried in House Resolutions 294, 831, and 832, 
        Eighty-eighth Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
        thereto.

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language appearing on page 12, lines 3 to 6, 
    reading as follows:

            The provisions relating to allowances, positions, and 
        salaries carried in House Resolutions 294, 831, and 832, 
        Eighty-eighth Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
        thereto.

        I make the point of order particularly with respect to lines 5 
    and 6, on the ground that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, if I may be 
    heard on the point of order, this is what has been in every 
    legislative bill that has come before the House for a great many 
    years. It is an established rule that the House has always 
    followed. It seems to me that the committee is only following here 
    what the House has always had as the procedure it has followed in 
    this connection.

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What the gentleman from Oklahoma says is true, that this has 
    been the practice of the House for a number of years, but on its 
    face this is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

-- Increasing Salaries

Sec. 44.5 To the legislative appropriation bill an amendment proposing 
    that each Member may pay to one employee $8,000 basic compensation 
    in lieu of $6,000 basic, as provided by law, was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 1, 1955,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
7117), the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9815, 9816, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              members' clerk hire

            For clerk hire, necessarily employed by each Member in the 
        discharge of his official and representative duties, which 
        shall be at the basic rate of $15,000 per annum: Provided, That 
        no salary shall be fixed hereunder at a basic rate in excess of 
        $6,000 per annum; $11,500,000.

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Page 4, line 
        15, after ``of'' strike out ``$6,000'' and insert ``$8,000.''

[[Page 5947]]

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell (of Arkansas): Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. There is no authorization for this proposal. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Wilson] would change 
    existing law by increasing the amount provided in the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken and sustains 
    the point of order.

Position Titles Changed

Sec. 44.6 To a provision in an appropriation bill for clerk-hire for 
    Members and Delegates, an amendment proposing to designate such 
    clerks as ``secretaries'' was held to constitute a change in 
    existing law.

    On May 15, 1941,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
4576), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 4137, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       clerk hire, members and delegates

            For clerk hire necessarily employed by each Member and 
        Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, in 
        the discharge of his official and representative duties, in 
        accordance with the act entitled ``An act to fix the 
        compensation of officers and employees of the legislative 
        branch of the Government,'' approved June 20, 1929, as amended 
        by the act of July 25, 1939, $2,847,000.

        Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dondero: On page 21, line 12, 
        strike out ``clerk hire'' and insert ``secretaries to,'' and on 
        page 21 in line 13, strike out ``clerk hire'' and insert 
        ``allowance for secretaries.''. . .

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the 
    point of order, and I may state that the ground of the point of 
    order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In view of the fact that in the basic law the employees in the 
    offices mentioned are referred to as clerks and in view of the fact 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Dondero] would change existing law and would therefore be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, it is the opinion of the 
    Chair that the amendment is clearly out of order, and the Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Office Allowances

Sec. 44.7 Language in an appropriation bill increasing Mem

[[Page 5948]]

    bers' telegraph, stationery, and telephone allowances an additional 
    $300 was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    held not in order.

    On May 22, 1950,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 8567), 
the following points of order were raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 7416, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner (of Kansas): Mr. Chairman, against the 
    language on page 4, lines 23 to 36, inclusive, reading:

            For an additional amount for telegraph and telephone 
        service, including an additional amount of $300 for each 
        Representative, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from 
        Puerto Rico, $131,400.

        I make the point of order that there is no legislative 
    authority for it.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from North 
    Carolina desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Stationery (revolving fund): For an additional amount for 
        stationery, second session, Eighty-first Congress, including an 
        additional stationery allowance of $300 for each 
        Representative, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from 
        Puerto Rico, $131,400, to remain available until expended.

        Mr. Scrivner: Mr. Chairman, against the language on page 5, 
    lines 7 to 11, inclusive, reading:

            Stationery (revolving fund): For an additional amount of 
        stationery . . . $131,400 . . . .

        I make the point of order that there is no legislation 
    providing for the expenditure.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Carolina desire to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Kerr: The point of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Tax Treatment of Travel Expenses

Sec. 44.8 To a provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating 
    funds for expenses of Members, an amendment seeking to amend 
    Internal Revenue Code provisions affecting Members was held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not germane thereto.

    On May 10, 1945,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
3109), a point of

[[Page 5949]]

order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 4451-53, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whittington: Page 15, strike out 
        all of line 25, and on page 16 all of lines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
        down to and including the word ``installments'' in line 5, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``Section 23 (a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
        (relating to deductibility of trade and business expenses) is 
        amended by inserting at the end thereof a new sentence as 
        follows: `For the purposes of this chapter, in the case of an 
        individual holding an office as a Member of the Congress of the 
        United States of any State or Territory, his home shall be 
        considered to be his place of residence within the State or 
        Territory from which he is such a member, but the deduction 
        allowable for this taxable year by reason of this sentence 
        shall in no event exceed $2,500, and shall be applicable only 
        with respect to the taxable years after December 31, 1944.' ''

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. I make the same argument on the 
    point of order that I made on the last amendment offered by the 
    gentleman, namely, that that part of his amendment which says his 
    home shall be his place of residence within the State or Territory, 
    might affect provisions of law far beyond anything contemplated in 
    this bill and is plainly legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending appropriation bill contains a provision that would 
    allow Members of Congress a sum not exceeding $2,500 to pay 
    expenses. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    would constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, legislation 
    which comes within the province of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane to 
    the pending paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Procedure for Employment of Committee Staff

Sec. 44.9 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, changing the 
    procedure for the employment of committee staff personnel and in 
    effect altering the method of staff selection specified in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 11, 1962,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
11151), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 6353, 6354, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick D.] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 5950]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Schwengel: On page 3, strike 
        lines 2 and 3 and insert ``For committee employees, $2,450,000: 
        Provided, That at least $747,000 or so much thereof as may be 
        necessary to carry out the provisions of the House rules shall 
        be available only for the payment of salaries of employees 
        appointed at the request of a majority of the minority members 
        of the committee.''; and on page 4, line 16, delete 
        ``$600,000'' and insert ``and for committee employees' 
        salaries, $1,050,000.''; and on page 6, line 8, change the 
        period to a colon and add: ``Provided, That $880,500 thereof 
        shall be available only for payment of salaries of employees 
        appointed at the request of a majority of the minority members 
        of the committees.'' . . .

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. While it appears to be a 
    limitation it actually, in effect, is legislation. The Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946 and the rules of the House set out how 
    the committees and their staffs are to be organized and appointed. 
    The effect of this amendment, it seems to me, would be to change 
    that. It would have the effect of making a legislative change. I 
    think it is obviously legislation on an appropriation bill and that 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Schwengel: With the assurance of a distinguished Member on 
    the other side, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair has studied the 
    amendment and believes it would provide a new method of hiring 
    personnel, and therefore would affect the Reorganization Act and 
    the rules thereunder. It is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring New Committee Regulations Concerning Allowance

Sec. 44.10 It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    require a congressional committee to promulgate regulations to 
    limit the use of an appropriation; an amendment to the legislative 
    branch general appropriation bill requiring the Committee on House 
    Administration to promulgate rules to limit the amount of official 
    mail sent by Members with the funds appropriated in the bill was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On June 13, 1979,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4390), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14670, 14671, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates reads as 
    follows:

[[Page 5951]]

                              Official Mail Costs

            For expenses necessary for official mail costs, 
        $70,707,000, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the House, to be 
        available immediately on enactment of this Act.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 12, line 3, strike out 
        ``$70,707,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$64,994,000''.
            Page 12, line 4, after the period, insert the following: 
        ``The Committee on House Administration shall set forth rules 
        to uniformly limit the amount of official mail which may be 
        sent by Members of the House with the use of funds appropriated 
        under this paragraph.''. . .

        Mr. [Adam] Benjamin [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I would maintain that the gentleman's amendment 
    is in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, since it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It establishes law where none exists. . .
        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, the amendment speaks to the amount of 
    dollars that would be appropriated for this particular item, and 
    then it places restrictions on the use of those dollars. Under 
    those circumstances, I believe the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (17) The amendment clearly requires 
    action by the Committee on House Administration and, therefore, is 
    legislating in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 45. Housing and Public Works

Restrictions on Use of Appropriation and Contract Authority

Sec. 45.1 In an appropriation bill a provision that the Public Housing 
    Administration shall not authorize the commencement of construction 
    during a certain year of more than 20,000 dwelling units was held 
    to be legislation, and in the same appropriation bill a series of 
    provisions (relating to the program of the Public Housing 
    Administration) (1) prohibiting the use of an appropriation in the 
    bill unless regulations are adopted restricting eligibility of 
    certain persons to be tenants of low-rent housing units, (2) 
    requiring that expenditures of such appropriation be subject to 
    audit by the Comptroller General, (3) prohibiting the authorization 
    of public housing unless the governing body of the locality agrees 
    to the completion thereof and prohibiting the continuation of 
    construction of public housing where a community by their 
    representatives or by ref

[[Page 5952]]

    erendum have indicated they do not want it, (4) requiring that the 
    records of expenditure on any public housing project shall be open 
    to examination by responsible community authorities, and (5) 
    prohibiting occupancy of certain housing by persons belonging to 
    organizations designated as subversive and requiring such 
    prohibition to be enforced by local housing authorities were also 
    held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 100 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Annual contributions: For the payment of annual 
        contributions to public housing agencies . . . $63,950,000: 
        Provided, That except for payments required on contracts 
        entered into prior to April 18, 1940, no part of this 
        appropriation shall be available for payment to any public 
        housing agency for expenditure in connection with any low-rent 
        housing project, unless the public housing agency shall have 
        adopted regulations prohibiting [occupancy by] any person other 
        than a citizen of the United States. . . . Provided further, 
        That all expenditures of this appropriation shall be subject to 
        audit and final settlement by the Comptroller General of the 
        United States under the provisions of the Budget and Accounting 
        Act of 1921, as amended: Provided further, That unless the 
        governing body of the locality agrees to its completion, no 
        housing shall be authorized by the Public Housing 
        Administration, or, if under construction continue to be 
        constructed, in any community where the people of that 
        community, by their duly elected representatives, or by 
        referendum, have indicated they do not want it, and such 
        community shall negotiate with the Federal Government for the 
        completion of such housing, or its abandonment . . . and shall 
        agree to repay to the Government the moneys expended prior to 
        the vote or other formal action whereby the community rejected 
        such housing project for any such projects not to be completed 
        . . . Provided further, That the record of expenditure of the 
        Public Housing Administration and of the local housing 
        authority on any public housing project shall be open to 
        examination by the responsible authorities of any community in 
        which such project is located, or by the local public housing 
        authority, or by any firm of public accountants retained by 
        either of the foregoing . . . Provided further, That 
        notwithstanding the provisions of the United States Housing Act 
        of 1937, as amended, the Public Housing Administration shall 
        not, with respect to projects initiated after March 1, 1949, 
        authorize during the fiscal year 1955 the commencement of 
        construction of in excess of 20,000 dwelling units.

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: I tried to make a point 
    of order before, and I do want to make a point of order now, but my 
    inquiry is whether or not I should make my point of order against 
    each of the provisos in this section at this time or whether I 
    shall make the point of order against the paragraph as a whole?

[[Page 5953]]

        The Chairman: (19) the gentleman may make his point 
    of order after the paragraph has been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 31, beginning at line 
    12 and running through line 17. That is the provision with respect 
    to 20,000 housing units.
        Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to discuss the point of order if it 
    is going to be contested.
        Mr. Multer: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order to a 
    paragraph prior to that one.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Should not the point of 
    order that has been made be ruled upon before we take up any other 
    points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will consider all points of order 
    against the paragraph now. They may be stated and we may consider 
    them at this time.
        Mr. Multer: I make the point of order against the provisos 
    beginning on page 29, lines 12, and running to page 31, line 11 on 
    the ground that each of those provisos is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on these points of order?
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I take 
    them up in the order in which they were made.
        The effect of the point of order made against the proviso on 
    page 31, line 12 is this, as the committee understands it. It is to 
    remove the limitation and leave the opinion of the Comptroller 
    General to stand that there could then be built no more than 33,000 
    or 34,000 houses--whatever the exact number is--that were 
    contracted for prior to the adoption of the appropriation bill of 2 
    years ago for the fiscal year 1953. We concede the point of order. 
    . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: I understand that the 
    chairman of our subcommittee was addressing himself to the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith], to the 
    language appearing on page 31 between lines 12 and 17. As I 
    understand that language, it is a limitation upon the appropriation 
    that is contained in this bill as to the amount of money that may 
    be used for the purpose of constructing housing units, and to that 
    extent it is perfectly proper. . . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary 
    under the circumstances to go back to the previous bill, of last 
    year, on this subject and the limitation contained therein. My 
    point of order goes to the question that the provision in this bill 
    is legislation more than it is a limitation. The point of order is 
    directed at the point that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        What happened about it is that the Housing Act was passed as an 
    amendment to the old Housing Act of 1949, which authorized the 
    construction of a certain number of units of public housing per 
    annum. That was a matter of great controversy through the years. 
    Ultimately the thing came to a head in the independent offices 
    appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954. In 
    that independent offices appropriation bill was contained this pro

[[Page 5954]]

    vision of law, which is the law upon the subject of public housing 
    today. That provision in last year's independent offices 
    appropriation bill I would like to read for the Record. It states:

            The Public Housing Administration shall not, after the date 
        of approval of this act, enter into any new agreements, 
        contracts, or other arrangements, preliminary or otherwise, 
        which will ultimately bind the Public Housing Administration 
        during fiscal year 1954 or for any future years with respect to 
        loans or annual contributions for any additional dwelling units 
        or projects unless hereafter authorized by the Congress to do 
        so.

        That is all of the quotation that is pertinent to the question 
    which I raise.
        In other words, the law is that not a single unit of public 
    housing can be contracted for until it is authorized by the 
    Congress. An authorization does not mean authorization in an 
    appropriation bill. So, this being an appropriation bill, and the 
    provision to which I have raised the point of order being 
    legislation which changes existing law under last year's act, it is 
    subject to the point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard in reply to the 
    gentleman in opposition to the point of order, the gentleman from 
    Virginia is correct with respect to the provisions of the 
    appropriation bill last year. However, I respectfully direct the 
    attention of the Chair to that provision, and I reread it, which 
    states, ``after the date of approval of this act, enter into any 
    new agreements, contracts, or other arrangements, preliminary or 
    otherwise.''
        Mr. Chairman, the units that are provided for in this act are 
    not the subject of any new agreements that were entered into 
    subsequent to this provision. They are units which were authorized 
    under previous provisions of the law and are, therefore, a proper 
    subject for this appropriation bill.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: You concede that this changes the law, 
    do you not?
        Mr. Yates: I concede it changes the law from the date of 
    enactment of the independent offices appropriation bill of 1954.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That is the law today so you are 
    changing the law without legislative authorization.
        Mr. Yates: I conceded it was the law with respect to new 
    contracts. I did not concede it was the law with respect to other 
    contracts.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: But does it change the law?
        Mr. Yates: Not with respect to units not the subject of the 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has in mind Public Law 176 of the 83d Congress which 
    has been referred to, and the sections which have been quoted here. 
    The Chair also has in mind the provisos and will pass upon the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    and the points of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Multer] beginning on page 29, line 12 and extending to the end of 
    the paragraph. In the opinion of the Chair, the language is purely 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the 
    points of order. . . .
        [Parliamentary inquiries were then made:]

[[Page 5955]]

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cooper: Did the Chair sustain all points of order that had 
    been made or just the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Virginia?
        The Chairman: The Chair sustained the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Virginia and those made by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Multer]. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    reference to the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    Virginia, is the ruling of the Chair predicated upon the fact that 
    the Chair is of the opinion that there is no authorization in the 
    law at the present time for the appropriation or for money for the 
    construction of housing units?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair did not so rule. The Chair held 
    that the language of the bill itself is legislation.
        Mr. McCormack: In other words, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is seeking for the purposes of the record and also in 
    view of other considerations, for example, the bill which is coming 
    up tomorrow, to try to ascertain the basic thought in the mind of 
    the Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia made a point of order 
    based upon certain provisions in the appropriation bill of last 
    year, a rider so-called. The gentleman from Massachusetts in his 
    parliamentary inquiry is seeking to find out from the Chairman if 
    the reason for sustaining the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is that the rider of last year repealed 
    any authorization for appropriations for the construction of 
    housing projects.
        The Chairman: The Chair has held that the proviso, the very 
    language itself, which is as follows:

            That notwithstanding the provisions of the United States 
        Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Public Housing 
        Administration shall not, with respect to projects initiated 
        after March 1, 1949, (1) authorize during the fiscal year 1954 
        the commencement of construction of in excess of 20,000 
        dwelling units--
    is on its face legislation.

        Mr. McCormack: Does the Chairman hold that that is a repeal of 
    any previous authorization of law?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair is not ruling on that. The Chair is 
    ruling that this language on its face is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

Total Number of Housing Units in Current and Future Fiscal Years

Sec. 45.2 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that 
    notwithstanding certain provisions of law the Public Housing 
    Administration shall not authorize the commencement of construction 
    of more than 35,000 dwelling units in a certain year, nor more than 
    35,000 units for each of the three succeeding years unless a 
    greater number is hereafter authorized by Congress was held to be 
    legislation.

[[Page 5956]]

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 4124, 4125, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates (of Illinois): Page 
    29, after line 12, insert ``Provided further, That notwithstanding 
    the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
    amended, the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect 
    to projects initiated after March 1, 1949, authorize during fiscal 
    year 1955 the commencement of construction of in excess of 35,000 
    dwelling units and (2) after the date of approval of this act, 
    enter into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which will 
    bind the Public Housing Administration with respect to loans, 
    annual contributions, or authorizations for commencement of 
    construction for dwelling units aggregating in excess of 35,000 
    units each year during fiscal years 1956, 1957, and 1958, unless a 
    greater number of units is hereafter authorized by the Congress.''
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is out of order. The Chair has already ruled 
    that the first part of the amendment just read is legislation, and 
    the balance of the amendment is obviously legislation, going beyond 
    the limits of the provision upon which the Chair has already ruled. 
    It changes existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair understands that part of the language is the same as that 
    upon which the Chair has already ruled and has been stricken out, 
    and the rest of the language on its face is legislation. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restriction of Contract Authority

Sec. 45.3 A provision in a general appropriation bill changing existing 
    law by restricting the contract authority of the Housing and Home 
    Finance Administrator under the Housing Act of 1961, to an amount 
    ``within the limits of appropriations made available therefor,'' 
    was conceded to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.
    On Sept. 15, 1961,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 19730, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Low-Rent Housing Demonstration Programs

        For low-rent housing demonstration programs as authorized by 
    section 207 of the Housing Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 165), $2,000,000, 
    of which not to exceed $20,000 shall be available for 
    administrative expenses, and such sec

[[Page 5957]]

    tion 207 is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
    ``authorized'' the phrase ``within the limits of appropriations 
    made available therefor''.
        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) the gentleman from Alabama will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rains: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language, the two words ``low-rent'' in line 20 on page 14, and on 
    line 22, ``$2,000,000, of which'', and line 1 on page 15, beginning 
    with the words ``and such section 207'' down to and including the 
    rest of the paragraph.
        Mr. Chairman, I make only the remark that this constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
    right. But the committee did not want to be accused of tearing up 
    the program as unnecessary; I will use that word. That is a polite 
    word. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order is good, and I join my 
    friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Rains] and make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authorizing and Directing Agency Action

Sec. 45.4 In a general appropriation bill a provision requiring a 
    government agency which is selling mortgages to afford the 
    mortgagor an opportunity to buy the mortgage at the same discount 
    offered to a financial institution was conceded and held to be 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 4258, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order with respect to the language on page 59, from the 
    proviso in line 9 down to and including line 17, as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Without objection the Clerk will 
    read the language referred to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Provided further, That the Federal National Mortgage 
        Association is authorized and directed prior to the conclusion 
        of any sale of a mortgage at a discount to a financial 
        institution to offer the mortgage to the mortgagor at the same 
        discount, and that an offer shall be considered properly made 
        when addressed by registered letter to the mortgagor, who may 
        tender the purchase price, less discount, to the Federal 
        National Mortgage Association within 2 weeks from date of 
        receipt of such offer.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Phillips] 
    desire to be heard on this point of order?

[[Page 5958]]

        Mr. [John] Phillips: No, Mr. Chairman. We concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, this is legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill, and the point of order is sustained.

Delegation of Authority of Federal Works Administrator

Sec. 45.5 A provision in a general appropriation bill permitting the 
    Federal Works Administrator to delegate to the principal 
    administrative officer of that activity the authority to make 
    appointments of certain personnel was conceded and held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 941, 942, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Public works advance planning: Toward accomplishing the 
        provisions of title V of the War Mobilization and Reconversion 
        Act of 1944, $5,000,000, to be immediately available and to 
        remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 4 
        percent shall be available for administrative expenses 
        necessary therefor, to be immediately available and to remain 
        available until June 30, 1946 . . . Provided, That the Federal 
        Works Administrator may delegate to the principal 
        administrative officer of this activity the authority to make 
        appointments of personnel hereunder.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the paragraph on the ground it contains legislation in an 
    appropriation bill. I invite the attention of the Chairman 
    particularly to the language in lines 14 and 15, page 18, which 
    says:
        to be immediately available and to remain available until 
        expended.

        And also to the language beginning in line 24 saying:

            Provided, That the Federal Works Administrator may delegate 
        to the principal administrative officer of this activity the 
        authority to make appointments of personnel hereunder.

        I direct the point of order to the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Use of Water Conditioned Upon Compliance With State Compact

Sec. 45.6 Language in a general appropriation bill providing

[[Page 5959]]

    that the use of water from a project for which an appropriation is 
    being made shall be contingent upon compliance with a certain state 
    compact was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4607, 4612, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Gila project, Arizona, $1,250,000: Provided, That any right 
        to the use of water from the Colorado River acquired for this 
        project and the use of the lands and structures for the 
        diversion and storage of the same shall be subject to and 
        controlled by the Colorado River Compact, as provided in 
        section 8 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, approved December 
        21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1062), and section 2 of the Rivers and 
        Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1040);

        Mr. [Lawrence] Lewis of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning on page 76, line 20, down 
    to the bottom of the page and continuing on down through and 
    including line 3, on page 77, on the ground that this item of 
    appropriation has not been authorized by law, and, further, that it 
    is contrary to law. No authorization has been enacted for this 
    item. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) he Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the language 
    that was called to the attention of the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
    Scrugham] undoubtedly has some bearing upon the question as to 
    whether or not this is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    especially the language carried in the proviso, which was recently 
    discussed with the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman from Nevada 
    quite frankly replied to the inquiry of the Chair, that the purpose 
    of including this language was to force compliance with a certain 
    State compact.
        Therefore, the Chair feels there could be no doubt that the 
    effect of the inclusion of this language would be that of 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

Storage Buildings as Adjunct to Forest Road Construction

Sec. 45.7 An appropriation for the construction of buildings for 
    storage of equipment used for forest roads and trail construction 
    and including a stated limit of cost for construction of any such 
    building was held unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows,

[[Page 5960]]

and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 3458, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Forest Roads and Trails

        For carrying out the provisions of section 23 of the Federal 
    Highway Act approved November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 23), including not 
    to exceed $59,500 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $10,000,000, which sum consists of the 
    balance of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal 
    year 1939 by the act approved June 16, 1936 (Stat. 1520), and 
    $3,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year 1940 by the act approved June 8, 1938 (52 Stat. 635), 
    to be immediately available and to remain available until expended: 
    Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for the 
    rental, purchase, or construction of buildings necessary for the 
    storage of equipment and supplies used for road and trail 
    construction and maintenance, but the total cost of any such 
    building purchased or constructed under this authorization shall 
    not exceed $7,500.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The latter provision could be considered an interference with 
        executive discretion, therefore legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill providing for the construction of a building at 
    a limit beyond that authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman make the point 
    of order against the proviso or against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: I may say, Mr. Chairman, 
    that this provision in the bill is the only limiting authority. If 
    the gentleman can cite us to some other authority establishing the 
    limitation, I should be pleased to have the citation. There is no 
    other limitation, Mr. Chairman, and the point of order is not well 
    taken.
        Mr. Taber: There is no authorization for it at all.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 46. Other Subjects

Budget Adjustments by Corporations and Agencies

Sec. 46.1 A section of the government corporations appropriation bill 
    providing a procedure by which agencies, in order to meet 
    emergencies arising after approval of the budget, could adjust 
    their budgets to provide for programs ``authorized by law and not 
    specifically set forth in the Budget,'' was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On June 13, 1946,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5961]]

the Whole of the government corporations appropriation bill (H.R. 
6777), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6876, 6877, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to make a point of order against section 302 of the bill on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and violates 
    the Government Corporation Control Act.
        The language clearly is legislation. It proposes to make it 
    possible for the corporation or agency to change its budget program 
    on getting Presidential approval and initiate programs, authorized 
    by law to be sure but not programmed or set forth in the budget 
    submitted to and approved by the Congress. If it were not for this 
    language it clearly would be a violation of the Government 
    Corporation Control Act for them to do so. The presence of the 
    language in this bill is evidence of the fact that it seeks to make 
    possible doing something which otherwise would not be possible to 
    do under existing law. Therefore, it constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, under the present law, without the passage of 
    this act, the various governmentally owned corporations included in 
    this bill have the authority, with or without approval of the 
    President, to expend funds available to them either through 
    appropriations or through their borrowing authority, for purposes 
    authorized to them by law.
        This provision seeks to give the corporations an escape valve, 
    so to speak, to deal with new emergencies or situations not 
    anticipated in their budget, not from the law as it now is, but 
    from the previous sections of the pending bill. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, section 302 gives to the corporations no authority which 
    they do not now have. It does give to the corporations, Mr. 
    Chairman, some limited authority which they are denied in previous 
    sections of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Dakota makes the point of order 
    against section 302 of the pending bill that it is legislation 
    without authority of law on an appropriation bill. That section is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 302. In order to meet emergencies or contingencies 
        arising subsequent to approval of the Budget and not provided 
        for in the Budget program, a corporation or agency covered by 
        the provisions of this act may, with the approval of the 
        President, adjust its budget program to provide, within the 
        limits of available funds and borrowing authority, for the 
        immediate initiation of programs authorized by law and not 
        specifically set forth in the Budget: Provided, That the new 
        program shall be promptly transmitted to the Congress as an 
        amendment to the Budget: Provided further, That nothing in this 
        section shall be construed as authority for increasing the 
        amount available for administrative expenses under any 
        limitation on such expenses.

        The appropriation under consideration is being made under 
    Public, 248,

[[Page 5962]]

    Seventy-ninth Congress, the Government Corporation Control Act.
        Section 2 of the act declares it to be the policy of the 
    Congress of the United States to scrutinize the operations of the 
    Government corporations and to provide current financial control 
    thereof.

        Section 103 provides that the budget programs of the 
    corporations as authorized in section 102 shall be transmitted to 
    the Congress by the President as a part of the annual Budget for 
    the consideration of the Congress. Section 103 further provides 
    that amendments to the annual Budget programs may be submitted from 
    time to time.
        Section 104 provides in part, and I quote:

            The provisions of this section shall not be construed as 
        preventing wholly owned Government corporations from carrying 
        out and financing their activities as authorized by existing 
        law, nor shall any provisions of this section be construed as 
        affecting in any way the provisions of section 26 of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act, as amended.

        The Chair is of the opinion that when the Budget of the 
    President has been transmitted to the Congress and when that Budget 
    has been considered and finally approved by Congress the only way a 
    change can be made in the Budget is by an amendment to be 
    subsequently passed by the Congress. That procedure certainly 
    embraces the matter of administrative expenses. . . .
        Section 302 of the pending bill provides for adjustments or 
    approvals or amendments not by the Congress and, in fact, without 
    any action by Congress. The said section provides for a procedure 
    that is not contemplated under either the Budget and Accounting Act 
    of 1921 or the Government Corporation Control Act, and is, 
    therefore, legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House. The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain 
    the point of order. The point of order is sustained.

Elaborating on Name of Dam; Descriptive Language

Sec. 46.2 An amendment proposing to insert the words ``known as `Rankin 
    Dam' '' following an appropriation for Pickwick Landing Dam was 
    held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On May 8, 1936,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 12624), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 6965-67, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Aaron L.] Ford of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 19, line 2, after the words ``Pickwick Landing Dam'', 
        insert the following: ``(known as `Rankin Dam').''

        Mr. [John J.] McSwain [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order on the amendment that

[[Page 5963]]

    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It is evidently an 
    attempt to change the name and call it ``Rankin Dam.'' It is in the 
    teeth of legislation that has been attempted time and time again. 
    There are bills before the Committee on Military Affairs to change 
    the name of this dam to ``Rankin Dam.''
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: I should like to ask the 
    gentleman if it is not customary to wait until the man is dead 
    before they name a dam for him?
        Mr. McSwain: Yes; it is.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair 
    will permit.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    legislation. It is language merely descriptive, and such amendments 
    have been repeatedly held not to be legislation.
        I recall two decisions on this point. They were made by one of 
    the greatest parliamentarians who has served in the House, James R. 
    Mann, of Illinois.
        The first was made in 1905 when an amendment was offered, I 
    think, to the Naval bill.
        The language provided that ships or armament should be of 
    ``native manufacture.'' . . . Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, held 
    that those words were merely descriptive and that it was not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield:
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield with pleasure to the 
    distinguished leader on the other side of the House.
        Mr. Snell: If the words are merely descriptive, why will they 
    have the effect of changing the name of the dam?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: They do not change the name of the dam. 
    It is not proposed to change the name of the dam.
        Mr. Snell: But is not that the intention? I call it 
    legislation. Is not that the intention of the amendment?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman from New York, being one 
    of the ablest parliamentarians in the House, knows that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not speculate as to the 
    intention of an amendment. He must predicate his decision on the 
    amendment before him in the language in which it is written. He 
    cannot go back of what is on the face of it to surmise what is the 
    purpose of a Member in offering an amendment. This amendment merely 
    further describes the Pickwick Landing Dam; it does not propose a 
    change in the name; it merely adds the descriptive language ``known 
    as the Rankin Dam.''. . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair entirely 
    agrees with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], with 
    reference to the use of descriptive words. Therefore, the question 
    in the mind of the present occupant of the chair is whether the 
    amendment is descriptive or whether it constitutes legislation. 
    Without regard to whether or not it brings about a change in the 
    name of the dam from ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' to ``Rankin Dam'', it 
    is the opinion of the Chair, with profound respect for the opinion

[[Page 5964]]

    of the gentleman from Missouri, one of the outstanding 
    parliamentarians of all time, that the amendment does not 
    constitute descriptive language; that it constitutes legislation. 
    It is an addition to the language used in this bill. The Chair 
    would rule the same whether or not the legislation referred to by 
    the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. McSwain) contained the words 
    ``Pickwick Landing Dam'' or not, because that name is included in 
    the bill now before the House.
        Profoundly respecting the views of the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and with considerable hesitation in disagreeing with him, it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order is well taken, and the 
    Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Contract Policy; ``Hereafter''

Sec. 46.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment requiring the Civil 
    Aeronautics Authority to award contracts to the highest bidder 
    after previously advertising for sealed bids, was held to be 
    legislation and therefore not in order.

    On July 12, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12138), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 12538, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Page 
    2, after line 24 insert the following center head and new 
    paragraph:

                            ``Contracts for services

            ``Hereafter no contract for services at any airport under 
        the direct jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Administration 
        shall be entered into without previously advertising 
        invitations for sealed bids based on specifications sufficient 
        to permit full and free competition in the letting of such 
        contracts.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Andrews: Will the gentleman reserve his point of order?
        Mr. Bow: I will reserve the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is 
    simply to require the Civil Aeronautics Authority officials to 
    award contracts to the high bidders. I have in mind a recent 
    contract that was let for a concession at the National Airport. The 
    contract was let by sealed bids. The company that bid the highest 
    rate to the Government was not awarded the contract. The purpose of 
    this amendment is to require the Civil Aeronautics Authority in the 
    future to award contracts to the bidders who will return the 
    highest rate to the Government. . . .
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order that the 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Alabama offers an amendment which in 
    substance

[[Page 5965]]

    would require that in connection with contracts under the 
    jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Administration sealed bids be 
    required.
        The amendment provides for new law; it is not a limitation on 
    the purpose for which funds may be used, and consequently it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
    sustained.

New Authority for Use of FBI Files and Information

Sec. 46.4 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    certain FBI funds may be used to facilitate the exchange of 
    identification records with bank officials and with state and local 
    governments for employment and licensing purposes if approved by 
    the Attorney General was conceded and held to be legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

        On May 18, 1972,(19) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 
    14989), a point of order was raised against the following 
    provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 18030, 18031, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The funds provided for Salaries and expenses, Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation, may be used, in addition to those uses 
        authorized thereunder, for the exchange of identification 
        records with officials of federally chartered or insured 
        banking institutions to promote or maintain the security of 
        those institutions, and, if authorized by State Statute and 
        approved by the Attorney General, to officials of State and 
        local governments for purposes of employment and licensing, any 
        such exchange to be made only for the official use of any such 
        official and subject to the same restriction with respect to 
        dissemination as that provided for under the aforementioned 
        appropriation.

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph on page 17, lines 1 through 12, 
    since it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    violation of clause 2, of rule XXI.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas G. Abernethy (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from New York must state that this proviso allows the FBI to 
    furnish identification records to officials of federally chartered 
    or insured banking institutions to promote or maintain the security 
    of those institutions. And as it further states:

            If authorized by State Statute and approved by the Attorney 
        General, to officials of State and local governments.

        This has been done for years. Then one of the judges, and I use 
    the term in its broadest sense, ruled that the FBI could not 
    furnish this information. The other body inserted this proviso last 
    year. We brought the amendment back to the House for a separate 
    vote and it was approved.

[[Page 5966]]

        If the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) desires to 
    superimpose his views over the majority of the House, and wants to 
    prevent the banks from finding out if they are hiring criminals, he 
    can press his point of order and we shall have to concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York concedes the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
    for the concession.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Language of Limitation as Constituting New Authority

Sec. 46.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``not to 
    exceed $2,500 of the funds available . . . for salaries and 
    expenses . . . shall be available for . . . entertainment when 
    authorized by the Secretary,'' was held to be legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5040, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 208. Not to exceed $2,500 of the funds available to 
        the Department for salaries and expenses and not otherwise 
        available for entertainment of officials of other countries or 
        officials of international organizations shall be available for 
        such entertainment when authorized by the Secretary.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman makes his point of 
    order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Section 208, lines 5 to 9, inclusive.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to 
    comment on this point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I must 
    concede the point of order. The purpose of this paragraph is to 
    entertain some of these foreign doctors and scientists who come 
    over here, to reciprocate the entertainment that our people receive 
    when they go over there. If the gentleman wants to strike it out, 
    that is his privilege.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Item Veto Authority to President

Sec. 46.6 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment allowing the 
    President to dis

[[Page 5967]]

    approve separate and distinct items of appropriations, was held to 
    be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1950,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
7786), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5393, 5394, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 99 Cong. Rec. 4939, 4940, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        14, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keating: On page 29, after line 
        13, insert a new section reading as follows:
            ``The total sums appropriated under this chapter shall be 
        reduced to the extent of any separate and distinct item 
        appropriating money which is disapproved by the President.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Keating) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, the wording of this amendment is 
    designed to be, and I believe is, a limitation on the 
    appropriation. As I stated in general debate on the subject, I have 
    introduced a bill which would have the effect of giving the 
    President the power to veto any single item in an appropriation 
    bill which he does not now have. He is forced, therefore, to 
    approve or disapprove the whole bill.

        I appreciate that to endeavor to provide for that in this 
    measure would be legislation on an appropriation bill. This, 
    however, is not worded in that way. It provides that the sums 
    appropriated here shall be reduced by the amount of any distinct 
    item which the President feels should be disapproved; in other 
    words, he will have the power under this amendment to join with us, 
    if he is so disposed, in the battle for economy. I believe the 
    amendment as worded, being a limitation, is in order.
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, may I call the Chair's attention to 
    the fact that this is a delegation of power from the legislative 
    branch to the executive branch of the Government and is clearly 
    legislative in character.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Keating) has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. McGrath) has made a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has analyzed the amendment and it appears clearly 
    that the purpose of it is to confer item veto power on the 
    President, which would be legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    that it confers authority and power

[[Page 5968]]

    on the President which he does not have. Under the rules of the 
    House, being legislation on an appropriation bill, it is subject to 
    the point of order, and, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Authority to Pay Mineral Royalties

Sec. 46.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``the 
    Director of the Bureau of Mines is hereby authorized . . . to make 
    suitable arrangements with owners of private property . . . for 
    payment by such owners of a reasonable percentage . . . of the 
    total value of the minerals thereafter produced from such 
    property,'' was conceded and held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On May 16, 1946,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6335), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 5120, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Investigation and development of domestic mineral deposits, 
        except fuels: For all expenses necessary to enable the Bureau 
        of Mines to investigate, develop, and experimentally mine, on 
        public lands and with the consent of the owner on private 
        lands, deposits of minerals in the United States . . . 
        $1,000,000: Provided, That the Director of the Bureau of Mines 
        is hereby authorized and directed to make suitable arrangements 
        with owners of private property upon which exploration or 
        development work is performed for payment by such owners of a 
        reasonable percentage, as determined by the Secretary of the 
        Interior, of the total value of the minerals thereafter 
        produced from such property. . . .

        Mr. [Albert S. J.] Carnahan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against certain language in the bill, namely, page 
    59, starting with line 18 through the word ``property'' in line 24, 
    on the ground this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to save 
    time the committee concedes the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Missouri makes 
    a point of order which is conceded by the gentleman from Oklahoma. 
    The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postal Rates Computation

Sec. 46.8 Language in an appropriation bill changing the formula for 
    computation of postal rates was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Feb. 20, 1957,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation

[[Page 5969]]

bill (H.R. 4897), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 2334, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 204. Amounts contributed by the Post Office Department 
        to the civil service retirement and disability fund, in 
        compliance with section 4(a) of the Civil Service Retirement 
        Act (70 Stat. 747), from appropriations made by this title, or 
        from appropriations hereafter made to the Post Office 
        Department, shall be considered as costs of providing postal 
        service for the purpose of establishing postal rates.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language contained in section 204, just read, is legislation upon 
    an appropriation bill, that it deals with appropriations not 
    contained in this bill, is not a limitation and therefore in 
    violation of the rules of the House. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the provision against 
    which the point of order is raised. It appears that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
    sustained.

Authority to Clear Title to Real Estate

Sec. 46.9 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    roads and trails of the National Park Service, requiring ``title 
    and evidence of title to the lands . . . acquired to be 
    satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior'' instead of the 
    Attorney General, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Roads and trails, National Park Service: For the construction, 
    reconstruction, and improvement of roads and trails, inclusive of 
    necessary bridges, in the national parks, monuments, and other 
    areas administered by the National Park Service . . . and pursuant 
    to the authorization of the act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1490), 
    the title and evidence of title to the lands or interests acquired 
    to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, $3,500,000, to 
    be immediately available and to remain available until expended. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language in lines 10, 11, and 12, page 118, as 
    follows:

            The title and evidence of title to the lands or interests 
        acquired to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior.

        It is legislation on an appropriation bill and an attempt to 
    take the duty of passing on the title out of the hands of the 
    Attorney General. . . .

[[Page 5970]]

        The Chairman: (10) Will the gentleman from New York 
    advise the Chair whether the point of order goes only to the 
    language he quoted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank F. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: That is all.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Making Unpaid Fees a Lien Against Real Estate

Sec. 46.10 A provision in an Interior Department appropriation bill 
    directing that unpaid charges outstanding against certain lands 
    shall constitute a first lien thereon was held to be legislation 
    and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 4603, 4604, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            In all, $2,088,000 to be immediately available, which 
        amount, together with the unexpended balances of funds made 
        available under this head in the Interior Department 
        Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937, shall remain available 
        until June 30, 1938: Provided, That the foregoing amounts may 
        be used interchangeably in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, but not more than 10 percent of any specific 
        amount shall be transferred to any other amount, and no 
        appropriation shall be increased by more than 15 percent: 
        Provided further, That the cost of the foregoing irrigation 
        projects and of operating and maintaining such projects where 
        reimbursement thereof is required by law, shall be apportioned 
        on a per-acre basis against the lands under the respective 
        projects and shall be collected by the Secretary of the 
        Interior as required by such law, and any unpaid charges 
        outstanding against such lands shall constitute a first lien 
        thereon which shall be recited in any patent or instrument 
        issued for such lands.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph. . . .
        The last part, beginning in line 20 and running through line 
    23, provides that unpaid charges shall be a first lien against all 
    of those lands.
        I therefore make a point of order against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I do not desire to be heard.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a 
    point of order against the paragraph appearing on page 40, 
    beginning in line 6 and extending down to and including line 23.
        The Chair invites attention especially to the language 
    appearing in lines 20, 21, 22 and 23, which reads as follows:

            Any unpaid charges outstanding against such land shall 
        constitute a first lien thereon which shall be recited in any 
        patent or instrument issued for such lands.

[[Page 5971]]

        The Chair is of opinion this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill not authorized under the rules of the House, and therefore 
    sustains the point of order as to the paragraph as a whole.

Renegotiation Act Incorporated by Reference

Sec. 46.11 To the appropriation for the Tennessee Valley Authority, an 
    amendment proposing to make contracts entered into by the Authority 
    and by the Atomic Energy Commission subject to the Renegotiation 
    Act was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    held not in order.

    On Dec. 15, 1950,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9920), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 16672-74, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: Page 11 
        after line 12, insert a new section, as follows:

                          ``Renegotiation of Contracts

            ``Sec. 602. (a) All negotiated contracts for procurement in 
        excess of $1,000 entered into during the current fiscal year by 
        or on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority, and all subcontracts thereunder in excess of 
        $1,000, are hereby made subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948 in the same manner and to the same extent as if such 
        contracts and subcontracts were required by such act to contain 
        the renegotiation article prescribed in subsection (a) of such 
        act. Each contract and subcontract made subject to the 
        Renegotiation Act of 1948 by this section shall contain an 
        article stating that it is subject to the Renegotiation Act of 
        1948. . . .''

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the distinguished and able gentleman from 
    South Dakota, is a lengthy, complicated, and far-reaching one . . . 
    It operates as an amendment of the renegotiation law. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from South Dakota 
    [Mr. Case] has offered an amendment which has been reported. The 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gore] has made a point of order 
    against the amendment, on the ground that it contains legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order, and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Tennessee Valley Authority Proceeds Applied to Appropriation

Sec. 46.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds

[[Page 5972]]

    for resource development activities of the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority, stating that part of the funds therefor should be 
    derived from the appropriated funds and part from proceeds of 
    operation, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 28, 1956,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11319), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        . . . On page 3, lines 1 to 3 ``, of which $400,000 shall be 
    derived from this appropriation and $750,000 shall be derived from 
    proceeds of operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that all of the 
    language to which I have referred is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) . . . It is clearly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for Secretary to Impose Liens

Sec. 46.13 Language in an appropriation bill imposing a charge and lien 
    against Indian lands until certain obligations are paid was held 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000 . . . Provided further, That the Secretary of 
    the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion and under such 
    rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to make advances from 
    this appropriation to old, disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, 
    for their support, to remain a charge and lien against their lands 
    until paid: Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 may be 
    advanced to worthy Indian youths to enable them to take educational 
    courses, including courses in nursing . . . forestry, and other 
    industrial subjects in colleges, universities, or other 
    institutions, and advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to 
    exceed 8 years, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary 
    of the Interior may prescribe.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is

[[Page 5973]]

    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and it imposes 
    discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. The 
    language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules 
    and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision 
    in existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has 
    been in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of

[[Page 5974]]

    order made by the gentleman from New York.

Mandating Testimony of Congressmen

Sec. 46.14 To an amendment to a general appropriation bill, an 
    amendment providing that notwithstanding the provisions of any 
    other law, the Constitution or court decisions, no Member of 
    Congress shall refuse to respond to demands for information by 
    executive agencies or private persons or groups was held to be 
    legislation.

    On June 22, 1972,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15585), a 
point of order was raised against an amendment to an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 22102, 22107, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William S.] Moorhead [of 
    Pennsylvania]: 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 refused 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. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead: At end of that 
        amendment, insert: ``Provided further, Notwithstanding the 
        provisions of any other law, the Constitution, or any precedent 
        of the courts, no Member of the Congress shall refuse to answer 
        and appropriately respond to any demand for his presence, his 
        papers, or his records, made by any agency, commission, 
        Department or person of the executive branch, or any proper 
        citizen oriented organization or interested person, making such 
        demand.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment to the amendment, and I do not think I 
    need to argue it.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I defer to my very 
    eloquent and intelligent colleague, and I think he makes a good 
    point.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Veterans Insurance Fund

Sec. 46.15 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill (1) changing 
    existing law regarding certain veterans' insurance funds, (2) 
    specifying

[[Page 5975]]

    accounting procedures to be followed in determining assets, (3) 
    authorizing a future transfer of funds after a determination by the 
    administrator, and (4) providing for the repayment to the Treasury 
    of funds so transferred, was conceded to be legislation and ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 6, 1965,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7091), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7131, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Veterans Reopened Insurance Fund

        All premiums and collections on insurance issued pursuant to 
    section 725 of title 38, United States Code, shall be credited to 
    the ``Veterans reopened insurance fund'', established pursuant to 
    that section, and all payments on such insurance and on any total 
    disability provision attached thereto shall be made from that fund, 
    notwithstanding any provisions of that section: Provided, That for 
    actuarial and accounting purposes, the assets and liabilities 
    (including liability for repayment of advances hereinafter 
    authorized, and adjustment of premiums) attributable to each 
    insured group established under said section 725, shall be 
    separately determined: Provided further, That such amounts of the 
    ``Veterans special term insurance fund'' as may hereafter be 
    determined by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to be in 
    excess of the actuarial liabilities of that fund, including 
    contingency reserves, shall be available for transfer to the 
    ``Veterans reopened insurance fund'' as needed to provide initial 
    capital: Provided further, That any amounts so transferred shall be 
    repaid to the Treasury, and shall bear interest payable to the 
    Treasury at rates established in accordance with section 725(d)(1) 
    of title 38, United States Code.
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, line 7 to line 22 
    inclusive and on page 9, line 1 to line 6 inclusive as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not within the scope of 
    the original language authorizing the reopening of veterans' 
    insurance. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I hope my distinguished friend will 
    not insist upon the point of order. . . . His point of order is 
    good if he insists on it. This is a transfer of funds. This is not 
    an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Saylor] 
    makes a point of order against the language on page 8, beginning at 
    line 7 down through and including the language on page 9, line 6.
        The Chair understands the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] 
    concedes the point of order.

[[Page 5976]]

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Veterans' Medical Benefits

Sec. 46.16 In an appropriation bill, a provision prohibiting an 
    appropriation for the Veterans' Administration to be used for 
    dental treatment, except where certain conditions are determined to 
    have been met, was held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 4258, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be available 
    for out-patient dental services and treatment, or related dental 
    appliances with respect to a service-connected dental disability 
    which is not compensable in degree unless such condition or 
    disability is shown to have been in existence at time of discharge 
    and application for treatment is made within one year after 
    discharge or by July 27, 1954, whichever is later: Provided, That 
    this limitation shall not apply to adjunct out-patient dental 
    services or appliances for any dental condition associated with and 
    held to be aggravating disability from some other service-incurred 
    or service-aggravated injury or disease. . . .
        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: The point of order is 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes 
    existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, this is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.

Veterans' Burial Expenses

Sec. 46.17 To an army civil functions appropriation bill, an amendment 
    authorizing payments to next of kin, in lieu of headstones 
    authorized to be placed on veterans' graves, provided proof is 
    furnished that suitable headstones are subsequently placed upon 
    such graves, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On May 26, 1953,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the army civil functions appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5376), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 99 Cong. Rec. 5617, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry Frazier] Reams [of Ohio]: 
        On page 2, line 12, after the figures ``$4,870,000'', strike 
        the colon, add

[[Page 5977]]

        comma, and insert the following: ``$850,000 of which may be 
        used to pay to next of kin not exceeding $25 in lieu of 
        headstone or marker for the grave of any deceased person for 
        which the Secretary of Defense is authorized to furnish a 
        marker or headstone: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense 
        receive from the administrator or executor of the estate, or 
        next of kin, proper proof that there has been purchased and 
        placed upon the grave of the veteran a suitable marker or 
        headstone of a value not less than $25.''. . .

        Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the 
    point of order on the ground this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Wisconsin makes 
    a point of order that this amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be 
    heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Clifford R. Hope (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Reams: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair thinks 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, sustains the 
    point of order.

Imposing Penalty for Improper Accounting of Members' Expenses

Sec. 46.18 A motion to recommit the legislative branch appropriation 
    bill with instructions to report it back forthwith with an 
    amendment providing, inter alia, a criminal penalty for perjury for 
    improper vouchering of expenditures of funds contained in the bill, 
    was conceded to contain legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    2 and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 1, 1976,(7) during consideration in the House 
of the legislative branch appropriation bill (H.R. 14238), a point of 
order was raised and sustained against a motion to recommit as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 28883, 28884, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania] moves to 
        recommit the bill, H.R. 14238, to the Committee on 
        Appropriations, with instructions to that Committee to report 
        the bill back to the House forthwith, with the following 
        amendments: On page 7, after line 24, insert the following new 
        section: . . .
            ``Expenditure of any appropriation contained in this Act, 
        disbursed on behalf of any Member or Committee of the House of 
        Representatives, shall be limited to those funds paid against a 
        voucher, signed and approved by a Member of the House of 
        Representatives, stating under penalty of perjury, that the 
        voucher is for official expenses as authorized by law: Provided 
        further, That any Member of the House of Representatives who 
        willfully makes and subscribes to any such voucher which 
        contains a written declaration that it is made under the 
        penalties of perjury and which he does not believe

[[Page 5978]]

        at the time to be true and correct in every material matter, 
        shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall 
        be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than 
        five years, or both.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit falls in violation of the 
    rules against legislation in an appropriation bill. Under the rules 
    of the House, Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit is subject to the 
    same germaneness tests as any other amendment to a piece of 
    legislation.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore make a point of order against the 
    motion on the grounds that it constitutes an attempt to legislate 
    in an appropriation bill. . . .
        On page 3, there is a requirement that any Member who makes a 
    willful statement subscribing any voucher shall be guilty of the 
    penalties of perjury.
        This adds essentially a new amendment to the Criminal Code, 
    which most properly can be found in title 18 of the United States 
    Code, and it imposes further, Mr. Speaker, a requirement that such 
    act shall constitute a felony which will be punishable by not more 
    than $2,000 or subject to imprisonment of not more than 5 years. . 
    . .
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order that has been raised. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order addressed to 
    the execution of vouchers under penalties of perjury, that does not 
    impose a significant additional duty in compliance with the facts 
    that those vouchers must already be executed by the Members 
    certifying that they are for official expenses. This motion says 
    they would be executed under penalty of perjury.
        The additional amendment would concede the point of order as it 
    applies to the second paragraph on page 3 of the motion; but I 
    think it would be beneficial to the Members to have that 
    explanation there; and I would hope that the point of order would 
    be withdrawn as to that point. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is going to sustain the point of order. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has conceded one portion of the point of order, and 
    with that the entire motion to recommit is subject to a point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 5979]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 47. Conditions Contrary to or Not Required by Law


    The precedents in this section generally support the view that 
provisions in an appropriation bill which make funds available only 
after a specified condition has occurred will be ruled out as 
legislation, if the condition specifies actions or circumstances which 
are contrary to, or not contemplated in, existing law. Thus, provisions 
making an appropriation contingent upon actions not already required by 
law may be ruled out of order, while a contingency may be permitted 
provided the contingency itself has previously been authorized in law. 
Of course, a seeming ``condition'' may be in the nature of a 
permissible limitation, as where funds may be made available for use by 
or on behalf of designated beneficiaries only if such beneficiaries 
fulfill certain conditions or become qualified to receive the benefit 
of the funds in the manner prescribed,(9) if that prescribed 
manner is not shown to contravene existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the ``note on contrary rulings,'' following Sec. 53.6, infra, 
        especially the reference to the ruling of June 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative character of a condition may consist in imposing 
additional duties, not already required in law, on federal 
officials.(10) Similarly, a condition may be seen as 
amounting to legislation if it affects funds in other acts rather than 
being limited to funds contained in the bill. And in some cases, even 
where the point of order has been based on the legislative character of 
a provision, the ruling itself may in fact turn on issues of 
germaneness, as where an amendment attempting to make the availability 
of funds depend on an unrelated contingency is seen as beyond the scope 
of the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The imposition of duties on state or local officials raises various 
        issues which are discussed in Sec. 53, infra.
11. See, for example, Sec. 48.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to distinguish between precedents in which the 
whole appropriation is made contingent upon an event or circumstance 
and those in which the disbursement to a particular participant is 
conditioned on the occurrence of an event. In either case, the weight 
of precedent would disqualify such conditions as legislative in effect. 
Some of the decisions in this section, section 7, supra, and section 
48, infra, are similar in language but

[[Page 5980]]

are carried in a particular part of the chapter to illustrate the 
different approaches taken by the Chair in reaching the conclusion that 
the amendment is not strictly negative and 
limiting.                          -------------------

Action by Federal Official Disbursing Funds; ``No Funds Unless or 
    Until''

Sec. 47.1 An amendment forbidding expenditure of an appropriation 
    ``unless'' action contrary to existing law is taken is legislation 
    and not in order as a limitation: an amendment providing that funds 
    appropriated for International Information, Department of State, 
    shall not be available for any broadcast of information about the 
    United States until the radio script for such broadcast has been 
    approved by the Daughters of the American Revolution was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 26, 1951,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 8960, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John T.] Wood of Idaho: Page 15, line 
    25, before the period insert a colon and the following: ``Provided 
    further, That funds appropriated herein shall not be available for 
    any broadcast of any information about the United States until the 
    radio script for such broadcast has been submitted to and approved 
    by a committee of members of the Daughters of the American 
    Revolution, appointed by the president general of such 
    organization.''
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Idaho 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will only hear the gentleman on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is a 
    limitation and not legislation.
        The Chairman: Has the gentleman completed his statement on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Yes.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    definitely provides for certain things to be done and invites 
    attention to a decision ren

[[Page 5981]]

    dered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener] 
    in which it is stated:

            An amendment withholding expenditures of appropriations 
        unless and until certain books were supplied free to the 
        National Library for the Blind is ruled out of order.

        The amendment very clearly contains legislation which is sought 
    to be offered to an appropriation bill in violation of the rules of 
    the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Condition on Disbursement to Recipient

Sec. 47.2 An amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill, making the 
    payment of certain contractual obligations of the United States 
    contingent upon the adoption of a compromise agreement or upon 
    litigation resolving the dispute, was held to impose a condition on 
    disbursement of funds not required by existing law and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On May 11, 1971,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8190), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 14468, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                Bureau of Mines

                                  helium fund

            The Secretary is authorized to borrow from the Treasury for 
        payment to the helium production fund pursuant to section 12(a) 
        of the Helium Act, to carry out the provisions of the Act and 
        contractual obligations thereunder, including helium purchases, 
        to remain available without fiscal year limitation, 
        $15,077,000, in addition to amounts heretofore authorized to be 
        borrowed.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: Page 6, line 9, after the 
        word ``borrowed'' strike out the period, insert a comma 
        ``provided, however, that none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act will be disbursed to any individual contractor until 
        the claims of that contractor have been determined either by 
        agreement or by litigation.''

        Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Mr. Chairman, on this 
    amendment I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentlewoman will state her 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Hansen of Washington: The wording is ``until the claims of 
    that contractor have been determined either by agreement or by 
    litigation.''
        That is legislation on an appropriation bill and extends the 
    act beyond the intention.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been well established 
    in this

[[Page 5982]]

    Chamber that a limitation on expenditures is a perfectly valid 
    amendment to an appropriation bill.
        I might say, Mr. Chairman, the amendment should read, ``full 
    claims of the contractors have been determined.''
        I believe it has been well established that this type of 
    amendment is in order on this kind of bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The language of the amendment does constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and in this particular situation provides for a 
    condition subsequent.
        Therefore, the Chair will have to sustain the point of order.

Contingent Upon Enactment of Authorization

Sec. 47.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    projects not yet authorized by law is legislation and not in order.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9033), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 18179, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Title V--Peace Corps

                      Funds Appropriated to the President

                                  Peace Corps

            For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
        the provisions of the Peace Corps Act, including purchase of 
        not to exceed sixteen passenger motor vehicles for use outside 
        the United States, $20,000,000: Provided, That this paragraph 
        shall be effective only upon enactment into law of S. 2000 or 
        H.R. 7500, Eighty-seventh Congress, or similar legislation to 
        provide for a Peace Corps.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Title V, which has just been read, has not yet 
    been authorized and therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order and the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hiestand).

    Parliamentarian's Note: A conditional appropriation based on 
enactment of authorization is a concession on the face of the language 
that no prior authorization exists. See Sec. 7, supra, for further 
discussion of the necessity of prior authorization for appropriations.

Sec. 47.4 In a supplemental appropriation bill, a paragraph making an 
    appropriation

[[Page 5983]]

    contingent upon the subsequent enactment of authorizing language is 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 3, 1967,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9481), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 11589, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See Parliamentarian's 
        Note in Sec. 47.3, supra, as to appropriations conditioned on 
        subsequent authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Chapter VIII

                             Military Construction

                                 Family Housing

                      homeowners assistance fund, defense

            For the Homeowners Assistance Fund, established pursuant to 
        section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
        Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754, approved November 
        3, 1966), $5,500,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 1216, Ninetieth Congress, or similar 
        legislation.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point of order asking 
    the Chair to strike chapter 8 of the second supplemental 
    appropriation bill, to be found on page 17, lines 6 through 16 
    thereof, for the reason there has been no authorization of this 
    appropriation and that it is contrary to rule XXI (2) of this body. 
    Consideration of S. 1216 is now before this body's Committee on 
    Rules, it is controversial, it has mixed jurisdictional parentage, 
    and it came out of the Committee on Armed Services with eight or 
    more opposing votes. It can be defeated on the floor.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Florida seek to be heard 
    on this point of order?
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, as the bill states and as the report states, 
    there is a requirement for the enactment of authorizing 
    legislation. The bill which is before the House clearly requires 
    that appropriations for the acquisition of properties must be 
    authorized by a military construction authorization act, and that 
    no moneys in the fund may be used except as may be provided in an 
    appropriation act, and it would clearly protect the Congress and 
    fulfill the requirements of the law.
        What we are seeking to do is to put into operation an immediate 
    program. If we do not provide funds now for people who need money 
    for losses in their property as a result of base closures, it is 
    going to be some months before it can be done, probably, in the 
    regular appropriation bill.
        Of course, the language is subject to a point of order. We 
    concede that. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, that 
    is the story, but the homeowners will be the ones who suffer 
    unnecessarily.

[[Page 5984]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As the gentleman 
    from Florida has conceded, the language objected to by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is subject to a point of order in that no 
    authorization has been enacted into law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 47.5 An item of appropriation providing for an expenditure not 
    previously authorized by law is not in order; and delaying the 
    availability of the appropriation pending enactment of an 
    authorization does not protect the item of appropriation against a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14582), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Federal Railroad Administration

               grants to national railroad passenger corporation

            To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as authorized by 
        section 601 of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, as 
        amended, $170,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall be available only upon 
        the enactment into law of authorizing legislation by the 
        Ninety-second Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the $170 million appropriation for Amtrak.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, the authorization has not yet been 
    made. The fact that the authorization passed the House of 
    Representatives would not make the appropriation valid. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the House has 
    passed the authorization bill. It has not been enacted into law. I 
    think the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Mahon: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that the chairman of the 
    committee concedes the point of order. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

Requiring Application of Standards not Demonstrably Required by Law

Sec. 47.6 It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    require, as a condition to the availability of funds, the 
    imposition of standards of quality or performance not required by 
    law, whether or

[[Page 5985]]

    not such standards are applicable by law to other programs or 
    activities.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(2) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to procure 
foreign-made items unless their inspection for quality assurance ``uses 
the same standards'' which would be required for domestic products by 
the Department of Defense was ruled out as legislation imposing 
additional duties absent any showing that existing law already required 
such inspection of items produced in foreign countries. The proceedings 
during consideration of the defense appropriation bill,(3) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 28076, 28077, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 4995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jim] Dunn [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dunn: Page 68 after line 15, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 792. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
        available for the procurement of any item manufactured in a 
        foreign country unless, during manufacture, the inspection of 
        such item for quality assurance uses the same standards of 
        inspection during manufacture which would be required by the 
        Department of Defense if such item were manufactured 
        domestically.

        Mr. Dunn (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzell [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Frenzel) on his point of order.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the amendment is 
    contrary to rule XXI, clause 2, which provides that no amendment 
    changing existing law can be made on an appropriation bill. The 
    amendment clearly gives the Secretary additional duties, to 
    determine what kind of quality assurance or inspection is required 
    under the terms of the amendment and, therefore, the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Dunn: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, is incorrect. 
    The Secretary already has that discretion. We are simply, in this 
    amendment, trying to make certain that the powers that he uses for 
    national companies are the same as for international companies. He 
    already has that power. It does not change his power.
        The Chairman: As the Chair reads the amendment, there is 
    clearly a mandatory authority imposing additional duties, absent 
    any showing that

[[Page 5986]]

    existing law already requires such inspection of items produced in 
    foreign countries, the Chair sustains the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).

    Parliamentarian's Note: This decision effectively overrules the 
ruling of the Chair on July 28, 1959,(5) wherein an 
amendment denying use of funds to finance construction projects abroad 
that had not met the criteria used in determining the feasibility of 
flood control projects in the United States was held a proper 
limitation, despite any lack of showing that existing law required 
domestic standards to be applied to foreign construction projects. It 
should be noted that it is not just the imposition of new standards 
that constitutes legislation rendering language subject to a point of 
order, but the requirement of new procedures or duties involved in 
making the standards applicable in a setting not contemplated in the 
existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14522, 14524, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential Appointment to be Made

Sec. 47.7 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing that no part 
    of the appropriation therein be paid to any commissioned officer or 
    any civilian employee in the office of the Judge Advocate, unless 
    such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a general 
    counsel appointed by the President, who shall be the chief legal 
    officer, was conceded to be legislation and therefore held not in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1955,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6042), a point of order was raised against an amendment as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 6245, 6246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 41.2, 
        supra, for the language of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious 
    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and subject to a 
    point of order and I make the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Funds Made Subject to Audit

Sec. 47.8 An amendment to a legislative branch appropria

[[Page 5987]]

    tion bill denying the obligation or expenditure of certain funds 
    contained therein unless such funds were subject to audit by the 
    Comptroller General was ruled out of order as legislation where it 
    appeared that the amendment was intended by its proponents to 
    extend and strengthen the authority of the Comptroller General 
    under law to audit legislative accounts.

    On June 14, 1978,(8) H.R. 12935, making appropriations 
for the legislative branch, was under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole. The following amendment was offered and discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 17650, 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of 
    Pennsylvania]: On page 6, after line 23, insert the following new 
    section:

            Sec. 102. (a) None of the funds appropriated by any 
        provision described in subsection (b) shall be expended or 
        obligated for any purpose specified in such provision unless 
        such funds so expended or obligated are subject to audit by the 
        Comptroller General of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment.
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, this is identical to an amendment 
    offered last year by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. 
    Heckler) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Chisholm) to 
    provide for a GAO audit of Members and committee accounts. It is 
    the identical amendment that was raised at that time. It was not 
    objected to on a point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, once again on my own behalf and for my distinguished 
    colleague from New York (Mrs. Chisholm) I offer an amendment to the 
    legislative branch appropriations to make all tax-funded accounts 
    of Members subject to an audit by the General Accounting Office.
        I offer this amendment with a twofold purpose in mind. First, 
    the amendment will bring Congress in line with other Federal 
    agencies and give us, as Members, protection from accounting 
    mistakes that happen--sometimes too easily--when there are no 
    guidelines or procedures as is currently the case. Second, the 
    amendment will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in 
    the Congress by creating an accounting system for public money 
    expended by Congress for its own operation.

        I do not believe any Member of Congress has the time to 
    maintain these accounts. Indeed, this function is always delegated. 
    In my own case, my office manager handles the accounts, and, in 
    addition, I have hired an outside accountant to oversee the 
    process. Nonetheless, questions remain. I believe it is time to get 
    the professionals to give us the answers.
        When errors are made--for whatever reason--the Member of 
    Congress is

[[Page 5988]]

    held accountable. In my judgment, a uniform, organized system of 
    audits would not be an adversary to the Congress, rather, it would 
    be a protection against the innumerable uncertainties of 
    interpretation and variables which can make even the most carefully 
    managed accounts vulnerable to public criticism.
        The GAO audit would make public accountability a reality for 
    the Congress.
        Congress has never hesitated to require audits of other 
    agencies. I believe the time has come when Congress should submit 
    to an audit itself. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the operations of the Comptroller General under 
    this amendment would continue as under existing circumstances in 
    that site at the Capitol where the office is presently located. The 
    authority would provide an audit of Members' accounts and committee 
    accounts. It would provide that authority to be utilized by the 
    GAO.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    does it extend in any way the present audit system that we have now 
    in the House?
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mrs. Heckler: Mr. Chairman, it extends the authority that now 
    exists in law but is not necessarily a change in existing law. It 
    affirms the authority of the GAO which presently exists in the 
    House; however, I do not believe that the GAO is able to examine 
    Members' accounts and this amendment clarifies that authority. 
    However, it does not mandate audits across the board of every 
    Member at any particular time.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman answer another 
    question for me again. I am not quite clear in my own mind what 
    exactly would this amendment require the Comptroller General to do 
    specifically?
        Mrs. Heckler: I believe that this amendment would provide an 
    expansion of the number of accounts which the GAO is presently 
    auditing including the tax-funded accounts of Members of Congress 
    and our legislative committees, as covered by the general 
    legislative appropriation bill. We are in this bill dealing with an 
    appropriation of $992 million. I believe that these public funds 
    should be subject to audit. This amendment merely affirms the legal 
    authority to the GAO to conduct such audits. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: . . . Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment and 
    make a point of order against it on the grounds that it imposes 
    additional duties on the Comptroller General and, as such, is in 
    violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House. The additional duties 
    implied by the amendment might involve the Comptroller General 
    insisting that time and attendance reporting systems be set up in 
    Members and committee offices and may require setting up annual and 
    sick leave systems and involve examination of Members' personal 
    diaries, perhaps even their personal financial records. These are 
    duties and procedures clearly beyond the offices of the Comptroller 
    General's present audit authority. Under paragraph 842 of clause 2, 
    rule XXI:

            An amendment may not impose additional duties, not required 
        by law, or make the appropriation contingent upon the 
        performance of such duties . . . then it assumes the

[[Page 5989]]

        character of legislation and is subject to a point of order. . 
        . .

        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, let me say that the amendment 
    imposes no additional duties on the General Accounting Office. It 
    proposes that these accounts be subject to audit by the GAO.
        Title 31, section 67, of the United States Code annotated says 
    as follows:

            . . . the financial transactions of each executive, 
        legislative, and judicial agency, including but not limited to 
        the accounts of accountable officers, shall be audited by the 
        General Accounting Office in accordance with such principles 
        and procedures and under such rules and regulations as may be 
        prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States.

        In a memorandum to the Comptroller General from the general 
    counsel of the General Accounting Office, the following language 
    appeared:

            Our authority under the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, to 
        investigate all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, 
        and application of public funds also extends to the Congress.

        I continue to quote from the memorandum, as follows:

            Similarly, our authority in the Accounting and Auditing Act 
        of 1950 to audit all financial transactions, not limited to 
        accountable officer transactions, extends to legislative 
        agencies . . .

        Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the General Accounting 
    Office already has the authority and the duty to audit the accounts 
    of the legislative branch, and this amendment in no way expands or 
    extends that authority. The General Accounting Office has taken a 
    position that it is interested in having an expression of the will 
    of the legislative branch as to whether it wishes the General 
    Accounting Office to carry out that function. This amendment would 
    be an expression of that will.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment would in no way expand the 
    authority of the General Accounting Office or impose additional 
    duties on the General Accounting Office; it would only make these 
    accounts subject to audit. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair certainly agrees that the language in the amendment 
    is ambiguous. The Chair takes into account, however, the debate, 
    and the debate as observed by the Chair indicates the amendment 
    certainly does extend the authority of the Comptroller General and 
    is subject to a point of order.
        The Chair does recognize that there are conflicting 
    interpretations of the amendment under discussion. However, the 
    Chair has a duty under the precedents to construe the rule against 
    legislation strictly where there is an ambiguity. The Chair feels 
    he must sustain the point of order based on the interpretations 
    given the amendment during the debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment in this instance was ruled 
out of order because it appeared that it was intended by its proponents 
to work a change in the law and to require audits, rather than simply 
state a condition precedent for obligation and expenditure of the 
funds. (A sub

[[Page 5990]]

sequent amendment which denied the use of funds not subject to audit 
``as provided by law'' was offered and adopted.)
    It should be noted that the June 14, 1978, ruling above effectively 
overrules an earlier ruling (see 116 Cong. Rec. 18412, 91st Cong. 2d 
Sess., June 4, 1970), in which it had been held that language in a 
general appropriation bill, providing that no funds in the bill for 
``International Financial Institutions'' shall be available for 
activities which are not subject to audit by the Comptroller General, 
was in order as a limitation on the use of funds in the bill.

Barring Funds for Enforcement of Current Law or Regulations

Sec. 47.9 It is not in order in a general appropriation bill to deny 
    the use of funds for an executive agency to formulate or carry out 
    regulations except for regulations in effect on a prior date, which 
    are no longer permitted to be formulated or enforced under the 
    current state of the law.

    On Aug. 19, 1980,(10) the following amendment was 
offered to H.R. 7583 (Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriations for fiscal 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 21978-80, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: On page 
    8, after line 22, insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 103. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
    provisions of this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out any 
    rule, policy, procedure, guideline, regulation, standard, or 
    measure which would cause the loss of tax-exempt status to private, 
    religious, or church-operated schools under section 501(c)(3) of 
    the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 unless in effect prior to August 
    22, 1978.''

    A point of order against the amendment was sustained. See the 
proceedings discussed in full in Sec. 22.28, supra.

Sec. 47.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying use of 
    the funds therein for the Treasury Department to apply certain 
    provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than under audit 
    practices, interpretations, regulations, and court decisions in 
    effect on a prior date was ruled out of order as legislation since 
    admittedly requiring the executive branch to follow laws no longer 
    in effect in order to make the appropriation available.

[[Page 5991]]

    On June 7, 1978,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Treasury and Postal 
Service appropriation bill (H.R. 12930), a point of order raised 
against an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 16655, 16656, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 30, after line 24, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 510. None of the funds available under this Act shall 
        be used by the Treasury Department to make or apply any 
        determination as to whether any individual is an employee for 
        purposes of chapter 21 (relating to Federal Insurance 
        Contributions Act), 23 (relating to Federal Unemployment Tax 
        Act), or 24 (relating to collection of income tax at source on 
        wages) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 other than under 
        the audit practices, interpretations, regulations, and federal 
        court decisions in effect on December 31, 1975. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed amendment, because it is 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, in violation of clause 2 of 
    rule XXI. This amendment would impose new duties on an executive 
    officer.
        The Commissioner and employees of IRS would be required to make 
    a determination as to whether or not a ``certain audit, 
    interpretation, regulation, or Federal appellate court decision'' 
    is ``inconsistent with audit practices, interpretations, 
    regulations, and Federal court decisions in effect on December 31, 
    1975.''

        The executive officer would be required by this amendment to 
    interpret Federal appellate court decisions in 1975, interpret 
    court decisions now, and make a decision as to whether or not they 
    are inconsistent. This clearly imposes new duties on an executive 
    officer and is clearly in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. This 
    can be found in section 843, page 572 of the current rules of the 
    House of Representatives.
        As further precedent, Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite the 
    following from Cannon's Procedures in the House of Representatives, 
    section 843 on page 64:

            In construing an amendment offered as a limitation the 
        practice of the House relating thereto should be construed 
        strictly in order to avoid incorporation of legislation in 
        appropriation bills under guise of limitations.

        That is in volume VII, Cannon's Precedents, section 1720.
        Further quoting:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        Executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        That is in volume VII, Cannon's Precedents, section 1691.
        Further quoting:

            Legislation may not be proposed under the form of a 
        limitation.

        That is section 1607.

[[Page 5992]]

        Further quoting, this time from volume VII, Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1628:

            And a provision which under the guise of limitation repeals 
        or modifies existing law is legislation and is not in order on 
        an appropriation bill.

        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that this 
    amendment would impose additional duties on an executive officer 
    and, therefore, clearly is subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Panetta: Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of order, I 
    just make two points.
        One, the fact that this is a limitation on an expenditure of 
    funds, this is permitted under the House rules, that is, it is 
    permitted where it involves small administrative detail, and that 
    is essentially what we are dealing with here. We are not dealing 
    with reinterpretation. We are not requiring new interpretation by 
    the Internal Revenue Service, but what we are doing is telling them 
    to abide by those procedures that were in effect in 1975.
        Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I think the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) If the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Panetta) would permit the Chair to direct a question to the 
    gentleman for clarification, as the Chair understood the statement 
    of the gentleman's colleague from California in the concluding 
    remarks, the amendment does, in fact, does it not, require going 
    back to the law as it was prior to December 31, 1975, rather than 
    the law as it exists today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Panetta: Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the candor of the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Panetta) in answer to the question. The Chair 
    will state that he certainly did not mean to put the gentleman in 
    this position purposely, but in view of the Chair's understanding 
    of the language contained herein, he felt constrained to ask the 
    question.
        The statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) 
    would indicate that in fact the amendment would require a return to 
    the law as it existed prior to December 31, 1975, and, therefore, 
    the amendment does change existing law and constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.



                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending

Requiring New Contractual Arrangements

Sec. 48.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment making the money 
    available on certain contingencies which would change the lawful 
    mode of payment is legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1952,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R.

[[Page 5993]]

7176), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 3064, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Morris [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language beginning on line 24, page 13, and 
    ending on line 12, page 14 inclusive as follows:

            Provided further, That until such time as a repayment 
        contract, covering the proper share of the cost of the 
        facilities hereinafter stated, shall have been entered into 
        between the United States and the prospective water users, no 
        part of this appropriation shall be available for the 
        initiation of construction of any dam or reservoir where the 
        dominant purpose thereof is storage of water for irrigation or 
        water supply, or any tunnel, canal or conduit for water, or 
        water distribution system related to such dam or reservoir: 
        Provided further, That funds appropriated in this act and 
        heretofore for all such structures now under construction, 
        shall not be available after January 1, 1954, unless such 
        repayment contracts shall have been entered into by the 
        prospective water users.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the language on 
    the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    that it seeks to change existing law.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman refers to the 
    proviso appearing in line 25, page 13, and the proviso starting at 
    line 8 on page 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morris: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: No, Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma has made a point of 
    order, as referred to by him, and the gentleman from Ohio concedes 
    the point of order. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Audit by Comptroller General

Sec. 48.2 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment requiring 
    the imposition of an auditing and reporting procedure before funds 
    can be expended was ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
10723), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7642, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Page 26, after 
        line 22 insert the following:
            ``Sec. 104. No funds appropriated in this Act for the House 
        of Representatives or the Architect of the Capitol shall be 
        used unless the expenditure of such funds is audited by the 
        Comptroller General at such times as he may deem appropriate. 
        For the purpose of conducting such audits, the provisions of 
        section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act (42 Stat. 26; 31 
        U.S.C. 54) shall be applicable to the legislative agencies 
        under audit. The Comptroller Gen

[[Page 5994]]

        eral shall report to the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives the results of each such audit relating to the 
        financial transactions of the House of Representatives, and 
        shall report also to the Architect of the Capitol the results 
        of the audit of his office. All such reports, including the 
        reports required by the Act of July 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 482), 
        shall be printed as House Documents.''

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    some reluctance that I must make a point of order against this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my 
    appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee for reserving the 
    point of order. I knew that a point of order would be made.
        Mr. Chairman, the purpose and intent of my amendment is clear. 
    Simply stated, the funds appropriated by H.R. 10723 would be 
    subject to the limitations of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 
    1950, as amended, with a view toward making the operations of the 
    House and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol subject to the 
    same objective auditing standards as are other Government 
    departments. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is high time we opened our books to the 
    public. Just like any executive agency, we are spending taxpayers' 
    money for our daily operating expenses. There is no logical reason 
    why we should not be subjected to a public audit. Who knows, maybe 
    a little fat can be trimmed right in our own backyard.
        The Chairman: (16) It is obvious on its face that 
    this amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On another occasion, an amendment to a 
legislative branch appropriation bill denying the obligation or 
expenditure of certain funds contained therein unless such funds were 
subject to audit by the Comptroller General was ruled out of order as 
legislation where it appeared that the amendment was intended by its 
proponents to extend and strengthen the authority of the Comptroller 
General under law to audit legislative accounts. The amendment in that 
instance was ruled out of order when it appeared that it was intended 
by its proponents to work a change in the law and to require audits, 
rather than simply state a condition precedent for obligation and 
expenditure of the funds. A subsequent amendment which denied the use 
of funds not subject to audit ``as provided by law'' was offered and 
adopted. See 124 Cong. Rec. 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1978 
[H.R. 12935].

Prior Approval by Bureau of Budget and Submission to Congress

Sec. 48.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority, stating that no part of the funds shall 
    be used ``unless and until'' approved by the Director of the Bureau 
    of the Budget and sub

[[Page 5995]]

    mitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, was 
    conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 22, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        Third. Lines 13 to 22, the proviso reading: ``That no part of 
    funds available for expenditure by this agency shall be used, 
    directly or indirectly, to acquire a building for use as an 
    administrative office of the Tennessee Valley Authority unless and 
    until the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, following a study 
    of the advisability of the proposed acquisition, shall advise the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives and the Tennessee Valley Authority that the 
    acquisition has his approval: Provided further.''. . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    read by the gentleman is unquestionably legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and I therefore concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The gentleman from 
    Missouri, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, concedes the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill and the 
    point of order is sustained.

Prior Approval by Public Housing Commissioner

Sec. 48.4 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds 
    for the Housing and Home Finance Agency and containing a proviso 
    that no funds appropriated therein or funds available for 
    expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the Housing Act shall be 
    available for certain expenditures unless made in accordance with a 
    budget approved by the Public Housing Commissioner was conceded to 
    be legislation and held not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Housing and Home Finance Agency

                       Public Housing Administration

                            Annual Contributions

        For an additional amount, fiscal year 1960, for ``Annual 
    contributions'', $9

[[Page 5996]]

    million, and in addition $3 million to be derived from funds 
    collected as fixed fees from local public housing authorities as 
    required by law: Provided, That no funds appropriated herein, or 
    funds available for expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the 
    United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, shall be available 
    for the payment of contributions with respect to any local public 
    agency expenditures for any project year ending after June 30, 
    1960, which are not made in accordance with a budget approved by 
    the Public Housing Commissioner as reasonable, necessary, and 
    consistent with economical operating policies.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language contained on page 8, lines 7 through 15, is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: We concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Requiring State and Local Cost Sharing for Investigations

Sec. 48.5 Language in the Interior Department appropriation bill under 
    the heading ``General Investigations'' providing that ``the 
    expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for investigations 
    of any nature requested by States, municipalities, or other 
    interests shall be upon the basis of the State, municipality, or 
    other interest advancing at least 50 percent of the estimated cost 
    of such investigations'' was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and held not in order.

        On Apr. 25, 1947,(1) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill (H.R. 3123), a point of order was raised against the following 
    provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             General Investigations

            General investigations: For engineering and economic 
        investigations of proposed Federal reclamation projects and 
        surveys, investigations, and other activities relating to 
        reconstruction, rehabilitation, extensions, or financial 
        adjustments of existing projects, and studies of water 
        conservation and development plans, such investigations, 
        surveys, and studies to be carried on by said Bureau either 
        independently, or in cooperation with State agencies and other 
        Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, and the 
        Federal Power Commission, $125,000, which may be used to 
        execute detailed surveys, and to prepare construction plans and 
        specifications: Provided,

[[Page 5997]]

        That the expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for 
        investigations of any nature requested by States, 
        municipalities, or other interests shall be upon the basis of 
        the State, municipality, or other interest advancing at least 
        50 percent of the estimated cost of such investigations. . . .

        Mr. [J. Edgar] Chenoweth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chenoweth: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the language contained in line 13 beginning with the word 
    ``Provided'' down through line 18 to the colon, page 34, for the 
    reason it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jones] desire 
    to be heard on the point of order? The point of order is that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Requiring Cost Sharing for Cooperative Range Improvements

Sec. 48.6 Language in an appropriation bill providing that no part of 
    the appropriation for ``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be 
    expended in any national forest until contributions at least equal 
    to such expenditures are made available by States or other local 
    public or private sources, was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On May 10, 1951,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 5224, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the following language beginning in line 18 on 
    page 26 and including the proviso in lines 18 to 25 inclusive as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.

            Provided, That hereafter no part of the appropriation for 
        ``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be expended in any 
        national forest until funds or other contributions at least 
        equal to such expenditures are made available by States or 
        other local public or private sources, except that claims 
        recognized by the act of December 19, 1950, shall be accepted 
        as contributions for the purposes of this section.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: In view of the fact that a point of order has been 
    made to

[[Page 5998]]

    the last half of the paragraph I make a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph. I do not think it can be argued that it is not 
    subject to a point of order. A point of order having been made to 
    half of the paragraph, I make a point of order against the entire 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does any Member desire to be heard on the point 
    of order?
        The Chair sustains the point of order to the entire paragraph.

Providing Cost Sharing for Road Construction

Sec. 48.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds for 
    the construction of an additional Washington airport in Virginia 
    shall be available for an access road (a federal project) provided 
    the State of Virginia makes available the balance of funds 
    necessary for the construction of the road was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Federal Aviation Agency

          Construction and development, additional Washington airport

            For an additional amount for ``Construction and 
        development, additional Washington airport'', $22,470,000, to 
        remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
        $400,000 shall be available for an access road to the north 
        from the airport provided the State of Virginia makes available 
        the balance of funds necessary for the construction of said 
        road.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language of the bill on page 3, line 6, beginning 
    with the words ``of which'' and running through line 10, on the 
    ground that this language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Thomas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Delaying Obligation Until Other Funds Have Been Spent

Sec. 48.8 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the rent-
    supplement program, an amendment to withhold obligation of those 
    funds until funds previously

[[Page 5999]]

    appropriated (in another bill) for military housing construction 
    are obligated, which placed an unrelated contingency on the use of 
    funds in the bill, was ruled out as legislation.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14012), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: 
    On page 4, line 22, after ``program'' and before the period add, 
    ``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be obligated 
    until funds made available for the construction of family housing 
    for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense agencies 
    in Public Law 89-202, have been obligated.''
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order comes too late. The Chair was about to state the question.
        The Chairman [James G. O'Hara, of Michigan]: The question had 
    not yet been put. The Chair was about to state the question, but 
    the question had not yet been put. The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it relates to funds 
    previously appropriated and which are not carried in this bill and 
    interferes with executive discretion given to the President under 
    existing law to do what he wishes with the funds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Michigan 
    briefly on the point of order.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to try to be 
    sure that our military families are given an equal opportunity to 
    have family housing that has been deferred. This matter has 
    adequately been discussed in the debate previous to this time. I 
    had hoped possibly out of the generousness of the hearts of the 
    gentlemen on the Democratic side that they would not raise a point 
    of order and therefore obviously deny our military service families 
    the right to have these houses that they so desperately need.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan places an 
    unrelated contingency upon the use of funds provided in this 
    paragraph, and as such is legislation in an appropriation bill, and 
    not germane to the paragraph.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Provisions that seek to control the timing 
of expenditure of funds may sometimes be ruled out as legislation, 
inasmuch as such provisions may interfere with executive discretion as 
to such expenditure.

[[Page 6000]]

See the proceedings at 126 Cong. Rec. 16815-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., 
June 25, 1980; for discussion of provisions affecting executive 
discretion generally, see Sec. 51, infra. More precisely, it may be 
stated that, if a proposed limitation on the use of funds goes beyond 
the traditionally permissible objects of a limitation, as, for example, 
by restricting discretion in the timing of expenditure of funds rather 
than restricting their use for a specific object or purpose, such 
provision may be ruled out as legislation in the absence of a 
convincing argument by the proponent showing that the provision does 
not change existing law.
    In some instances, a provision of the type described above may be 
allowed, even though legislative in effect, if it can be viewed as 
falling within the Holman rule exception. See Sec. 4, supra, for 
general discussion of the Holman rule. As long as an amendment calls 
for an obvious reduction at some point in time during the fiscal year, 
the amendment is in order under the ``Holman Rule'' even if the 
reduction takes place in the future in an amount actually determined 
when the reduction takes place (for example, by formula). See, for 
example, 126 Cong. Rec. 20499-503, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1980.
    It should be noted here that on one occasion, in 1965, language in 
a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds for the rent 
supplement program and specifying that ``no part of the . . . 
appropriation or contract authority shall be used'' in any project not 
part of a ``workable program for community improvement'' (as defined in 
the Housing Act of 1949) or which is without local official approval 
was held to be a proper limitation and in order. The 1965 ruling would 
probably not be followed in current practice; that ruling is discussed 
further, with related precedents, in the ``note on contrary rulings'' 
following Sec. 53.6, infra.

Funds Available to Extent Aggregate Expenditures Do Not Exceed 
    Specified Amount

Sec. 48.9 On a general appropriation bill a limitation applying to 
    funds other than those provided in the pending bill is not in 
    order. But rulings differ in the application of this principle to 
    provisions making funds available ``only to the extent that 
    expenditure thereof shall not raise total aggregate expenditures 
    of'' agencies provided for in the bill.

[[Page 6001]]

    On Mar. 3, 1952,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 6854), the Chair ruled out of order an 
amendment as described above, on the basis that the proposed limitation 
would affect appropriations not carried in the bill. A point of order 
was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 1781, 1782, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 27, 
        supra, discussing provisions that affect funds in other acts, 
        generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
        York]: Page 15, line 11 insert a new section 403:
            ``Sec. 403. Money appropriated in this act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1953, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        raise total aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for 
        herein beyond the total sum of $7,060,000,000: Provided 
        further, That this limitation shall not apply to expenditures 
        from the postal revenues; to refunds of internal revenue 
        collections, to refunds and draw-backs in the Customs Service, 
        and to refunds of moneys erroneously received and covered.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order on the ground that 
    this amendment goes beyond the scope of this bill and deals with 
    expenditures which are not included in this bill.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from New York is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not go beyond the 
    scope of the bill in its limitation on expenditures. The limitation 
    is that the total expended including the amounts in this bill shall 
    not exceed the $7,060,000,000 over and above the total expenditures 
    for the postal revenues, the refunds on internal revenue 
    collection, and the refunds and drawbacks in the customs service, 
    and the refunds of money erroneously received. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the brief time the 
    Chair has had to study the amendment, the Chair is of the opinion 
    that the limitation which the gentleman from New York desires to 
    place in the bill would operate to limit expenditures of 
    appropriations which are not carried in the bill, and therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

    A seemingly different result was reached on Mar. 21, 
1952,(10) on which day the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropria

[[Page 6002]]

tion. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 2694, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also the ruling at 99 
        Cong. Rec. 9559, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1953, on a 
        similarly worded amendment to H.R. 6391, the Mutual Security 
        Administration appropriation bill, discussed at Sec. 80.2, 
        infra. And see Sec. Sec. 80.3 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Coudert: On page 64, after line 21, 
    add a new section 405 as follows:
        ``Sec. 405. Money appropriated in this act shall be available 
    for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, only to 
    the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond 
    the total sum of $6,900,000,000.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It changes figures heretofore voted upon in the House in 
    the last 3 days. Therefore, that is legislation. It puts duties on 
    the various agencies not otherwise called for in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Coudert: This clearly does not touch the funds of prior 
    years; therefore, it does not appropriate with respect to them. It 
    only places a limitation upon the use to which the funds requested 
    in this bill, the new obligational authority, may be put. It limits 
    the freedom of expenditure and nothing else.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair appreciates the fact that the author of the amendment 
    afforded the Chair an opportunity earlier in the day to read the 
    amendment and gave the Chair some time to study the language of the 
    amendment.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a limitation 
    upon the funds which are contained in the bill H.R. 7072, presently 
    before the Committee; that it is nothing more than a limitation on 
    those funds. The Chair is, therefore, constrained to overrule the 
    point of order and holds the amendment in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Mar. 3, 1952, ruling cited above seems 
to support the better principle, that, where an attempted limitation 
has the effect of delaying the expenditure of funds until 
determinations are made as to aggregate expenditures at the end of a 
fiscal year, it is not in order. However, if the reduction is certain, 
such an amendment can be supported under the Holman rule. See the note 
in Sec. 48.8, supra. And see Sec. Sec. 4 and 5, supra, for general 
discussion of the Holman rule.

Ceiling by Reference to President's Budget

Sec. 48.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    availability for expenditure of all funds therein to the aggregate 
    level provided in the President's budget for that fiscal year for 
    the agencies covered in the bill was held to constitute a valid 
    limitation on the total amount covered by the bill.

[[Page 6003]]

    On June 15, 1972,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1973 (H.R. 15417), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 21137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 40, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 409. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1973, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 100 per centum of the total 
        aggregate net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 
        1973 (H. Doc. 215).''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an appropriation bill--
    period.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the Chair that the 
    language of this amendment with the exception of the percentage 
    figure and the House document reference is identical to the so-
    called Bow amendment which was offered on many occasions in past 
    years and which has been challenged on previous occasions and which 
    has been sustained being in order of an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendment and will 
    rule that it is in order. It is, in effect, the ``Bow'' amendment 
    with a very slight variation. It is a restriction on the 
    appropriations in this bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the Mar. 21, 1952, 
ruling cited in Sec. 48.9, supra, are subject to the same criticism. 
Arguably, implementation of this amendment would require withholding of 
all obligations until the end of the year, since an agency's budget 
situation might not be subject to a final tabulation until all other 
funds--those in the pipeline as well as those funded in other 
appropriation acts--are taken into account. There is no disclosure on 
the face of the amendment that there is a certain reduction to qualify 
under the Holman rule exception.

Pending Balanced Budget

Sec. 48.11 To a bill making appropriations for foreign aid, an 
    amendment specifying that no funds made available therein may be 
    expended until total governmental tax receipts exceed total expend

[[Page 6004]]

    itures was ruled out as legislation.

    On July 1, 1964,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
11812), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 15582, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 49.1, 
        infra, in which the Chair ruled out of order an amendment 
        making the availability of funds conditional on a congressional 
        finding that expenditures would not increase the public debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edgar F.] Foreman [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foreman: On page 18, immediately 
        after line 24, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 404. Limitation on Appropriations for Economic 
        Assistance.--Notwithstanding any provision of this or any other 
        Act, no provision of this Act appropriating funds to carry out 
        any program of assistance under this Act (other than a 
        provision for military assistance as described in this Act and 
        in the amount of $1,055,000,000) shall become effective until 
        the tax receipts of the United States Government for the 
        preceding fiscal year are equal to or greater than the 
        expenditures of the Government for such fiscal year.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the bill on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Foreman: Mr. Chairman, I feel like any time we are 
    appropriating the taxpayers' dollars, we certainly should take into 
    consideration the question as to whether or not we are putting the 
    people further in debt. This is a very important question. It is a 
    legal question, a legislative question, and even more importantly, 
    a moral question.
        Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes to the question of spending or 
    not spending of these funds, the limiting of making funds 
    available.
        It does not legislate as to how they are going to be spent, or 
    not be spent, the bill itself does not even do that.
        But as suggested earlier in our debate, perhaps this amendment 
    is indeed too sensible and entirely too practical to be applied to 
    our foreign aid giveaway program. Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps fiscal 
    responsibility, at this point and in this day in time, may be out 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the face of it, this amendment appears to go far beyond the 
    scope of the bill.
        The subject of the amendment is not covered or referred to in 
    the proposed legislation and, therefore, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 49. Spending Conditioned on Congressional Approval

Subsequent Congressional Finding of Impact on Public Debt

Sec. 49.1 To a bill appropriating funds for the Mutual Secu

[[Page 6005]]

    rity Act program, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    therein should be available for expenditure until Congress, in a 
    concurrent resolution, makes a finding that the expenditure will 
    not increase the public debt, was held to be legislation.

    On July 28, 1959,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
8385), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 14520, 14521, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: On page 5, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
        shall be available for expenditure until the Congress has 
        adopted a concurrent resolution (1) which states in substance 
        that the Congress finds that the aggregate of the estimated net 
        budget receipts of the Government of the United States for the 
        fiscal year 1960 will exceed the aggregate of the estimated 
        expenditures for that fiscal year which will be made by the 
        Government of the United States for purposes other than those 
        contained in the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and 
        (2) which specifies the amount of such excess. Upon the 
        adoption of such a concurrent resolution, then each item of 
        appropriation contained in this title is automatically reduced 
        to an amount which bears the same ratio to such item as the 
        excess specified in such concurrent resolution bears to 
        $3,186,500,000.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        [After remarks by Mr. Flynt, the point of order was made by Mr. 
    Passman.]
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Flynt] has offered an amendment 
    to which the gentleman from Louisiana makes a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia and is of the opinion that 
    the amendment itself is beyond the usual limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, in that the amendment would place additional 
    responsibility and duties on the Congress and require additional 
    action by the Congress, which constitutes 
    legislation.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The ruling above, insofar as it requires future express 
        congressional action, is in conformity with the more recent 
        trend in the Chair's treatment of provisions such as that at 
        issue here. There have been rulings that have permitted 
        appropriations related to public debt levels without explicitly 
        requiring congressional action. See the ruling at 101 Cong. 
        Rec. 10246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1955, wherein an 
        amendment denying funds if the effect of spending is to 
        increase public debt was held in order as a limitation. And see 
        105 Cong. Rec. 14521, 14522, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 
        1959, where the Chair ruled that, to a bill appropriating funds 
        for the mutual security program, an amendment providing that no 
        part of any appropriation in the bill shall be used in the 
        event the expenditure will increase the public debt was held to 
        be a limitation and in order. See, generally, Sec. Sec. 48.9 et 
        seq., supra, for discussion of provisions that seek to make 
        expenditures conditional upon a determination that aggregate 
        spending levels are not in excess of a certain amount.

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

[[Page 6006]]

By Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 49.2 An amendment offered in the form of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill providing that no part of the funds shall be 
    used for the enforcement of any order restricting sale of any 
    article or commodity, unless such order shall have been approved by 
    a concurrent resolution of the Congress, was held to be legislation 
    and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On June 30, 1942,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7319), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 5826, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cole of New York: Page 23, line 2, 
        after ``appropriation'', strike out the period and insert 
        semicolon, and add the following: ``: Provided further, That on 
        and after 60 days after enactment of this act, no part of the 
        funds herein appropriated shall be used for the administration 
        or enforcement of any order prohibiting, restricting, 
        rationing, or limiting by way of amount or number, the sale in 
        retail trade of any article or commodity unless such order 
        shall have been approved by a concurrent resolution of the 
        Congress.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    This changes the basic principles of the Price Control Act. Under 
    that act we set up a certain policy, and gave discretion to an 
    agency, and this seeks definitely to change the basic act.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is 
    definitely a limitation on the use of funds contained in this 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York offers an amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. 
    The

[[Page 6007]]

    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] makes the point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and goes further than a limitation. The Chair 
    has endeavored to analyze the amendment, and is of opinion that the 
    gentleman from Virginia has correctly stated the situation. The 
    amendment appears to go much further than a mere limitation and 
    provides that the existing law be in effect amended, and imposes 
    certain requirements as to further legislation. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It has been held in order, by way of a 
limitation on an appropriation bill, to make an appropriation 
contingent upon a future event, such as congressional action, so long 
as the contingency is germane to the appropriation and the restriction 
does not change existing law. But such a provision does change existing 
law if its effect is to require a subsequent authorization which, when 
enacted, will automatically make funds available for expenditure 
without further appropriations. Such a result is contrary to the 
process contemplated in Rule XXI whereby appropriations are dependent 
on prior authorization. While two recent rulings have upheld the 
admissibility of amendments making the availability of funds in a 
general appropriation bill contingent upon subsequent congressional 
action, where the contingency is germane and is not shown to change 
existing law (114 Cong. Rec. 16692, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1968 
[H.R. 17734]; 125 Cong. Rec. 23360, 23361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
6, 1979 [H.R. 4473]), the Chair in the latter ruling indicated he was 
following the earlier precedent only because there had been no argument 
advanced that the contingency changed existing law. In the ruling on 
June 11, 1968, it was held that, to a bill making supplemental 
appropriations for various government departments, including the 
Department of Defense, an amendment providing that no part of the 
appropriations therein shall be available, without the express 
authorization of Congress, for maintenance of more than 525,000 troops 
in Vietnam or for an invasion of North Vietnam was in order as a 
limitation. More recent rulings indicate that such an amendment would 
probably be ruled out in the current practice. On Nov. 18, 
1981,(1) a provision making the availability of certain 
funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action on legislative 
proposals resolving the policy issue was held to constitute legis

[[Page 6008]]

lation. More recently,(2) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill making the availability of funds therein contingent 
upon subsequent congressional enactment of legislation containing 
specified findings was ruled out as legislation requiring new 
legislative and executive branch policy determinations not required by 
law. And, in an earlier precedent not cited on Sept. 6, 1979, the Chair 
did rule (88 Cong. Rec. 5826, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1942 [H.R. 
7319]) that an amendment prohibiting the availability of funds to 
enforce certain executive orders, unless those orders were approved by 
a concurrent resolution of the Congress, could be viewed as 
legislation, imposing new requirements as to further legislative 
action. In any case, when a point of order is raised, the burden is on 
the proponent of the amendment to show that the contingency on which 
the availability of funds depends is one authorized by existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 28064, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some statutes expressly provide that there may be appropriated to 
carry out the functions of certain agencies only such sums as Congress 
may thereafter authorize by law, thus requiring specific subsequently 
enacted authorizations for the operations of such agencies and not 
permitting appropriations to be authorized by the ``organic statute'' 
creating the agency. (See, for example, 15 USC Sec. 57c). In the 
situation where a paragraph of a general appropriation bill is under 
consideration which contains an unauthorized appropriation, a 
perfecting amendment delaying availability of the unauthorized 
appropriation and making it contingent upon enactment of authorizing 
legislation may be germane (since existing law already links the 
authorization and appropriations processes and the contingency is 
therefore not unrelated), and may not add legislation, since it merely 
recites conditions already imposed by existing law and does not 
explicitly make the availability of appropriations contingent upon 
enactment of new policies.

Subsequent Approval of Congress

Sec. 49.3 To a section of an appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the federal aid airport program, an amendment 
    providing that the appropriation ``does not grant authority to the 
    Administrator of Civil Aeronautics to undertake [during a specified 
    period] any specific projects for the develop

[[Page 6009]]

    ment of . . . airports, unless express approval of Congress is 
    hereafter granted,'' was held to be legislation not in the form of 
    a limitation on the use of funds and not in order.

    On May 15, 1947,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 5378, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: On 
    page 49, line 2, after ``appropriation'', insert the following: 
    ``Provided further, That the appropriation made herein does not 
    grant the authority to the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics to 
    undertake during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1947, any 
    specific projects for the development of class 4 and larger 
    airports, unless express approval of Congress is hereafter 
    granted.''
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this is a limitation upon the 
    appropriation, which is in order. The law as it is today provides 
    that the making of an appropriation shall be an approval of certain 
    specific projects, unless a contrary intent of Congress is 
    manifested. The purpose of this amendment is to manifest the 
    contrary intent of Congress.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, under the Federal Airport Act passed 
    by the Seventy-ninth Congress and approved on May 13, 1946, the 
    authority under which this appropriation is being considered today, 
    it is specifically provided in section 5(d) for the annual 
    appropriation of projects in the States.
        In section 6 it is specifically provided how the fund shall be 
    apportioned to the various States and it is also provided how the 
    Administrator shall proceed in making an annual report to the 
    Congress 60 days prior to the fiscal year under which the 
    appropriation would be made for class 4 and larger airports.
        In section 9(d) it is provided how the approval of these 
    airport projects may be made.
        I should like to read wherein that authorization provides: 
    ``that all such projects''--meaning class 4 and larger airports--
    ``shall be subject to the approval of the Administrator, which 
    approval shall be given only if at the time of the approval funds 
    are available for payment of the United States share of the 
    allowable cost and only if he is satisfied that the project will 
    contribute to the accomplishment of the purposes of the act,'' and 
    so forth.
        Under the authorization of this act the Administrator is given 
    certain authority, and if I understand the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman it will change the specific authorization as provided in 
    those sections just referred to.

[[Page 6010]]

        The Chairman: What is the basis of the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. Harris: It is legislation on an appropriation bill. It 
    changes the authorization of the Airport Act of May 13, 1946.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard 
    further on the point of order?
        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has failed to read section 8 of the 
    act which provides for the filing with the Congress 2 months in 
    advance of the beginning of the fiscal year of the list of 
    projects. Then, in the last sentence thereof, it says:

            In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated 
        to pay the United States' share of allowable project cost 
        during the next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider 
        such appropriation as granting the authority requested by law 
        unless a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the 
        Congress by law.

        This is the only time that the Congress can manifest its 
    intent, and if it passes this appropriation bill simply 
    appropriating the money and does not manifest the intent that is 
    there stated then they have approved of the action of the 
    Administrator.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from South 
    Dakota rise?
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: To make a brief 
    observation, if the Chairman will indulge me.
        Mr. Chairman, I have briefly examined the text of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Keating). While the 
    language submitted is not in the form of the customary limitation 
    on funds, it occurs to me that it is the equivalent of saying that 
    no part of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for the 
    construction of class 4 airports. If it were stated in that way it 
    would clearly be a limitation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that this is not merely a 
    limitation but that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Sec. 49.4 To a section of an appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the federal-aid airport program, an amendment 
    providing that ``no part of the appropriation . . . shall be used 
    for the development of class 4 and larger airports unless approval 
    of Congress is hereafter granted'' was held to be a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill restricting the availability of funds and in 
    order where the Chair apparently took the view that existing law 
    permitted inclusion of language making the appropriation contingent 
    upon subsequent congressional approval.

    On May 15, 1947,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6011]]

ering H.R. 3311, a Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 5379, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating (of New York): On 
    page 49, line 2, after the word ``appropriation'', insert the 
    following: Provided further, That no part of the appropriation made 
    herein shall be used for the development of class 4 and larger 
    airports unless approval of Congress is hereafter granted.'' . . .
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this amendment as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It seems to me that the argument with reference to the 
    other point of order would apply here. The Administrator, on 
    February 19, 1947, has complied with the requirement of law and has 
    made the required report to Congress.
        In reading section 8 of the act, the distinguished gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Keating], in commenting on the point of order 
    made against the other amendment, it seems to me did not properly 
    interpret the last part of section 8 of the act, and that the 
    amendment actually would change the law by action on an 
    appropriation bill, when the act specifically says:

            In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated 
        to pay the United States' share of allowable project costs 
        during the next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider 
        such appropriation as granting the authority requested, unless 
        a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the Congress by 
        a law or by concurrent resolution.

        This, it would seem to me, would be by amendment to an 
    appropriation bill rather than by a law or by a concurrent 
    resolution, and it would appear that the amendment is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, as indicated by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case], this is clearly simply a limitation upon 
    the amount of an appropriation, and it seems to me to be clearly in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a limitation, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair apparently took the view that 
existing law [60 Stat. 174, Sec. 8 of which was referred to by Mr. 
Priest, above] permitted inclusion of the language making the 
appropriation contingent upon subsequent congressional approval. But 
the implication of the two precedents above, considered together, is 
that where a law can be read to permit contingent restriction or 
approval of the use of funds, the appropriation language still must be 
phrased as a traditional limitation. A more fundamental question for 
future application of these precedents, particularly Sec. 49.4, is 
whether the authorizing law in fact permitted the type of restriction 
stated in the amendment, or whether the language in the amendment 
departed from the

[[Page 6012]]

course authorized by the statute. The law (cited above) stated:

        In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated to 
    pay the United States share of allowable project costs during the 
    next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider such appropriation 
    as granting the authority requested (to develop class 4 airports) 
    unless a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the Congress 
    by law or by concurrent resolution, and no such grants shall be 
    made unless so authorized.

    A proper limitation pursuant to such law would bar the use of funds 
in accordance with whatever ``law'' or ``concurrent resolution'' 
``shall have'' manifested the intent of Congress. The language in the 
amendment does something quite different: it bars the use of funds for 
the purposes described unless Congress subsequently gives its approval.
    Such law as that cited should not be read as generally permitting 
appropriations to be made contingent upon future authorization or 
congressional approval. The precedent in Sec. 49.4 can be justified 
only in the context of the provisions of 60 Stat. 174, and even then 
only if the statute can be read as giving flexibility to the process of 
congressional approval or disapproval so as to permit Congress to 
withhold availability of funds pending future release of the funds upon 
adoption of a concurrent resolution.

Prior Approval by Congressional Committees

Sec. 49.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``he 
    contracts about to be entered into shall have been authorized by 
    the appropriate legislative committees and in amount by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 20, 1957,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6070), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 4048, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Payments, public buildings purchase contracts: For payments 
        of principal, interest, taxes, and any other obligations under 
        contracts entered into pursuant to the Public Buildings 
        Purchase Contract Act of 1954 (40 U.S.C. 356), $1,331,100: 
        Provided, That the Administrator of General Services may enter 
        into contracts during the fiscal year 1958 for which the 
        aggregate of annual payments for amortization of principal and 
        interest thereon shall not exceed $9,000,000, in addition to 
        the unused portion of the $12,000,000 limitation applicable 
        prior to July 1, 1957,

[[Page 6013]]

        under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1957 (70 Stat. 
        343): Provided further, That the contracts about to be entered 
        into shall have been authorized by the appropriate legislative 
        committees and in amount by the Committees on Appropriations of 
        the Senate and House of Representatives.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in the bill beginning on page 10, line 
    21, which reads as follows:

            Provided further, That the contracts about to be entered 
        into shall have been authorized by the appropriate legislative 
        committees and in amount by the Committees on Appropriations of 
        the Senate and House of Representatives.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, therefore in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: (8) The point of order is well taken. 
    The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 49.6 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    funds in the bill shall be used to meet any obligation under any 
    contract for certain material, if the contract exceeds $1 million, 
    unless the contract is approved by the Committees on Armed Services 
    of the two Houses, was conceded to be legislation and held not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7391), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 3888, 3889, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Dwight L.) Rogers of Florida: 
        Page 33, after line 23, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 601. No funds appropriated by this act shall be used 
        to meet any obligation incurred under any contract for 
        procurement, maintenance, or production of supplies or 
        equipment for any of the military departments, if the contract 
        exceeds $1,000,000 in total amount and is entered into after 
        the date of enactment of this act, unless, before the contract 
        is entered into, the Secretary of the military department 
        concerned or his designee comes into agreement with the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of 
        Representatives with respect to the terms of the contract.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there is 
    phraseology in

[[Page 6014]]

    there that would possibly be legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order?
        Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 49.7 In a paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for the Commission on Government Procurement, a proviso 
    withholding a portion of those funds until submission of a program 
    and financial plan by the commission and approval thereof by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate was conceded 
    to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On May 12, 1970,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17548), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 15174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Commission on Government Procurement

                           salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Commission on Government 
    Procurement, $1,500,000, to remain available until June 30, 1972: 
    Provided, That $1,250,000 of the foregoing amount shall not become 
    available without submission of a program and financial plan by the 
    Commission and approval thereof by the Committees on Appropriations 
    of the Senate and House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso beginning on line 19, page 5 and 
    extending through line 23 on page 5 on the ground that it is 
    legislation in a general appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
    (Mr. Evins) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank Annunzio (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, we recognize 
    the point that the gentleman has raised.
        We only wanted the Commission to advise us as to how they were 
    to use the funds for this program. We have been assured by the 
    distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Holifield) and other members of the Commission, members in whom we 
    have great confidence, that they will keep the committee and the 
    Congress informed as they proceed with this new commission.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 49.8 Language in an appropriation bill, making the availability of 
    a portion of

[[Page 6015]]

    the funds appropriated therein contingent upon submission of plans 
    by a commission and approval thereof by the Committees on 
    Appropriations of both Houses, was ruled out as legislation 
    imposing additional duties on an executive officer notwithstanding 
    the fact that the law establishing the commission required it to 
    submit periodic reports to the President and Congress.

    On May 7, 1970,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
17399), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.116 Cong. Rec. 14561, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

                           salaries and expenses

        For expenses necessary for the Commission on Population Growth 
    and the American Future, including services as authorized by 5 U.S. 
    3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $965,000, to remain 
    available until expended: Provided, That $700,000 of the foregoing 
    amount shall not become available without submission of a program 
    and financial plan by the Commission and approval thereof by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [George H.W.] Bush [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained in lines 8 through 12 on 
    page 5 of the pending legislation on the ground that it fails to 
    comply with the provisions of clause 2 rule XXI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives, wherein paragraph 2 states:

            Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order. . . .

        I realize, Mr. Chairman, that substantive legislation can in 
    practice be added to an appropriation bill if it fits within the 
    applicable framework of the Holman Rule but does not impose any 
    additional or affirmative duties. The language--submission of a 
    program and financial plan by the Commission--does in fact impose 
    additional duties on the Commission.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Tennessee (Mr. Evins) will speak to the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: This is a limitation on 
    expenditures and we think it is acceptable.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that the language cited on page 5, lines 8 
    through 12, in the opinion of the Chair constitutes legislation in 
    an appropriation bill and the point of order is therefore sustained 
    and the proviso is stricken from the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Public Law No. 91-213, Mar. 16, 1970, 84 
Stat. 67, relating to the Com

[[Page 6016]]

mission on Population Growth and the American Future, provided (in 
section 8):

        In order that the President and the Congress may be kept 
    advised of the progress of its work, the Commission shall, from 
    time to time, report to the President and the Congress such 
    significant findings and recommendations as it deems advisable. The 
    Commission shall submit an interim report to the President and the 
    Congress one year after it is established and shall submit its 
    final report two years after the enactment of this Act (Mar. 16, 
    1970). The Commission shall cease to exist sixty days after the 
    date of the submission of its final report.

    If the language had said, in effect, that no funds would be 
expended unless and until the interim report required by law during 
this fiscal year is submitted, an argument might have been advanced 
that the provision was in order, under the theory that a mere 
reiteration of existing law, without change, is not precluded. However, 
the requirement of submission of a ``program and financial plan'' was 
regarded as an impermissible departure from the existing law, and the 
requirement of subsequent committee approval made the provision in the 
bill subject to a point of order.

Sec. 49.9 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    public works, and including funds for the Panama Canal Corporation, 
    an amendment prohibiting the corporation from disposing of real 
    property unless approved by the appropriate legislative committees 
    of the House and Senate was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 16, 1964,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the public works appropriation bill (H.R. 
11579), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 13973, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor Kretzer] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Sullivan: Page 9, line 5. After 
        the word ``use'', change the period to a colon and add:
            ``Provided, That no real property or rights to the use of 
        real property, or activity shall be disposed of or transferred 
        by license, lease, or otherwise except to another agency of the 
        United States Government unless specifically approved by the 
        appropriate legislative committees of the House and Senate.''

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    From the reading of the amendment, the Chair feels that the

[[Page 6017]]

    language is purely legislation. It has no bearing upon the 
    appropriation and falls within the prohibition of legislating on an 
    appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Adoption of Joint Resolution in Prescribed Form

Sec. 49.10 An amendment to the Defense Department appropriation 
    (general) bill denying the use of funds therein for continued 
    deployment of land-based U.S. Armed Forces participating in the 
    multinational force in Lebanon after Mar. 1, 1984, unless the 
    Congress adopts a joint resolution containing certain findings 
    (requiring the President to define the mission of U.S. forces in 
    Lebanon and to establish a set of achievable policy goals there as 
    well as upgrading security arrangements in the area) was ruled out 
    as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, requiring new 
    duties to be imposed on both the Congress (to pass the joint 
    resolution) and on the President (to make certain findings and to 
    sign the joint resolution) not presently required by law.

    On Nov. 2, 1983,(17) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4185), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland:
            Page 80, after line 2, insert the following:

                                    Title IX

                     united states armed forces in lebanon

            Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
        obligated or expended for the continued deployment of land-
        based United States Armed Forces participating in the 
        Multinational Force in Lebanon after March 1, 1984, unless the 
        Congress of the United States adopts a joint resolution which 
        contains the following findings:
            (a) That the President of the United States has defined a 
        clear and realistic mission for U.S. forces in Lebanon.
            (b) That the President has established a set of policy 
        goals in Lebanon that are achievable and has a clear agenda for 
        achieving those goals.
            (c) That security arrangements for American forces in the 
        area have been upgraded to the maximum extent possible. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment because it constitutes 
    legislation in an

[[Page 6018]]

    appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The gentleman's amendment prohibits the use of funds to support 
    U.S. Armed Forces in Lebanon after March 1, 1984, unless Congress 
    adopts a concurrent resolution which contains certain Presidential 
    findings. Not only is this a contingent event which in itself is 
    legislation, but substantial additional duties will be required to 
    have the President submit findings to the Congress regarding 
    definition of mission establishment of policy goals, and upgrading 
    of security arrangements in Lebanon. Currently, the President is 
    not required to submit such findings to the Congress, and this 
    amendment will institute a new requirement on the President to 
    submit such findings prior to March 1, 1984, or face a cutoff of 
    funds. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I would like, 
    if I could, to contest the point of order on at least the one 
    ground raised by the gentleman because the gentleman indicated that 
    this amendment requires the President to establish a number of 
    additional findings.
        That is not what the amendment does. The amendment says, and I 
    would repeat, the amendment says that:

            None of the funds . . . may be obligated or expended for 
        the continued deployment of land-based Armed Forces 
        participating in Lebanon after March 1 unless the Congress of 
        the United States adopts a joint resolution containing the 
        following:

        So we are not asking an administrative agency of the Government 
    to establish findings. Those duties would fall on the Congress 
    itself. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I do want to 
    associate myself with the point of order that was made by the 
    gentleman from Alabama.
        Also, I would add that section 842 of the House Rules and 
    Manual states that:

            An amendment making an appropriation contingent upon a 
        recommendation or action not specifically required by law is 
        legislation. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment clearly requires that additional duties will be 
    imposed upon the Congress and upon the President since a joint 
    resolution would have to be signed by the President and there must 
    be some findings made by the President.
        For all of these reasons, the point of order is sustained.

Consideration of Legislative Proposal Regarding Schools for Military 
    Dependents

Sec. 49.11 A provision in an appropriation bill making the availability 
    of certain funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action on 
    legislative proposals was conceded to constitute legislation and 
    was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 6019]]

the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 4995), 
a point of order was sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 28064, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will inquire, are there 
    any points of order against any portion of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David E.] Benior of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 784 . . . which legislate[s] under an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The portion of the bill to which the [point] of order relate[s] 
    is as follows:

            Sec. 784. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
        obligated or expended to transfer the Defense Departments' 
        Schools to the Department of Education, or to fund the 
        activities of the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education 
        until legislative proposals to repeal such transfer of the 
        dependents' schools are considered and acted upon by Congress.

    Mr. Joseph P. Addabbo, of New York, conceded and the Chair 
sustained the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 50. Conditions Imposing Additional Duties

    Where a provision in an appropriation bill or amendment thereto 
seeks to impose on a federal official substantial duties that are 
different from or in addition to those already contemplated in law, the 
provision is frequently ruled out as legislative in nature. This 
difficult area is discussed more fully in Sec. 51 through 63, infra. 
The present section focuses largely on those instances where such new 
duties result from the imposition of certain types of conditions. Such 
conditions, it will be seen, are generally those which must be 
determined by some official to have been met, before the appropriation 
in question can become effective.
    Generally, an amendment forbidding expenditure of an appropriation 
unless action contrary to existing law is taken is legislation and is 
not in order as a limitation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 50.4, infra.
            The same would be true of an amendment conditioning 
        expenditure on actions for which no authority in law exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while it is in order on a general appropriation bill to 
prohibit the availability of funds therein for a certain activity, that 
prohibition may not be made contingent upon the performance of a new 
affirmative duty on the part of a federal 
official.                          -------------------

Attached to Otherwise Valid Limitation

Sec. 50.1 A provision in a paragraph of the legislative ap

[[Page 6020]]

    propriation bill prohibiting the availability of funds therein for 
    the House Library unless and until arrangements have been made to 
    phase out its operations by the end of fiscal 1974 was held to 
    impose additional duties on the Clerk and was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6691), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 12780, 12781, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against (certain) language on page 3, ``Office of the 
    Clerk,'' . . . [on] the ground that it is legislation on the 
    appropriation bill.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                              Office of the Clerk

            For the Office of the Clerk, including not to exceed 
        $265,572 for the House Recording Studio, $3,264,730: Provided, 
        That no part of this amount shall be available for the House 
        Library--Document Room (in the Cannon House Office Building) 
        unless and until appropriate arrangements have been made to 
        phase out and terminate its operations not later than the close 
        of the fiscal year 1974.

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Texas wish 
    to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert R.] Casey of Texas: Yes; Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Casey of Texas: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, but rather in the form of a 
    limitation. I think it is wholly within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee to include this provision in the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair observes that the language ``that no 
    part of this amount shall be available for the House Library--
    Document Room (in the Cannon House Office Building)'' is in the 
    form of a limitation. However, the language which follows--``unless 
    and until appropriate arrangements have been made to phase out and 
    terminate its operations not later than the close of the fiscal 
    year 1974'' poses additional duties and therefore is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and because of that language the point of 
    order is sustained.

Determination of State Compliance With Conditions

Sec. 50.2 An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation providing that no part of the money therein appropriated 
    shall be paid to any state unless and until the Secretary of 
    Agriculture was satisfied

[[Page 6021]]

    that the state had complied with certain conditions was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 23, 1937,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6523), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 3783, 3784, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: 
        Page 72, line 13, after the word ``probation'', insert 
        ``Provided further, That no part of the money herein 
        appropriated shall be paid to any State unless and until, to 
        the satisfaction of the Secretary of Agriculture, such State 
        shall have provided by law or regulation modern means and 
        devices to safeguard against accidents and the loss of life on 
        highway projects within such State.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment. It is legislation under the 
    guise of a limitation. The amendment provides affirmative direction 
    which is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair will be pleased to hear 
    the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Franklin W. Hancock (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact we have previously authorized appropriations to be made 
    under the Federal Highway Act which was passed and approved by the 
    President on July 11, 1916. Yearly there is authorized under that 
    act an appropriation of $125,000,000 which is disbursed according 
    to regulations set up not only by the Congress in the organic act 
    but also by regulations of the Bureau of Public Roads. If the 
    Bureau of Public Roads under the terms of the act can withhold any 
    funds which have been authorized by the Congress from any of the 
    States by reason of a regulation which it might set up, likewise 
    the Bureau can limit the expenditure within any State by providing 
    certain traffic safeguards to those using the highways as a 
    condition precedent to the spending of Federal funds in the 
    construction and maintenance of Federal-aid roads. For this reason 
    my amendment is purely a limitation upon the distribution among and 
    the use of the highway funds by the States.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order on the ground that 
    although the amendment is drawn in the guise of a limitation, it 
    constitutes new legislation in that it imposes additional duties 
    upon the Secretary.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that the Chair based its 
decision on the fact that additional duties were imposed on the 
Secretary, rather than on whatever actions might be required on the 
part of states to qualify as recipients of the funds. The latter 
consideration as a pos

[[Page 6022]]

sible basis for a point of order is discussed in Sec. Sec. 53 and 54, 
infra.

Determination by Secretary as to Authorization

Sec. 50.3 Language in a general appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation providing that no part of a certain appropriation shall 
    be available until it is determined by the Secretary of the 
    Interior that authorization therefor has been approved by the 
    Congress was held to constitute legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On May 17, 1937,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 4687-89, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Central Valley project, California, $12,500,000, together with 
    the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this project 
    contained in the First Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1936: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation shall be available for 
    construction of such project until it is determined by the 
    Secretary of the Interior, upon approval, as to legality by the 
    Attorney General, that authorization therefor has been approved by 
    act of Congress.
        Mr. [Frank H.] Buck [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning in line 24 with the 
    word ``Provided''.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New York 
    make a point of order against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California made a point of 
    order against the proviso?
        Mr. Buck: Against the proviso.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California makes a point of 
    order against the proviso appearing in line 24, page 81. The 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of order against 
    the entire paragraph. Of course, that presents to the Chair the 
    necessity of ruling upon the point of order as it relates to the 
    entire paragraph, because if any part of a paragraph is subject to 
    a point of order it naturally follows that the entire paragraph is 
    subject to a point of order. . . .
        It appears to the Chair there can be no doubt that the language 
    appearing in the proviso is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    The language imposes additional duties upon two executive officers 
    of the Government, the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney 
    General. Therefore, the language in the proviso constituting 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of 
    the House, and a point of order being good as to part of a 
    paragraph, it naturally applies to the entire paragraph. The Chair, 
    therefore, sus

[[Page 6023]]

    tains the point of order made by the gentleman from New York as to 
    the entire paragraph.

Directives to the President

Sec. 50.4 An amendment providing that none of the money appropriated in 
    a section of a bill shall be paid to persons in a certain category 
    unless hereafter appointed or reappointed by the President and 
    confirmed by the Senate was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On July 26, 1951,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 8962, 8963, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: On 
    page 58, following line 14, add a new section to be numbered 109:

            None of the money appropriated in title I of this act shall 
        be paid to the head of any executive department who, within a 
        period of 5 years preceding this appointment, was a partner in, 
        or a member of a professional firm which derived any part of 
        its income from representing, or acting for a foreign 
        government, or who, acting as an individual, derived income 
        from such representation, unless hereafter appointed or 
        reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order against this proposed 
    amendment that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, in 
    violation of the rules of the House.
        I direct the Chair's attention to Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, volume 7, section 1632, which reads as 
    follows:

            An amendment forbidding expenditure of an appropriation 
        unless action contrary to existing law is taken is legislation 
        and is not in order as a limitation.
            An amendment may not, under guise of limitation, provide 
        affirmative legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I also call attention to section 1634 of the same 
    volume of Cannon's Precedents, which holds that--

            Professed limitations not to become effective ``unless'' or 
        ``until'' affirmative action was taken were held to be out of 
        order in an appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, of course the 
    author of the amendment, I presume, has the right to concede the 
    point of order, insofar as he is concerned, but it strikes me that 
    there is a substantial difference between the present amendment and 
    the one which was cited from the precedents. In that case a new law 
    would be required--an 8-hour law. The present amendment in the part 
    following the word ``unless'' merely recites what is existing law 
    and in our Constitution, and that is that if someone is appointed 
    or reappointed and confirmed by the other body, he then has the 
    office. . . .

[[Page 6024]]

        The provision following the word ``unless'' merely recites what 
    is existing law under the Constitution, to wit, the appointment by 
    the President of an officer and his confirmation by the Senate. No 
    additional duties are required. There is a great deal of difference 
    between that and the requirement of the amendment cited from the 
    precedents that an 8-hour law be enacted before the amendment could 
    become effective. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has listened to the argument presented and has 
    followed the precedents cited by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Rooney], and is of the opinion that the gentleman has correctly 
    stated the precedents appearing in section 1632 of Cannon's 
    Precedents. . . .
        The gentleman also cites section 1634 of Cannon's Precedents, 
    to which the Chair referred a moment ago in passing upon a point of 
    order made on a previous amendment offered.
        In response to the observation made by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Vorys], the Chair thinks he should state that the Chair does 
    not know any provision of law requiring the President of the United 
    States to submit the name of one of his Cabinet officers to the 
    Senate for confirmation after that Cabinet officer has been 
    appointed and confirmed by the Senate and is now acting and 
    serving.
        The Chair invites attention to the last part of the amendment 
    presented: ``Unless hereafter appointed or reappointed by the 
    President and confirmed by the Senate.'' That would clearly impose 
    a duty upon the President of the United States to reappoint a 
    Cabinet officer and submit the name of that appointee to the Senate 
    for confirmation. Therefore, that would clearly provide legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 50.5 A paragraph in a foreign aid appropriation bill prohibiting 
    the use of funds to pay for services performed abroad under 
    contract ``unless the President shall have promulgated'' security 
    regulations requiring certain investigations to be made, was ruled 
    out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 4, 1970,(10) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
        by this or any predecessor Act for the years subsequent to 
        fiscal year 1962 for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961, as amended, may be used to make payments with respect to 
        any contract for the performance of services outside the United 
        States

[[Page 6025]]

        by United States citizens unless the President shall have 
        promulgated regulations that provide for the investigation of 
        such citizens for loyalty and security to the extent necessary 
        to protect the security and other interests of the United 
        States: Provided, That such regulations shall require that any 
        such United States citizen who will have access, in connection 
        with the performance of such services, to information or 
        material classified for security reasons shall be subject to 
        such investigation as may otherwise be provided by law and 
        executive order.

        The Chairman:(11) or what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order against section 111.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, section 111 constitutes legislation 
    in an appropriation bill. This provision has been carried in 
    legislation since 1963.
        I am in sympathy with this provision, and will do my best to 
    include even stronger language in the next authorization bill. The 
    time has come when we should clearly define the responsibilities of 
    our committees and prevent further encroachment, and although I 
    favor this language personally I must insist on my point of order 
    because of the principle involved, that it is legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee felt that this year, as in the previous years, that this 
    was a limitation provision which was added by the committee to the 
    fiscal year 1963 bill in order to require investigation of the U.S. 
    citizens outside the United States who are performing service on 
    U.S.-funded contracts, and for security to protect the U.S. 
    interests. We felt it was a limitation, and that we had carried it 
    for 7 years.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The significant language is found on line 17, where it defines 
    the duties of the President of the United States in saying that 
    ``unless the President''--on line 18--``shall have promulgated 
    regulations that provide for the investigation of such citizens,'' 
    and so on. That again is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, and falls within the prohibition, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Directive to Administrator of Federal Aviation Agency

Sec. 50.6 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for an 
    additional airport for the District of Columbia, an amendment 
    providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used for land 
    acquisition for access roads until the Administrator of the Federal 
    Aviation Agency shall have held public hearings to allow local 
    residents to express their views on the loca

[[Page 6026]]

    tion of such roads, was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 12124, 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill: On page 3, line 10, add 
        the following: ``Provided, That no part of any appropriation 
        made in this Act shall be used for land acquisition for any 
        access road to the public airport in the vicinity of the 
        District of Columbia authorized by the Act of September 7, 
        1950, until after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
        Agency shall have consulted with the Board of Supervisors of 
        Fairfax County, Virginia, on the location of such road and 
        shall have had public hearings at a convenient location, or 
        have afforded the opportunity for such hearings, for the 
        purpose of enabling persons through or contiguous to whose 
        property such road will pass, to express any objections they 
        may have to the proposed location of such road.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [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:(13) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill: Yes, if the Chair please.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the 
    limitation we had in the appropriation bill for this same project 
    last year. It merely requires that the community be consulted as 
    provided in the authorization act. It likewise requires public 
    hearings as the authorization act requires. We feel that to require 
    public hearings in the area which has been designated as the access 
    road site is consistent with the authorizing legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The amendment seeks to enjoin upon the Administrator of the 
    Federal Aviation Agency duties and obligations not now required by 
    law. It is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Expenditures To Be Pursuant to Recommendations by Officials

Sec. 50.7 An amendment rendering an appropriation contingent upon 
    recommendations by federal officials not required by law is 
    legislation violating Rule XXI clause 2; to an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill providing additional funds for the 
    Community Services Administration, an amendment prohibiting the 
    expenditure

[[Page 6027]]

    of funds in the pending paragraph for energy conservation services 
    unless expended pursuant to recommendations by the Community 
    Services Administration, state economic opportunity offices, and 
    the General Accounting Office, was ruled out as legislation since 
    providing a condition precedent not required by existing law.

        On June 27, 1979,(14) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
    Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 4389), a point of 
    order was sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 17054, 17055, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [David F.] Emery [of Maine] to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dodd: At the end of the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Dodd insert the following:
            Page 46, after line 14, insert the following: None of the 
        sums appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to provide 
        Emergency Energy Conservation Services under section 222(a)(5) 
        of part B of title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 
        unless such sum is expended pursuant to recommendations which 
        have been made by the Community Services Administration, State 
        economic opportunity offices, and the General Accounting 
        Office. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment imposes additional duties and further it imposes new 
    determinations. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    changes existing law. Further it requires new procedures and 
    determinations not under the existing and present law. . . .
        Mr. Emery: . . . This is clearly a limitation on the use of 
    funds appropriated by the Dodd amendment. The intent of the 
    legislation is very clear, and that is to comply with findings that 
    have been made in the GAO study at the request of a congressional 
    committee. I believe that the GAO study was asked for by the 
    gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Collins) from the Subcommittee on 
    Manpower and Housing as an attempt to find ways to improve the 
    distribution of these funds.
        The study reports findings pursuant to a congressional 
    committee request for information. I believe that is well within 
    the scope of the limitation and is appropriate on this bill.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine is a 
    limitation on the sums appropriated in the first part of the 
    amendment.
        However, in the last part of the amendment it does set forth 
    new duties upon the Community Services Administration, State 
    economic opportunity offices as well as the General Accounting 
    Office. Since these new determinations are imposed as exclusive 
    conditions precedent to the expenditure of funds beyond what 
    present law requires, it is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and the Chair is constrained to rule the amendment out of

[[Page 6028]]

    order and sustain the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky.

Health and Safety Information Required

Sec. 50.8 Where existing law confers discretionary authority upon an 
    executive agency to require submission of health and safety 
    information by applicants for licenses, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill restricting that discretion by requiring the 
    submission of certain information as a condition of receiving funds 
    constitutes legislation.

    On June 18, 1979,(16) an amendment was offered as 
follows to H.R. 4399, the energy and water appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1980:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15286, 15287, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: On 
        page 27 after line 23, add:
            ``No monies appropriated in this paragraph may be expended 
        by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the issuance of an 
        operating license for a nuclear powerplant located in a state 
        which does not have an emergency evacuation plan which has been 
        tested, and submitted to the Commission pursuant to law.''.

    The amendment was ruled out on a point of order. The proceedings 
are carried in full in Sec. 51.11, infra.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 51. Restrictions on or Enlargement of Discretion


    Propositions in a general appropriation bill that affirmatively 
take away an authority or discretion conferred by law are subject to a 
point of order under the rule prohibiting legislation on appropriation 
bills.
    Where the authorizing law has established the degree of discretion 
officials have in the exercise of their duties, problems may arise when 
an appropriation measure seems to restrict that discretion. As in other 
areas, the appropriation measure cannot ``change existing law,'' but 
can impose limitations by appropriating for only part of an authorized 
purpose.(17) The question will be, then, does the 
appropriation measure merely withhold funds that, if appropriated, 
would be administered by the official, or does it so further and 
actually change the scope of the official's discretion from that set 
forth in the authorizing law?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 64, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A helpful approach in many cases is to determine whether the

[[Page 6029]]

appropriation measure mandates criteria that are within the range of 
choices given to the official by the authorizing law. If the 
authorizing law permits the official to pursue courses A, B, C, and D, 
and the appropriation measure provides funds permitting the official to 
pursue A, B, and C, the measure is a proper limitation because it 
appropriates for ``part of the authorized purpose.'' But if the 
appropriation has the effect of permitting or requiring the official to 
pursue courses A, B, and E, then the measure has changed existing law 
by mandating criteria that were not within the range of choices given 
by the authorizing law which established the degree of the official's 
discretion.
    A limitation may in fact amount to a change in policy, but if the 
limitation is merely a negative restriction on use of funds, it will 
normally be allowed. For example, in one instance (18) 
during consideration of the army appropriation bill in 1931, an 
amendment was allowed which provided that ``none of the funds 
appropriated in this act shall be used for . . . any compulsory 
military course or military training in any civil school or college or 
for the pay of any . . . employee at any civil school or college where 
a military course or military training is compulsory.'' The Chair noted 
that the amendment ``simply refuses to appropriate for purposes which 
are authorized by law and for which Congress may or may not appropriate 
as it sees fit,'' and said that, while the amendment did change a 
policy of the War Department, ``a change of policy can be made by the 
failure of Congress to appropriate for an authorized object.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that in an earlier ruling (1925) (19) 
the Chair had said that where the purpose of an amendment appeared to 
be a restriction of executive discretion to a degree amounting to a 
change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail, the 
amendment would not be allowed. A proposed amendment to the War 
Department appropriation bill had in that instance provided, ``No part 
of the moneys appropriated in this act shall be used to pay any officer 
to recruit the Army beyond the limit of 100,000 three-year enlisted 
strength.'' The Chair ruled that the purpose rather than the form of a 
proposed limitation is the criterion by which its admissibility should 
be judged, and held that the purpose in this instance was legislative, 
``in that the intent is

[[Page 6030]]

to restrict executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed 
a change in policy.'' Today this ruling would be followed only where a 
proposed limitation is accompanied by language explicitly stating a 
legislative motive or purpose in carrying out the 
limitation.(20) If such intent were merely one that might be 
inferred, as in the 1925 ruling, the proposed limitation would not be 
barred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1691.
20. See Sec. 66.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a few cases,(1) the issue has arisen as to the effect 
of a proposal seemingly having the purpose of enlarging, rather than 
restricting, an official's discretion. Such proposals, depending on 
circumstances, may also be viewed as changing existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 22.19, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Rule

Sec. 51.1 Language in an appropriation bill making mandatory on the 
    part of an executive officer an action within his discretion under 
    existing law, is legislation and not in order: language in an 
    appropriation bill providing that during fiscal 1958, operation of 
    the Army-Navy Hospital at Hot Springs, Ark., and Murphy General 
    Hospital at Boston, Mass., shall be continued, was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 28, 1957,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7665), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 7901, 7902, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Operation and Maintenance

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
        operation and maintenance of the Army, including 
        administration; medical and dental care of personnel entitled 
        thereto by law or regulation (including charges of private 
        facilities for care of military personnel on duty or leave, 
        except elective private treatment), and other measures . . . 
        conclusive upon the accounting officers of the Government; 
        $3,145,200,000: Provided, That during the fiscal year 1958 the 
        maintenance, operation, and availability of the Army-Navy 
        Hospital at Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, and the Murphy 
        General Hospital in Boston, Mass., to meet requirements of the 
        military and naval forces shall be continued.

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, beginning on line 2 
    and running through line 6.
        The Chairman:(3) Will the gentleman state his point 
    of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is predicated on 
    the fact

[[Page 6031]]

    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and contrary to 
    existing law. It is my understanding under the rules of the House 
    that the inclusion of any language in an appropriation bill that 
    imposes an additional burden or duty or authority on the executive 
    branch of the Government, not required by law, makes such language 
    subject to a point of order as legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does any other gentleman desire to be heard on 
    the point of order? If so, the Chair will be pleased to hear him.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I think the crux of the matter is that 
    without this language in the appropriation bill the executive 
    branch of the Government, in this case the Department of the Army, 
    would have full authority to close these installations. In my 
    opinion, the inclusion of the language which is currently in the 
    Defense Department appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1957, and 
    the language to which I object is an extention of that language in 
    the fiscal year 1958 Department of Defense appropriation bill. But 
    let me just refer as a practical matter to the language in the 
    current appropriation bill and I will carry on from there to show 
    that if this language is included in the fiscal 1958 bill again, 
    there is no question but what it imposes an additional burden, an 
    additional obligation, on the Department of Defense. Let me read 
    testimony from the Department of the Army, and this is Secretary 
    Brucker testifying on page 479 of the Department of Defense 
    hearings for the fiscal year 1958:
        Secretary Brucker: Mr. Ford, the situation is precisely this: 
    Twice we have recommended to the committees of Congress that both 
    of those hospitals be abandoned and that no money be put in for 
    them. The reason is because we do not have need for them, and while 
    the hospitals, of course, have adequate personnel, both nurses and 
    doctors, there is not sufficient patient load in the area for 
    either one of those two hospitals--
        Here is the important language, still quoting Secretary Brucker 
    . . .
        so twice we have recommended against inclusion of those two 
        hospitals, but twice they were placed back into the bill, and 
        we were compelled to retain them.

        There is language, Mr. Chairman, which indicates clearly that 
    the Department of the Army by the inclusion of this language in 
    fiscal 1957 and by the possibility of inclusion of the same 
    language in fiscal 1958 is required to do something it does not 
    want to do and it does not have to do unless this language is 
    included. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The language of the proviso in effect imposes upon a department 
    of Government an affirmative and mandatory requirement that the two 
    named installations shall be continued. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the interposition of that affirmative requirement is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and the Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Mandating One of Several Choices

Sec. 51.2 To be admissible on an appropriation bill a limitation may 
    not impose addi

[[Page 6032]]

    tional duties on executives or limit their discretion: to an 
    appropriation bill an amendment prohibiting use of an appropriation 
    for regulation of rates ``upon any basis other than actual 
    legitimate cost, less accrued depreciation'' was held to impose 
    additional duties upon officials and to limit their discretion 
    provided in existing law to determine rates.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment, offered to the portion of the bill providing funds for 
salaries and expenses for the Federal Power Commission:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 4101, 4102, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. (Sidney R.) Yates (of Illinois): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 18, line 25, strike 
        the period after the word ``individuals'' and insert 
        ``Provided, That in order to assure efficient, economic, and 
        expeditious regulation, no part of this appropriation shall be 
        used for the regulation of rates or charges of any company 
        subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, upon any basis 
        other than actual legitimate cost, less accrued depreciation.''

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill, which I understand we are trying to keep away 
    from.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It is in fact a limitation of the type that has 
    been recognized as valid many times in the past. I submit that it 
    is perfectly proper, that it is a limitation on the appropriations 
    for a specific purpose and is entirely in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
    The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has offered an amendment as 
follows:

            On page 18, line 25, ``provided that in order to assure 
        efficient, economic, and expeditious regulation, no part of 
        this appropriation shall be used for the regulation of rates or 
        charges of any company subject to the jurisdiction of the 
        Commission--

        And the Chair notes these words particularly--
        upon any basis other than actual legitimate cost less accrued 
        depreciation.

        Although presented in the form of a limitation on an 
    appropriation, since it would impose additional duties upon 
    officials and limit the exercise of their discretion, the amendment 
    contains legislation, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 51.3 Although a law may give an executive officer author

[[Page 6033]]

    ity to do a certain thing, a proposition directing him so to do is 
    legislative in nature and not in order on an appropriation bill: 
    language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill providing 
    that the tax in effect in a certain fiscal year on real estate and 
    certain tangible personal property shall not be increased for a 
    subsequent fiscal year was held to be legislation where existing 
    law gave officials authority to fix the tax rate on an annual 
    basis.

        On Apr. 2, 1937,(6) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation 
    bill, a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 3096-98, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That in order to defray the expenses of 
    the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, 
    any revenue (not including the proportionate share of the United 
    States in any revenue arising as the result of the expenditure of 
    appropriations made for the fiscal year 1924 and prior fiscal 
    years) now required by law to be credited to the District of 
    Columbia and the United States in the same proportion that each 
    contributed to the activity or source from whence such revenue was 
    derived shall be credited wholly to the District of Columbia, and, 
    in addition, $5,000,000 is appropriated, out of any money in the 
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be advanced July 1, 1937, 
    and all of the remainder out of the combined revenues of the 
    District of Columbia, and the tax rate in effect in the fiscal year 
    1937 on real estate and tangible personal property subject to 
    taxation in the District of Columbia shall not be increased for the 
    fiscal year 1938, namely: . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper [Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: I make a point of order against that portion of 
    the bill on page 2, beginning after the comma, in line 11, which 
    reads as follows:

            And the tax rate in effect in the fiscal year 1937 on real 
        estate and tangible personal property subject to taxation in 
        the District of Columbia shall not be increased for the fiscal 
        year 1938.

        In support of my point of order I call the Chair's attention to 
    the fact that this provision is contrary to existing law and is 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair feels it is appropriate to state that in the broad 
    and general application it is well recognized that the Committee on 
    Appropriations has the authority to exercise the function of 
    appropriating for the activities of the Federal Government under 
    existing law. In other words, there must be authority in existing 
    law to support the appropriation provided in a general 
    appropriation bill.
        It is also well settled that the Appropriations Committee does 
    not have au

[[Page 6034]]

    thority to include legislation in a general appropriation bill.
        It will be recalled that considerable debate occurred at the 
    time of the creation of the Appropriations Committee. Apprehension 
    was voiced at that time that the Committee on Appropriations might 
    encroach upon the functions of the standing legislative committees 
    of the House. For this reason the rules of the House make it 
    certain and definite that the Appropriations Committee has 
    authority only to appropriate or to provide funds pursuant to the 
    authority of existing law.
        The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] makes a point of 
    order to the following language which appears in the pending bill, 
    found on page 2, line 11:

            And the tax rate in effect in the fiscal year 1937 on real 
        estate and tangible personal property subject to taxation in 
        the District of Columbia shall not be increased for the fiscal 
        year 1938, namely.

        The provision of existing law is as follows:

            That for the purpose of defraying such expenses of the 
        District of Columbia as the Congress may from time to time 
        appropriate for, there hereby is levied for each and every 
        fiscal year succeeding that ending June 30, 1937, a tax at such 
        rate on the aforesaid property subject to taxation in the 
        District of Columbia, and the Commissioners of the District of 
        Columbia hereby are empowered and directed to ascertain, 
        determine, and fix annually such rate of taxation, as will when 
        applied as aforesaid produce the money needed to defray the 
        share of the expenses of the District during the year for which 
        the rate is fixed.

        A question very similar to the pending question was raised when 
    the District of Columbia appropriation bill was under consideration 
    on February 15, 1933.
        The Chair observes that in the course of the argument presented 
    by the gentleman from Mississippi in opposition to the point of 
    order he quoted the identical provision that was involved in the 
    point of order raised at that time. It was on the basis of the 
    language quoted by the gentleman from Mississippi that the ruling 
    of the Chair turned.
        On February 15, 1933, as shown in volume 76, part 4, of the 
    Congressional Record, the following occurred:

            The point of order is directed at the language in the bill 
        on line 10, page 2, which reads as follows: ``And the tax rate 
        in effect for the fiscal year 1933 on real estate and tangible 
        personal property subject to taxation in the District of 
        Columbia shall not be decreased for the fiscal year 1934.''

        The point of order was discussed at some length, after which 
    the Chair ruled as follows:

            The gentleman from Virginia makes the point of order 
        against the language appearing on page 2, line 10, which reads 
        as follows--

        And again quotes the language that has just been quoted.

            The point of order is that this language is legislation on 
        an appropriation bill. The Chair is of the opinion that it is 
        legislation on an appropriation bill, and therefore sustains 
        the point of order.

        The Chair also calls attention to section 3543 of Hinds' 
    Precedents of the House, volume 4, the syllabus of which is as 
    follows:

            Although a law may give an executive officer authority to 
        do a certain

[[Page 6035]]

        thing, a provision directing him so to do is legislative in 
        nature and not in order on a general appropriation bill.

        It is apparent, of course, that if it was not in order in a 
    general appropriation bill to authorize and direct the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia to not decrease the tax 
    rate for a certain year, obviously the same logic would require the 
    application of the rule to a proposed increase in the tax rate. In 
    other words, the question here presented is whether or not an 
    executive officer can be directed specifically and definitely not 
    to do a thing he is clearly given discretionary authority to do.
        The Chair feels that the language to which the point of order 
    is made is legislation on an appropriation bill, and therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Imposing Conditions on Exercise of Discretion

Sec. 51.4 Where existing law authorized the expenditure of funds for 
    the benefit and existence of Indians, under broad supervisory 
    powers given to the Secretary of the Interior, provisions in an 
    appropriation bill which imposed further conditions affecting both 
    the exercise of those powers and the use of funds were ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On May 14, 1937,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support 
        among the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, 
        grains, and other crops, $165,000, which sum may be used for 
        the purchase of seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, 
        and other equipment necessary, and for advances to Indians 
        having irrigable allotments to assist them in the development 
        and cultivation thereof, in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, to enable Indians to become self-supporting: 
        Provided, That the expenditures for the purposes above set 
        forth shall be under conditions to be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States on 
        or before June 30, 1943, except in the case of loans on 
        irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in 
        which the period for repayment may run for not exceeding 20 
        years, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior: 
        Provided further, That not to exceed $25,000 of the amount 
        herein appropriated shall be expended on any one reservation or 
        for the benefit of any one tribe of Indians: Provided further, 
        That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his 
        discretion and under such rules and regulations as he may 
        prescribe, to make advances from this appropriation to old, 
        disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, for their support, to 
        remain a charge and lien against their lands until paid: 
        Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 may be advanced to 
        worthy Indian youths to enable them to take educational 
        courses, including courses in nursing, home economics, 
        forestry, and other industrial subjects in colleges,

[[Page 6036]]

        universities, or other institutions, and advances so made shall 
        be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 years, under such rules and 
        regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    it imposes discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. 
    The language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules 
    and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, The Committee 
    Feels That This Provision is in Order. It provides only a method by 
    which the appropriation might be expended. I have no further 
    comment to make.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision in 
    existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has been 
    in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire further of the 
    gentleman with reference to the language appearing in lines 7 and 
    8, page 27, reading as follows:

            And advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 
        years under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
        Interior may prescribe.

        Will the gentleman advise the Chair as to any provision of 
    existing law upon which this language is based?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is the exact 
    language that has been used for several years and the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma knows of no specific basis of law for it.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
    The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known as 
the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, in 
which the following appears:

[[Page 6037]]

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.
    It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention has 
been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather broad 
discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the language to 
which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to a point of 
order, but that the language to which the Chair invited the attention 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the provisos does 
constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by the 
rules of the House. It naturally follows that as the point of order has 
to be sustained as to these two provisos, it has to be sustained as to 
the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order 
made by the gentleman from New York.

Specific Appropriation Where General Purpose Authorized

Sec.  51.5 While the appropriation of a lump sum for a general purpose 
    authorized by law is in order, a specific appropriation for a 
    particular item included in such general purpose is a limitation on 
    the discretion of the executive charged with allotment of the lump 
    sum and is not in order on an appropriation bill; thus a provision 
    of law giving general authorization for wildlife conservation 
    activities was held not to authorize earmarking part of an 
    appropriation to be expressly ``for the leasing and management of 
    the lands for the protection of the Florida Key deer.''

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4828, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 99 Cong. Rec. 4148, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Lantaff: On page 20, line 6, 
    immediately following the semicolon and preceding the word ``and'', 
    insert the following: ``not to exceed $10,000 for the leasing and 
    management of the lands for the protection of the Florida Key deer, 
    16 U.S.C. 661.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I hate to do it, 
    but I must make a point of order against this amendment. It is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).

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

[[Page 6038]]

        Mr. [William C.] Lantaff [of Florida]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The 
    reference to the United States Code authorizes the leasing of lands 
    by the Department of Interior and is so cited for that purpose. 
    This specific authorization is to authorize the leasing of land in 
    this particular area for this particular project and classifies it 
    much the same as the authorization contained in the bill for the 
    Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge and for the Crab Orchard National 
    Wildlife Refuge. In the bill you will find the statutory authority 
    cited the same as the statutory authority cited in the amendment 
    which I have offered. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has inspected section 661 of title 16 of the United 
    States Code, the provision which the gentleman from Florida cites 
    as authorizing the proposal contained in his amendment. That code 
    section gives fairly broad authorization to the Fish and Wildlife 
    Service for wildlife conservation, but it does not authorize 
    leasing of lands or the protection of key deer. The gentleman's 
    amendment would earmark funds for a narrow, specific purpose, a 
    purpose not mentioned in the code section which is general. 
    Reference is made to volume VII, section 1452, of Cannon's 
    Precedents, under which the Chair sustains the point of order.

Limitation on Hiring Discretion

Sec.  51.6 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that the 
    Civil Service Commission shall not impose a maximum age limitation 
    with respect to the appointment of persons to positions in the 
    competitive service who are otherwise qualified, was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1955,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5240), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 4065, 4066, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Civil Service Commission shall not impose a requirement 
        or limitation of maximum age with respect to the appointment of 
        persons to positions in the competitive service who are 
        otherwise qualified: Provided, That no person who has reached 
        his 70th birthday shall be appointed in the competitive civil 
        service on other than a temporary basis.

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order to the language on page 4, line 6 to line 12 inclusive, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . Mr. Chairman, I have offered this point of order against 
    certain provisions in title 1 relating to the Civil Service 
    Commission because it contains legislation in an appropriation act. 
    Under this legislative directive contained in the appropriation act 
    you would prohibit the Civil Service Commission from imposing any 
    requirement or limitation of maximum age

[[Page 6039]]

    whatsoever with respect to the appointment of persons in 
    competitive Civil Service. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Thomas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, may I say that our 
    distinguished colleague from Kansas (Mr. Rees) is usually right. 
    This is legislation.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman defer his point of order?
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: No, I shall not.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the language is legislation on an appropriation bill and the 
    point of order is sustained.

Mandating an Investigation Which Agency Has Discretion to Make

Sec. 51.7 Language in an appropriation bill directing the Public 
    Utilities Commission to make an investigation where existing law 
    authorized it in its discretion to make such investigation was held 
    to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
both Mr. Thomas J. O'Brien, of Illinois, and Mr. Jack Nichols, of 
Oklahoma, raised a point of order against the following provision as 
being legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  81 Cong. Rec. 3101, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Utilities Commission is directed to cause an 
    investigation to be made of the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. 
    with a view to ascertaining the reasonableness of existing rates, 
    tolls, charges, and services. . . .

    The manager of the bill (Mr. Ross A. Collins, of Mississippi) 
declined to argue the point of order and the Chair (15) 
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    both make a point of order against the language [above].
        Existing law provides that--

            Upon its own initiative or upon reasonable complaint made 
        against any public utility that any of the rates, tolls, 
        charges, or schedules or services or time and conditions of 
        payment, or any joint rate or rates, schedules or services are 
        in any respect unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or that 
        any time schedule, regulation, or act whatsoever affecting or 
        relating to the conduct of any street railway, etc., . . . the 
        Commission may in its discretion proceed, with or without 
        notice, to make such investigation as it may deem necessary or 
        convenient.

        Therefore, it is clearly to be seen that under existing law the 
    Public Utilities Commission has discretionary authority to make the 
    types of investigation that are embraced in the lan

[[Page 6040]]

    guage here upon which a point of order is made.
        This language in the pending bill seeks to direct the Public 
    Utilities Commissioners to do what they have clearly discretionary 
    authority to do. The effect of this language would be to direct the 
    Commissioners to do what they have authority to do within their 
    discretion. Therefore it is legislation on a general appropriation 
    bill and has the effect of changing existing law.
        The Chair would also like to invite attention to the same 
    provision of Hinds' Precedents, section 3853 of volume IV, to which 
    attention was invited in the course of a previous ruling made by 
    the Chair. This provision is as follows:

            Although a law may give an executive officer authority to 
        do a certain thing, a provision directing him so to do is 
        legislative in nature and not in order on a general 
        appropriation bill.

        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An apparently contrary ruling was made on 
May 10, 1946,(16) but would probably not be followed in 
current practice. On that date, the Chair held in order, as a 
limitation on an appropriation bill, language providing that no part of 
an appropriation for Indian reservation roads be available except on 
the basis of an apportionment among the states made in a specified 
manner. The Chair rejected the argument of Mr. Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, that, to make mandatory on the part of an executive 
officer an action within his discretion under existing law, was, in 
fact, to change existing law by interfering with the officer's 
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 4854, 4855, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mandating Uniformity in Mortgage Commitments

Sec. 51.8 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that no funds 
    in the bill be used for expenses of issuing mortgage commitments 
    under the National Housing Act other than on a basis of issuing 
    such commitments to all segments of the population was held to be 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 100 Cong. Rec. 4267, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Page 
    65, line 11, after the colon and the words ``(12 U.S.C. 1701)'', 
    insert the following: ``Provided, That no part of any appropriation 
    or fund in this act shall be used for administrative expenses in 
    connection with the issuance of mort

[[Page 6041]]

    gage commitments under all titles of the National Housing Act, as 
    amended, other than on the basis of the issuance of such mortgage 
    commitments to all segments of the population, including those 
    segments which are unable to obtain adequate housing under 
    established home-financing programs, as nearly as possible on the 
    basis of effective housing demand as determined by market analyses 
    prepared by the Federal Housing Administration.''
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and requires additional duties of an agency.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: (18) It appears on its face it is an 
    interference with executive discretion; therefore the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting Funds, Not Discretion

Sec. 51.9 It is in order on a general appropriation bill to provide 
    that no part, or not more than a specified amount, of an 
    appropriation shall be used in a certain way, even though executive 
    discretion be thereby negatively restricted.

    On Sept. 14, 1972,(19) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 30749, 30750, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. 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]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve the point of order on the language of the proposed 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman reserve his 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Chairman, I am simply trying to protect my 
    rights on grounds the gentleman from Wisconsin----
        Mr. Davis of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman wishes 
    to argue, I wish he would argue it and not take up my time.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to state his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Wyman: 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: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin care to be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 6042]]

        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 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.

    Parliamentarians Note: The persuasive precedent standing for this 
proposition is found in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694.

Sec. 51.10 Where, under existing law, federal officials have some 
    discretionary authority to withhold federal funds where the 
    recipients are not in compliance with a federally expressed policy, 
    it is nevertheless in order, by way of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, to deny the use of funds for a particular 
    purpose, even though such executive discretion is thereby 
    restricted by implication.
    On July 31, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any school or 
    the attendance of students at a particular school as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State, school district, or school.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of 
    the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not 
    a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional 
    duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408 
    because it would require additional personnel to determine whether 
    busing has been used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, 
    two, to require the attendance of any student at any particular 
    school. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has raised a 
    point of order against section 409 on the ground that it 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. The gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) insists that the language is in 
    order as a limitation.
        The Chair has reviewed the section in question. It prohibits 
    the use of funds in this bill to force first, the busing of 
    students; second, the abolishment of any school; or third the 
    attendance of students at a particular school.
        The clear intent of this section is to impose a negative 
    restriction on the use of the moneys contained in this bill.

[[Page 6043]]

        The Chair has examined a decision in a situation similar to 
    that presented by the current amendment in the 86th Congress during 
    consideration of the Defense Department appropriation bill, an 
    amendment was offered by Mr. O'Hara, of Michigan, which provided . 
    . . (that) no funds appropriated in that bill should be used to pay 
    on a contract which was awarded to the higher of two bidders 
    because of certain Defense Department policies. The Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole, Mr. Keogh, of New York, held the amendment 
    in order as a limitation, even though it touched on the policy of 
    an executive department--86th Congress, May 5, 1960; Congressional 
    Record, volume 106, part 7, page 9641. Chairman Keogh quoted, in 
    his decision, the precedent carried in section 3968 of volume IV, 
    Hinds' Precedents, and the Chair thinks the headnote of that 
    earlier precedent is applicable here:

            The House may provide that no part of an appropriation 
        shall be used in a certain way, even though executive 
        discretion be thereby negatively restricted.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Requiring Discretionary Action To Be Eligible For Funds

Sec. 51.11 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, prohibiting 
    the use of funds in the bill for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    to issue nuclear powerplant operating licenses in any state which 
    does not have an emergency evacuation plan which has been tested 
    and submitted to the Commission pursuant to law, was ruled out as 
    legislation since requiring the Commission to make the 
    determination, not required by law, whether the plan had been 
    tested by the state.
    On June 18, 1979,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the energy and water appropriation bill (H.R. 
4399), a point of order against an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 15286, 15287, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: On 
        page 27 after line 23, add:
            ``No monies appropriated in this paragraph may be expended 
        by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the issuance of an 
        operating license for a nuclear powerplant located in a state 
        which does not have an emergency evacuation plan which has been 
        tested, and submitted to the Commission pursuant to law.''. . .

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, the proposed 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) is a 
    violation of rule XXI, clause 2. The requirement that a State must 
    adopt and issue an evacuation plan I think is suspect, but the 
    words ``which has been tested'' clearly make it a violation of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, in that it is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It requires a duty not now required by law.

[[Page 6044]]

        I cite the precedents from Deschler's Procedure, chapter 26, 
    11.3, which reads:

            It is not in order, in an appropriation bill, to impose 
        additional duties on an executive officer or to make the 
        appropriation contingent on the performance of such duties. May 
        28, 1968 . . . where, to a bill making appropriations for the 
        Department of State, including an item for the U.S. 
        contribution to various international organizations, an 
        amendment providing that none of the funds might be expended 
        until all other members of such organizations have met their 
        financial obligations, was ruled out as legislation which 
        imposed a duty on a Federal official to determine the extent of 
        such obligations.

        In the same chapter, paragraph 11.24:

            To a bill making supplemental appropriations to various 
        agencies, including an additional amount for assistance to 
        refugees in the United States, an amendment specifying that no 
        part of this particular appropriation shall be used until 
        adequate screening procedures are established to prohibit the 
        infiltration of communists posing as Cuban refugees, imposed 
        additional duties and was ruled out as legislation.

        I think that chapter 18.1 is probably more in point of issue. 
    This was a foreign aid program.

            To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
        foreign assistance, an amendment prohibiting the use of any 
        funds carried in the bill for certain capital projects costing 
        in excess of $1 million `until the head of the agency involved 
        has received and considered a report, prepared by officials 
        within the agency, on the justification and feasibility of such 
        project' was held to impose additional duties and was ruled out 
        as legislation.

        Mr. Chairman, it is very clear in the rules where an amendment 
    to language in a general appropriations bill implicitly places new 
    duties on officers of the Government or implicitly requires them to 
    make investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
    determinations not required of them by law, such as a judge, was 
    conceded to be legislation and subject to a point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, this clearly places some responsibility of 
    testing on someone, rather vague, but not now required by law, who 
    is to conduct the test, how it is to be conducted, and what 
    criterion. There is no evidence of any so-called laws or rules 
    today. It is clearly a violation of rule XXI, clause 2. . . .
        Mr. Weaver:  . . . The amendment reads very factually, and it 
    reads pursuant to law. It makes no new law, Mr. Chairman.
        As a matter of fact, the law is already there in the Atomic 
    Energy Act, chapter 10, atomic energy licenses, and under section 
    103 (a) and (b), it gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    complete authority for the public health and safety to do the kind 
    of licensing that is now being done.
        What the amendment does is not like the examples shown by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Myers), such as screening or imposing 
    new duties on any Government, any Federal Government official at 
    all. It simply says that if a plant has an emergency evacuation 
    plan that has been tested and submitted to the NRC, pursuant to 
    law; it imposes no new duties on the Federal official. It does not 
    require them to go out implicitly or explicitly and make

[[Page 6045]]

    any investigation of any kind, and just simply go on doing the 
    duties they have been doing under the law that they now act upon. 
    So it is the normal course of duty.
        It just simply says that no new operating license will be 
    granted a plant if this factual situation has not been 
    met. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) . . . The Chair has examined the 
    law with respect to the authority of the NRC to request submission 
    of State emergency evacuation plans, in determining whether to 
    issue an operating license. Under 42 U.S.C. 2133 and 2137, the NRC 
    has virtually total discretionary authority to request or require 
    the submission of any information by a prospective licensee which 
    relates to the public health and safety aspects of the operation of 
    nuclear power plants in any State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment, however, imposes additional 
    duties on the NRC to determine if a State plan has been tested by 
    the State.
        Consequently, the amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Myers) is sustained.

Affirmative Interference With Discretion

Sec. 51.12 It is not in order in a general appropriation bill under the 
    guise of a limitation to affirmatively interfere with executive 
    discretion by coupling a restriction on the payment of funds for 
    salaries with a positive direction to perform certain duties in a 
    particular manner.

    On Oct. 9, 1974,(5) paragraph of a general appropriation 
bill prohibiting the payment of funds therein for salaries of Federal 
Trade Commission personnel who use, publish, or permit access to 
certain information by designated methods--and also requiring the FTC 
to obtain that information ``under existing practices and procedure or 
as changed by law'' was conceded to change existing law by restricting 
the information-gathering practices of the agency and was ruled out in 
violation of Rule XXI clause 2. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 34712, 34713, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(6) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            federal trade commission

            No part of these funds may be used to pay the salary of any 
        employee, including Commissioners, of the Federal Trade 
        Commission who--
            (1) Uses the information provided in the line-of-business 
        program for any purpose other than statistical purposes. Such 
        information for carrying out specific law enforcement 
        responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
        obtained under

[[Page 6046]]

        existing practices and procedures or as changed by law. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the paragraph last read, commencing on page 46, line 17, 
    through page 47, line 6. . . .
        The specific language that violates [Rule XXI clause 2] is the 
    language contained in the last sentence on page 46, reading as 
    follows:

            Such information for carrying out specific law enforcement 
        responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
        obtained under existing practices and procedures or as changed 
        by law.

        Mr. Chairman, rule XXI, under all of the precedents, clearly 
    outlaws a change in substantive law, that is, it clearly outlaws a 
    provision by which an administrator of an agency may after the 
    passage of that clause not do an act which he could have done 
    before.
        This clause says that persons in the Federal Trade Commission 
    shall not alter the existing practices with respect to such 
    gathering of information for law enforcement practices.
        Today that agency might do anything it wants to do within the 
    balance of law and it is not bound to continue its existing 
    practices. It can obtain information in other ways. If this 
    provision were passed, it would restrict it in that respect.
        In this connection, I cite in support of the position I take 
    the provisions of Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, section 1685:

            A limitation to be admissible must be a limitation upon the 
        appropriation and not an affirmative limitation upon official 
        discretion.

        Following that, in section 1686, it says:

            A limitation upon an appropriation must not be accompanied 
        by provisions requiring affirmative action by an Executive in 
        order to render the appropriation available.

        Therefore, under these provisions, the administrator would be 
    bound and confined to his existing practices, whereas presently he 
    might exercise any rational means of gaining such information that 
    is permitted by law. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Rule XXI, clause 2, is 
    well known, I am sure, to the Chair.
        Rule XXI, clause 2, forbids legislation in appropriation bills.
        The gentleman from Texas has just cited the specific paragraphs 
    and citations in Cannon's Precedents.
        The question is, Is the language referred to by the gentleman 
    from Texas, referring most specifically to page 46, lines 22 and 
    following, reading as follows:

            Such information for carrying out specific law enforcement 
        responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
        obtained under existing practices and procedures or as changed 
        by law--

        A limitation? . . .
        A clear reading of the language before the committee at this 
    particular time that ``Such information for carrying out specific 
    law enforcement responsibilities shall be obtained under existing 
    practices'' is not a limitation, but, rather, is an express 
    direction to the Federal Trade Commission as to how that agency 
    shall conduct its affairs. It does not limit discretion, but,

[[Page 6047]]

    rather, it imposes certain specific duties upon the Federal Trade 
    Commission.
        The language further offends against the law, Mr. Chairman, in 
    that it does require certain other affirmative duties and actions 
    by the Federal Trade Commission. Most specifically, Mr. Chairman, 
    it requires that the Federal Trade Commission engage in an 
    ascertainment of what is the existing law and that they then 
    proceed to act in accordance therewith.
        This does not constitute a limitation, but, rather, constitutes 
    an affirmative mandate. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order, and I will offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and sustained, 
    and the language beginning on line 17, page 46, and continuing 
    through line 6, page 47, is stricken by the point of order.

Limitation of Funds Resulting in Curtailed Discretion

Sec. 51.13 While it is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    directly limit executive discretionary authority or to change 
    entitlement benefits or contractual provisions established pursuant 
    to law, it is permissible by a negative restriction on the use of 
    funds to deny availability of funds although resulting 
    circumstances might suggest a change in applicability of law.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(7) the Chair ruled that an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill denying the use of funds therein to pay 
for an abortion, or administrative expenses in connection with any 
federal employees health benefits plan which provides any benefits or 
coverage for abortions after the last day of contracts currently in 
force, did not constitute legislation, since the amendment did not 
directly interfere with executive discretion in contracting to 
establish such plans. (It is permissible by limitation to negatively 
deny the availability of funds although discretionary authority may be 
indirectly curtailed and contracts may be left unsatisfied.) The 
proceedings are discussed in Sec. 74.5, infra. For general discussion 
of permissible limitations, see Sec. 64, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 22171, 22172, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.14 To language in an appropriation bill containing funds for 
    the Federal Trade Commission for the purpose of collecting line-of-
    business data, an amendment providing that none of those funds 
    shall be used for collecting such data from more than 250 firms was 
    held to constitute a valid limitation

[[Page 6048]]

    on the availability of funds in the bill, rather than an express 
    restriction on the scope of the FTC investigation.

    On June 21, 1974,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 15472 (agriculture, environment, and 
consumer appropriation bill), an amendment was held in order as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 20601, 20602, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of 
        Mississippi]: Page 47, line 6, after the word ``data'' add the 
        following: ``Provided, That none of these funds shall be used 
        for collecting line-of-business data from not [sic] more than 
        250 firms, including data presently made available to the 
        Bureau of the Census, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
        and other government agencies where authorized by law.'' . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of order 
    is under House Rule XXI, Clause 2, second sentence. . . .
        Now, under existing law and without the limitations reported to 
    be added in this bill the Federal Trade Commission could and had 
    intended--and, of course, what it actually intended is not material 
    here, because the question is what it could have done--it could 
    have used the funds as appropriated here for either 250 firms or 
    500 firms or any other number of firms. So what is done by this 
    amendment is to restrict the Federal Trade Commission with respect 
    to powers and duties and authorities which it would have but for 
    this limitation.
        The authorities on this point appear in volume VII of Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1675, which reads:

            A proper limitation does not interfere with executive 
        discretion or require affirmative action on the part of the 
        Government officials. . . .

        It would also require liaison with the Bureau of Census, the 
    Securities and Exchange Commission, and other Government agencies 
    which are not here designated but which would cover the whole gamut 
    of such agencies.
        So it both provides a limitation on executive discretion and 
    affirmative acts on the part of Government officials. . . .
        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: 
    . . . Public Law 93-153 authorizes line-of-business data to be 
    collected by independent regulatory agencies subject to certain 
    procedures. It did not limit or restrict the collection of this 
    data to any specific number of firms, as the gentleman's amendment 
    would; he would change this policy by arbitrarily limiting the 
    collection of the data specifically to 250 firms.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 93-153 does not authorize 
    the collection of line-of-business data from the Bureau of the 
    Census of the Security and Exchange Commission. This authority was 
    placed in an ``independent regulatory agency.''. . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First, let the Chair state that this subject contains a very 
    vexing point,

[[Page 6049]]

    and it is one that has required a lot of attention of the Chair, 
    even prior to the arguments here.
        The words in contest on this point of order are the following 
    words added by the amendment:

            . . . provided that none of the funds shall be used for 
        collecting line-of-business data from not more than 250 firms, 
        including data presently made available by the Bureau of the 
        Census, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other 
        government agencies where authorized by law.

        It is clear to the Chair that the words ``provided that none of 
    these funds shall be used for collecting line of business data of 
    not more than 250 firms'' may clearly be added as an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill, and it is in order. The Committee on 
    Appropriations could have refused to bring in any appropriation at 
    all for this agency, and the committee seeks by this amendment to 
    put a limitation upon the use of funds available to the FTC. The 
    limitation is drafted as a restriction on the use of funds, and not 
    as an affirmative restriction on the scope of the FTC 
    investigation, as was the case in the language stricken from the 
    bill on the preceding point of order.
        The remainder of the amendment raises some question, but in the 
    opinion of the Chair, these words are clearly limited by ``where 
    authorized by law,' and do not permit the Census Bureau of the SEC 
    to initiate line of business investigations, so the Chair is going 
    to rule that the amendment is in order and that the points of order 
    are overruled.

Limitation on Funds May Change Announced Policy

Sec. 51.15 While a limitation on a general appropriation bill may not 
    involve changes of existing law or affirmatively restrict executive 
    discretion, it may by a simple denial of the use of funds change 
    administrative policy and be in order; thus, a point of order 
    against a provision prohibiting the use of funds for any reduction 
    in Customs Service regions or for any consolidation of Customs 
    Service offices was overruled.

    On June 27, 1984,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), a point of order against a provision in 
the bill was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. ---- , 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 617. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
        be used to plan, implement, or administer (1) any reduction in 
        the number of regions, districts or entry processing locations 
        of the United States Customs Service; or (2) any consolidation 
        or centralization of duty assessment or appraisement functions 
        of any offices of the United States Customs Service.

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order

[[Page 6050]]

    against section 617. . . . Section 617 prohibits the use of funds 
    in this appropriation for a reduction in the number of Customs 
    entry processing points and any consolidation of duty assessment or 
    appraisement functions in any of the offices of the Customs 
    Service.
        This negates Public Law 91-271 which gives the President the 
    authority to rearrange or make consolidations at points of entry at 
    the District Offices or at headquarters.
        In addition, in my judgment the language is so broad as to 
    interfere with existing administrative authority to carry out its 
    appraisement functions as required by law. Section 617 goes beyond 
    the limitation of funds which are the subject of this appropriation 
    and constitutes an effort to change existing law under the guise of 
    a limitation. There seems to be in section 617 almost a complete 
    prohibition of executive discretion to make any changes to help the 
    Customs Service carry out its duties. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, section 
    617 is a simple limitation again on an appropriation bill. It does 
    not change the application of existing law. It merely prohibits the 
    use of funds to pay for any Government employee who tries to 
    prevent the law from being enforced. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the section does not 
    mandate spending but rather limits the use of funds to consolidate 
    Customs regions and is as such a negative limitation on the use of 
    funds. And the Chair would cite Mr. Cannons volume 7 of Precedents, 
    section 1694:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive discretion, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in 
        order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694 is discussed in the introduction to 
        this section (Sec. 51), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore it is the ruling of the Chair that the gentleman's 
    point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent must be distinguished from 
cases where an amendment, by double negative or otherwise, can be 
interpreted to require the spending of more money--for example, an 
amendment prohibiting the use of funds to keep less than a certain 
number of people employed. (A ``floor'' on employment levels would be 
tantamount to an affirmative direction to hire no fewer than a 
specified number of employees.)

Limiting Funds to Promulgate Regulations

Sec. 51.16 While an agency may have authority to promulgate new 
    regulations which would change existing regulations, it is in order 
    in a general appropriation bill to deny the use of funds therein 
    for agency proceedings relating to changes in regulations.

[[Page 6051]]

    The ruling of the Chair on June 27, 1984,(13) was that 
language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds 
therein to eliminate an existing legal requirement for sureties on 
customs bonds was in order as a valid limitation merely denying funds 
to change existing law and regulations. The point of order was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec.---- , 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 513 on page 38.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 513. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
        the Department of Treasury may be used for the purpose of 
        eliminating any existing requirement for sureties on customs 
        bonds. . . .

        [This provision] violates rule XXI, clause 2. The section 
    prohibits the use of funds for the continuation of customs 
    rulemaking with respect to existing requirements for sureties on 
    customs bonds.
        The Customs Service has broad administrative authority to 
    establish guidelines for posting bonds for the payment of customs 
    duties.
        The rulemaking process is now underway to determine whether 
    existing requirements for sureties on customs bonds should be 
    modified or replaced altogether.
        Section 513 goes beyond the limitations of funds which are the 
    subject of this appropriation and constitutes an effort to change 
    existing law under the guise of a limitation. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would rule that in fact this section does constitute 
    a proper limitation consistent with the existing law and overrules 
    the gentleman's point of order.

Limiting Funds to Administer Program

Sec. 51.17 A section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of any funds therein by the Environmental Protection Agency 
    ``to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate 
    parking facilities'' was held in order as a negative limitation on 
    the use of funds in the bill.

    The ruling on Oct. 9, 1974,(15) supports the principle 
that, although language in a general appropriation bill may not by its 
terms directly curtail a discretionary authority conferred by law, the 
Committee on Appropriations may, by refusing to recommend funds for all 
or part of an authorized executive function, thereby effect a change in 
policy to the extent of its denial of avail

[[Page 6052]]

ability of funds.(16) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 34716, 34717, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694, discussed in the introduction 
        to this section (Sec. 51), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 511. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act 
        may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
        administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate 
        parking facilities. . . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: I make a point of order 
    in opposition to the section the Clerk has just read, section 511, 
    line 17.
        The point of order is that under rule XXI, clause 2, it is 
    legislation under an appropriation bill. It changes existing law 
    and is not merely a limitation under the appropriation.
        I cite Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, section 1691: 
    (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1691 is discussed in the introduction to 
        this section (Sec. 51), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order. . . .

        The committee report on H.R. 16901 indicates that the intent of 
    section 511 is to make new law, not to ``retrench expenditures.''. 
    . .
        What is intended is a direct limitation on the exercise of 
    administrative authority, not a limitation on appropriations. The 
    report does not state any intent to save money. It does not state 
    how much money, if any, would be saved. Nor does it explain how 
    this provision would in any way save money. The report's reference 
    to a substantive investigation of the effects of EPA regulations 
    confirms the view that section 511 is purely substantive lawmaking. 
    There is no pretense in the report that this provision is intended 
    to, or actually will have the effect of reducing appropriations or 
    saving any money. Its intent and effect is simply to repeal a 
    portion of the Clean Air Act. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman . . . the 
    language referred to does constitute legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and it is not a limitation upon appropriation 
    but an affirmative limitation upon official discretion, as referred 
    to in section 1685 and also in sections 1684 and 1683 of Cannon's 
    Precedents, referred to by me earlier in the discussion as to 
    previous points of order raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) to earlier portions of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair has examined the 
    language on page 51 of the bill, lines 17 through 20. The Chair 
    also has examined the arguments put forth by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) who raised the point of order. The Chair has 
    examined the precedents. The Chair finds that this is merely a 
    limitation on an appropriation, and suggests that the Committee on 
    Appropriations could have refused to bring in any appropriation at 
    all for the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, negatively 
    denying their making funds available to EPA for

[[Page 6053]]

    some purposes while availability for other purposes is certainly no 
    more than a limitation on the appropriation bill. This is an old, 
    established precedent of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the Members to the language 
    appearing in Cannon's Precedents on page 686 of volume 7, section 
    1694, in which Mr. Tilson of Connecticut was in the Chair, and made 
    a very similar ruling ``that a change in policy can be made by the 
    failure of Congress to appropriate for an authorized project.'' 
    Therefore the point of order is overruled.

Restriction Not on Funds But on Discretion

Sec. 51.18 While it is in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    limit the availability of funds therein for part of an authorized 
    purpose while appropriating for the remainder of it, language which 
    restricts not the funds but the discretionary authority of a 
    federal official administering those funds may be ruled out as 
    legislation (see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1673).

    On June 21, 1974,(19) during consideration of H.R. 15472 
(Agriculture Department, environment, and consumer appropriation bill), 
a point of order was sustained against the following paragraph in the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 20600, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            $305,000, the amount of the budget request, is hereby 
        appropriated for the purpose of collecting line-of-business 
        data, as approved by General Accounting Office Opinion B-
        180229, issued May 13, 1974, from not to exceed 250 firms, 
        including data presently made available to the Bureau of the 
        Census, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other 
        government agencies where authorized by law. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, rule 21, clause 
    2, clearly provides that no appropriation bill shall contain any 
    provision changing existing law. The language on page 47, beginning 
    at the word ``data,'' on lines 8 through 12, clearly violates this 
    rule in that it significantly alters the effective provisions of 
    section 409(a) of Public Law 93-153--an act dealing with the trans-
    Alaska oil pipeline.
        The purpose of section 409(a) of Public Law 93-153 is to 
    preserve the independence of the regulatory agencies to carry out 
    the quasi-judicial functions which have been entrusted to them by 
    the Congress. We did not intend a broad proliferation of detailed 
    questionnaires to industry and businesses which would result in 
    unnecessary and unreasonable expense, but the provisions of H.R. 
    15472, which are the subject of my point of order, make substantive 
    changes and place arbitrary limitations on the procedures 
    prescribed by Public Law 93-153.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, in construing the provisions of an 
    appropriation bill, if the intent is to restrict executive 
    discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy 
    rather than a matter of administrative detail, then the point of 
    order should be sustained. This provision of H.R.

[[Page 6054]]

    15472 not only restricts executive discretion by its specific 
    terms, but it has the effect of changing existing law in violation 
    of rule 21, clause 2.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    now concede the point of order and offer my amendment?
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman concedes the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Double Negative Curtailing Discretion Requiring Affirmative Action

Sec. 51.19 Where existing law directed a federal official to provide 
    for the sale of certain government property to private 
    organizations in ``necessary'' amounts, but did not require that 
    all such property shall be distributed by sale, an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill providing that no such property shall be 
    withheld from distribution from qualifying purchasers was ruled out 
    as legislation requiring disposal of all property and restricting 
    discretionary authority to determine ``necessary'' amounts and not 
    constituting (as required by the Holman rule) a certain 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 13635), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 24707, 24708, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: On 
        page 8, after line 10, add the following new section:
            None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
        in this Act shall be obligated or expended for salaries or 
        expenses during the current fiscal year in connection with the 
        demilitarization of any arms as advertised by the Department of 
        Defense, Defense Logistics Agency sale number 31-8118 issued 
        January 24, 1978, and listed as ``no longer needed by the 
        Federal Government'' and that such arms shall not be withheld 
        from distribution to purchasers who qualify for purchase of 
        said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 
        4308. . . .

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the amendment on the ground that I believe that 
    it is legislation within a general appropriation bill and, 
    therefore, violates the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. John T. Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple limitation 
    amendment. It merely limits the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    continue to carry out existing law. It does not provide any new 
    law. It simply says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry 
    out the prevailing, existing law. . . .

[[Page 6055]]

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, rule 21, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House (House Rules and Manual pages 426-427) 
    specifies that an amendment to an appropriation bill is in order if 
    it meets certain tests, such as:
        First. It must be germane;
        Second. It must be negative in nature;
        Third. It must show retrenchment on its face;
        Fourth. It must impose no additional or affirmative duties or 
    amend existing law.
        First. [The amendment] is germane. As the amendment applies to 
    the distribution of arms by the Defense Logistics Agency, it is not 
    exclusively an Army of civilian marksmanship amendment, so should 
    not be placed elsewhere in the bill. . . .
        Second. It is negative in nature. It limits expenditure of 
    funds by the Defense Department by prohibiting the destruction and 
    scrapping of arms which qualify for sale through the civilian 
    marksmanship program, which is a division of the executive created 
    by statute.
        Third. It shows retrenchment on its face. Retrenchment is 
    demonstrated in that the Department of Defense if prohibited from 
    expending funds to destroy surplus military arms, and that the arms 
    previously earmarked for destruction will be made available in 
    accordance with existing statute. . . . The House, in adding this 
    amendment, will secure additional funds for the Treasury which the 
    General Accounting Office has determined is adequate to pay costs 
    of handling the arms. For example, the M-1 rifles are to be sold at 
    a cost of $110 each. These are the arms most utilized by the 
    civilian marksmanship program. The Defense Department will not be 
    required to spend additional funds to process the sale of 
    additional arms. . . .
        [The amendment] does not impose additional or affirmative 
    duties or amend existing law. . . .
        Regulations issued AR 725-1 and AR 920-20 provide for the 
    issuance of arms by application and qualification through the 
    Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The DCM shall then submit sale 
    orders for the Armament Readiness Military Command (ARCOM) to fill 
    the requests of these qualified civilians. Thus, the amendment 
    simply requires the performance of duties already imposed by the 
    Army's own regulation. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I particularly call attention of the 
    Chair to the second half of the amendment, which imposes an 
    affirmative duty on the Secretary, saying that such arms shall not 
    be withheld from distribution to purchasers who qualify for 
    purchase of said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, 
    section 4308.
        Under the general existing law, there are all kinds of 
    discretions that are allowed to the Secretary to decide whether or 
    not such arms shall be distributed. Under this amendment, the 
    existing law is to be changed and those arms may not be withheld. 
    The practical purpose is to turn lose 400,000 to 500,000 rifles 
    into the body politic.
        But the parliamentary effect is clearly to change the existing 
    law under which the Secretary can exercise all kinds of discretion 
    in deciding whether or not those arms will be distributed.

[[Page 6056]]

    Under this amendment it not only limits the fact that the funds may 
    be obligated but it specifically goes on to affirmatively direct 
    the Secretary to distribute such arms under title X, which is an 
    affirmative obligation, which is exactly the kind of obligation the 
    rules prohibit, and I renew my point of order. . . .

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the section to which the gentleman refers, 
    title 10, United States Code, section 4308, and is of the opinion 
    that it does not require that all firearms be distributed to 
    qualified purchasers. The Chair further feels that while the first 
    part of the amendment is a limitation, the last part of the 
    amendment is a curtailment of Executive discretion, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Agency Required to Furnish Information to Subcommittees

Sec. 51.20 Where existing law (7 USC Sec. 12(e)) requires the 
    Commodities Exchange Commission to furnish to committees of 
    Congress upon request certain information relating to commodities 
    traders, an amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting 
    the use of funds therein for denial by that commission of requests 
    by congressional committees and subcommittees of any information 
    (including but not limited to that specifically required to be 
    furnished by law) was held to be legislation, being an interference 
    with the discretion of executive officials with respect to 
    responses to broader categories of requests.

    On July 29, 1980,(3) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds for the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission to deny to congressional committees and 
subcommittees, acting within their jurisdiction, any information and 
data, including that described in section 8 of the Commodity Exchange 
Act, requested by such committees or subcommittees, was held to be 
legislation, since section 8 of that act only required certain 
specified information to be submitted to full committees, and not to 
subcommittees. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 20098-100, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New 
        York]: On page 49, line 9, after the ``period'' add the 
        following:
            ``No part of the funds appropriated herein shall be used by 
        the Commission to deny to committees and subcommittees of the 
        House of Representatives or of the Senate, acting within the 
        scope of their jurisdiction,

[[Page 6057]]

        any information and data in the Commission's possession 
        (including that described in section 8 of the Commodity 
        Exchange Act) requested by such committee or subcommittee.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do insist on my point of order. . . .
        Here is what the law says, if I may read it:

            Upon the request of any committee of either House of 
        Congress, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction. . . .

        So the law clearly says ``any committee.''
        I turn to Webster's dictionary where it says that a 
    subcommittee is, by definition, ``an under committee,'' ``a part or 
    a division of a committee.''
        So while the subcommittee may have a great desire, a great 
    need, to have the information, the law makes it available to the 
    committee, and a subcommittee frequently is--and even usually is--
    greatly outnumbered by the full committee.
        I respectfully submit that this provision would be subject to a 
    point of order because it gives authority that does not exist in 
    law or prohibits the use of that which is preempted by 
    law. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . I think, in practical terms, the position 
    espoused by the distinguished chairman of the committee would make 
    it totally unworkable for any investigative committee albeit any 
    subcommittee here in the Congress, to do its work.
        What happens in the beginning in the Committee on Government 
    Operations, the committee meets and assigns general areas and 
    investigative jurisdiction to each of the subcommittees, covering 
    four, five, six or seven various agencies, and in those rules of 
    the Committee on Government Operations it invests the subcommittee 
    with the full authority that the House has given to the full 
    committee. . . .
        Now, the statute clearly says, section 11:

            The CFTC shall give to the committee all the information 
        they have.

        So the only question, the narrowly defined question, is whether 
    the subcommittee is the repository of any statutory authority that 
    the full committee has.
        Let me read to this body, and I really reluctantly burden my 
    colleagues with this, but I think it is relevant and important to 
    read what the court held in Barenblatt v. United States (240 F.2d 
    75, 1957): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
    decided that a witness' refusal to answer questions before a 
    subcommittee and pertinent to a subcommittee's investigation, 
    violated the title 2, United States Code, section 192, which 
    provides for criminal sanction against persons who, having been 
    summoned, ``refuse to answer questions before . . . any committee 
    of either House of Congress.''
        We have the exact language--``before . . . any committee of 
    either House of Congress.''

[[Page 6058]]

        A unanimous court held as follows:

            It is also contended that the indictment is fatally 
        defective in that it alleges a refusal to answer questions 
        before a subcommittee of a committee, and that Congress did not 
        intend to make it a crime to refuse to answer questions of a 
        subcommittee. . . . We disagree. Nothing has been shown which 
        reflects that Congress has indicated such belief. We only 
        construe the statute in light of the obvious purpose for its 
        enactment. That purpose was to discourage the impairment of the 
        vital investigative function of Congress. The function Congress 
        sought to protect is as often committed to subcommittees as it 
        is to full committees of Congress, as indeed it must be. 
        Construing the statute in a manner consistent with its obvious 
        purpose . . . we hold that Congress intended the word 
        ``committee'' in its generic sense, which would include 
        subcommittees.

        There are dozens of decisions along the very same lines. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair believes [that the point of order is 
    correct as to] the use of funds to deny submission of information 
    to the subcommittee, but more importantly that the information to 
    be submitted in the amendment is much broader than the information 
    defined in the statute 7 U.S.C. section 12(e). The point of order 
    is sustained.



Sec. 51.21 Where existing law (7 USC Sec. 12(e)) requires an agency to 
    furnish certain information to congressional committees upon 
    request, it is not in order on a general appropriation bill to make 
    funds for that agency contingent upon its furnishing information 
    upon request to subcommittees.

    On July 30, 1980,(5) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds for the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission to deny congressional subcommittees, acting 
at the direction and as an agent of the full committee, certain 
information required by the Commodity Exchange Act to be submitted to a 
congressional committee upon request, was held to be legislation, in 
the absence of a conclusive showing by the proponent of the amendment 
that changing the specific language of the Commodity Exchange Act 
requirement to cover requests by subcommittees as well as committees, 
did not change existing law. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 20475, 20476, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: 
    On page 49, line 9, after the ``period'' add the following:
        ``No part of the funds appropriated herein shall be used by the 
    Commission to deny to subcommittees of the House of Representatives 
    or of the Senate, acting at the direction of and as an agent of a 
    full committee, any information in the possession of the Commission 
    relating to the amount of

[[Page 6059]]

    commodities purchased or sold by such trader as provided by Sec. 
    8(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act to be made available to any 
    committee of either House of Congress acting within the scope of 
    its jurisdiction.''. . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . I make a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it constitutes legislation on 
    an appropriations bill. The amendment of the gentleman from New 
    York does not track the statute which sets out specific conditions 
    under which information may be required of the Commodity Futures 
    Trade Commission.
        Mr. Chairman, the Commission is authorized to release 
    information to any judicial body or congressional committee and is 
    required to do so only at the request of a committee of the House 
    of Representatives or the Senate. What the gentleman from New York 
    seeks to do is to substitute an additional requirement that, when 
    acting at the direction and as an agent of the committee, a 
    subcommittee may request such information.
        Mr. Chairman, all subcommittees act at the direction of and as 
    agents of full committees or they do not act properly because they 
    are creatures of full committees. This in fact does not change the 
    situation that a subcommittee is a subcommittee and not a full 
    committee. It requires an additional limitation on an appropriation 
    other than a limitation of funds and constitutes a violation of the 
    rule against legislation on appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully would like to bring to the 
    attention of the Chair page 342 of Deschler's Procedures, section 
    10.9:

            While it is not in order in an appropriation bill, under 
        the guise of a limitation, to impose additional burdens and 
        duties on an executive of the federal government, amendments 
        requiring the recipients of funds carried in the bill to be in 
        compliance [with] existing law have been permitted, on the 
        theory that the concerned federal officials are already under 
        an obligation to oversee the enforcement of existing law and 
        are thus burdened by no additional duties by the amendment. . . 
        .

        Additionally section 10.13 reads as follows:

            An amendment prohibiting the payment of expenses from funds 
        in an appropriation bill, and containing language descriptive 
        of the persons to whom the restriction applied, was held in 
        order as a limitation on the use of funds in that bill which 
        did not directly impose affirmative duties upon executive 
        officials. 120 Cong. Rec. 21046, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., June 25, 
        1974 (H.R. 15544, Treasury, Postal Service, and executive 
        office appropriations, fiscal 1975), where an amendment 
        providing that ``no funds shall be expended for persons during 
        periods of their refusal to comply with valid congressional 
        subpenas was held in order as a valid limitation which did not 
        directly require executive officials to make determinations as 
        to the validity of those subpenas. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is confronted with the language of a specific 
    statute, and the fact that the amendment deviates from the statute 
    must have some effect, it would be assumed to expand the terms of 
    the law absent a conclusive showing to the contrary and therefore 
    it would be leg

[[Page 6060]]

    islation on an appropriation bill, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Postal Rate Commission's Authority to Establish Rates; Interference 
    With Discretion

Sec.  51.22 To a general appropriation bill containing funds for the 
    postal service, an amendment to prohibit funds therein from being 
    used to handle parcel post at less than attributable cost was ruled 
    out as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, when the proponent of the 
    amendment failed to refute the point of order that its effect would 
    directly interfere with the Postal Rate Commission's quasi-
    discretionary authority (contained in 39 USC Sec. 3622, et seq.) to 
    establish postal rates under guidelines in law.

    On July 17, 1975,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 8597 (Treasury Department, Postal 
Service, and general government appropriation bill), a point of order 
was sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 23239, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Add a new section 613 on 
        page 45, line 21: ``None of the funds appropriated under this 
        Act shall be available to permit Parcel Post to be handled at 
        less than its attributable cost.''. . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: I insist on my point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman. This amendment would have the effect of changing 
    existing law. The Congress enacted the Postal Service Corporation 
    bill and created the Rate Commission and delegated to the Rate 
    Commission the sole and final authority on all postal rates. The 
    impact of this amendment would be to limit and change that postal 
    ratemaking power that is inherent in the law creating the Postal 
    Corporation.
        If the amendment here is permitted to prevail then all sorts of 
    amendments affecting the operation of the Postal Service would be 
    applicable and the whole purpose of the Postal Service Corporation 
    law would be destroyed. So I think it is very imperative since this 
    does change the law and the powers invested in the Rate Commission 
    that we hold it is obviously legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (8) Permit the Chair to direct a 
    question to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is the gentleman's position such that in his opinion this 
    amounts to a change in law? Would the gentleman speak to that 
    point?
        Mr. Steed: Yes. The sole authority to determine what will be 
    charged for parcel post, whether it is more or less than cost, is 
    vested in the Postal Rate

[[Page 6061]]

    Commission and to accept this amendment here would limit that 
    authority which would change the law which vests that total power 
    in that Commission. So it would require an action on the part not 
    only of the ratemaking Commission but the Postmaster General in 
    that he does not now have to abide by this sort of demand.
        The whole purpose of the corporation was to take the power to 
    do that sort of thing out of Congress and leave it in the Postal 
    Corporation for the postal rate commitment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Oklahoma makes a point of order against the amendment offered by 
    the gentlewoman from New Jersey dealing with the availability of 
    funds in connection with the matter of parcel post where the Postal 
    Service permits parcel post to be handled at less than attributable 
    costs.
        The Chair feels that the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma to the effect that, in essence, this changes basic 
    law, must be sustained in light of the fact that the Chair does not 
    feel that the gentlewoman from New Jersey has made a sufficient 
    case that it would be otherwise.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Timing of Expenditures

Sec.  51.23 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, providing 
    that ``no amount in excess of 20 percent of any appropriation 
    contained in this Act for any agency for any fiscal year may be 
    obligated by such agency during the last two months of such fiscal 
    year'' was ruled out as legislation restricting a discretionary 
    authority conferred by law, since 31 USC Sec. 665(c)(3) 
    specifically confers discretionary authority on the Office of 
    Management and Budget to determine the time frame for distribution 
    of funds within the total period for which appropriated.
    On June 25, 1980,(9) the Chair (10) applied 
the principle that it is not in order on a general appropriation bill, 
even by language in the form of a limitation, to restrict the 
discretionary authority conferred by law to adminster expenditures 
(rather than the use or amount of appropriated funds) including 
discretion as to the percentage of the funds which may be apportioned 
for expenditure within a certain period of time. The amendment, against 
which a point of order was raised, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 16815-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7590, energy and water development appropriations for 
        1981.
10. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: 
    Page 30, after line 12, insert the following:
        Sec. 503. No amount in excess of 20 percent of any 
    appropriation contained in this Act for any agency for any fiscal 
    year may be obligated by such agency during the last two months of 
    such fiscal year. . . .

[[Page 6062]]

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it would 
    be legislation on a general appropriations bill, and therefore 
    violates rule XXI, clause 2.
        Although the amendment uses the words ``No amount,'' it is not 
    a limitation in the accepted sense, that is, a refusal by Congress 
    to appropriate for a specified purpose.
        The effect of the amendment is a positive direction to the 
    Executive, which is not in order under the precedents.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is not in 
    order because the amendment proposes to change the application of 
    existing law and is therefore legislation in an appropriation bill 
    and is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The gentleman's amendment provides that not more than 20 
    percent of the total appropriation made available for any agency 
    for any fiscal year under the act may be obligated during the last 
    2 months of such fiscal year. Section 665(c)(3) of title 31 of the 
    United States Code states the following:

            (3) Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed by months, calendar quarters, operating seasons, or 
        other time periods, or by activities, functions, projects, or 
        objects, or by a combination thereof, as may be deemed 
        appropriate by the officers designated in subsection (d) of 
        this section to make apportionments and reapportionments. 
        Except as otherwise specified by the officer making the 
        apportionment, amounts so apportioned shall remain available 
        for obligation, in accordance with the terms of the 
        appropriation, on a cumulative basis unless reapportioned.

        The key phrase in this quote is:

            Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed . . . as may be deemed appropriate by the officers 
        designated in subsection (d) of this section to make 
        apportionments and reapportionments.

        This phrase allows the agency budget officers discretionary 
    authority to apportion the appropriations received each year in a 
    manner that he deems appropriate considering the unique financial 
    requirements of his particular agency. The gentleman's amendment 
    deletes this discretionary authority by prohibiting him from 
    obligating more than 20 percent of his appropriations during the 
    last 2 months of the fiscal year. This obviously changes the 
    application of existing law and is in violation of the House rules. 
    Mr. Chairman, in chapter 26, section 1.8 of Deschler's Procedures, 
    the following is stated:

            The provision of the rule forbidding in any general 
        appropriation bill a ``provision changing existing law'' is 
        construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists, or a 
        proposition for repeal of existing law. Existing law may be 
        repeated verbatim in an appropriation bill, but the slightest 
        change of the text causes it to be ruled out. . . .

        Mr. Harris:  . . . It is a fact that this amendment is a 
    limitation amendment. It is clear and it is not confusing. It is 
    like many other amendments that we have looked at before in this 
    House.

            No amount in excess of 20 percent of any appropriation 
        contained in this Act for any agency for any fiscal year may be 
        obligated for such agen

[[Page 6063]]

        cy during the last two months of such fiscal year.

        Mr. Chairman, what we have to look to on a limitation bill is 
    the rules, and I would refer to chapter 25, section 10.6 of 
    Deschler, which states, with regard to H.R. 11612, in the 91st 
    Congress, 1st session:

            An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
        strictly limited to funds appropriated in the bill, and which 
        is negative and restrictive in character and prohibits certain 
        uses of the funds, is in order as a limitation even though its 
        imposition will change the present distribution of funds and 
        require incidental duties on the part of those administering 
        the funds.

        Clearly, that is precisely what this language does, and I rely 
    very strongly upon Deschler's, chapter 25, section 10.6. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Myers) makes the point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris) constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    violation of clause 2, rule XXI, by prohibiting the incurring of 
    obligations of any funds appropriated in the bill in excess of 20 
    percent of the total amount appropriated in the last 2 months of 
    availability of those funds.
        The Chair has examined existing law (31 U.S.C. 665(c)(3)) with 
    respect to distribution of appropriations. The Chair interprets 
    this law to confer discretionary authority upon the Office of 
    Management and Budget, and thereby upon the agency incurring the 
    actual obligation, to determine the most appropriate time frame for 
    the distribution of funds within the period of availability for 
    which appropriated.
        Under the precedents of the House cited on page 532 of the 
    House Rules and Manual, it is not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill to affirmatively take away a discretionary 
    authority conferred by law. Because the pending amendment could 
    conceivably restrict the specific authority conferred by existing 
    law upon contracting officers to incur obligations at the time 
    deemed most appropriate by them the Chair must sustain the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On July 28, 1980,(11) the Chair 
made a comparable ruling on a similar amendment, but based the ruling 
on a burden of proof test, upon a determination that the June 25, 1980, 
ruling, in its characterization of the extent of discretionary 
authority conferred upon recipient agencies by the statute, was 
unnecessarily broad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 22.26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec.  52. Provisions as Imposing New Duties

     This section discusses those issues raised when a purported 
limitation either directly or indirectly requires a federal official to 
perform duties which are arguably not required of him under the 
existing laws pertaining to his office.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. As to the effect of provisions imposing additional duties on 
        persons who are not federal officials, see Sec. 53, infra.

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

[[Page 6064]]

    Of course, the application of any limitation on an appropriation 
bill places some minimal extra duties on federal officials, who, if 
nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds falls 
within that prohibited by the limitation. But when an amendment, while 
curtailing certain uses of funds carried in the bill, explicitly places 
new duties on officers of the government or implicitly requires them to 
make investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes 
the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order.
    In making a ruling on such issues, the Chair may be called upon to 
interpret the responsibilities imposed upon federal officials by an 
existing law to determine whether a purported limitation constitutes a 
change in the law's requirements. The proponent of an amendment, or the 
manager of the bill if a point of order is raised against the bill, 
should be required to assume the burden of proving that duties being 
imposed by the provision in question are merely ministerial or are 
already required by law. In the absence of such a showing, the Chair 
would not be required to determine for himself whether the proposed 
duties were already required by existing law.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See the discussion of the ruling of June 23, 1971, in the ``Note on 
        Contrary Rulings,'' which follows Sec. 53.6, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Rule

Sec. 52.1 Language in an appropriation bill imposing duties upon an 
    executive not contemplated by law is legislation and not in order.
    On May 17, 1937,(14) a provision in a general 
appropriation bill that ``no part of this appropriation shall be 
available for construction of such project until it is determined by 
the Secretary of the Interior, upon approval, as to legality by the 
Attorney General, that authorization therefor has been approved by act 
of Congress,'' was ruled out as legislation. Points of order were made 
as follows against such language which was contained in an Interior 
Department appropriation bill (H.R. 6958):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4687, 4688, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank H.] Buck [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning in line 24 with the 
    word ``Provided.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from New York 
    make a point of order against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6065]]

        Mr. Taber: I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California made a point of 
    order against the proviso?
        Mr. Buck: Against the proviso.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California makes a point of 
    order against the proviso appearing in line 24, page 81. The 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) makes a point of order against 
    the entire paragraph. Of course, that presents to the Chair the 
    necessity of ruling upon the point of order as it relates to the 
    entire paragraph, because if any part of a paragraph is subject to 
    a point of order it naturally follows that the entire paragraph is 
    subject to a point of order. . . .
        It appears to the Chair there can be no doubt that the language 
    appearing in the proviso is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    The language imposes additional duties upon two executive officers 
    of the Government, the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney 
    General. Therefore, the language in the proviso constituting 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of 
    the House, and a point of order being good as to part of a 
    paragraph, it naturally applies to the entire paragraph. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    New York as to the entire paragraph.

General Principles; Requiring Certification of Satisfaction as 
    Condition Precedent to Disbursement

Sec. 52.2 An amendment in the form of a limitation on an appropriation 
    bill providing an appropriation shall not be available until the 
    agency charged with the administration of such appropriation shall 
    be satisfied and shall so certify that no person employed upon the 
    work provided has been required as a condition precedent to 
    employment to join or not to join or to pay any sum to any 
    organization was held to be legislation and not in order in that it 
    imposed additional affirmative duties on the executive branch 
    (overruling 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3942).
    On May 14, 1941,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4590, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 4053-55, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: On 
    page 87, after line 24, insert ``Provided, That no part of the 
    appropriation herein made shall be available until the agency 
    charged with the administration of the fund shall be satisfied, and 
    shall so certify to the Secretary of the Treasury, that no person 
    employed upon the work provided has been required as a condition 
    precedent to employment to join or not to join or to pay any sum to 
    any organization.''
        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

[[Page 6066]]

        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: No; the precedents sustain the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair would be pleased to have the gentleman 
    from Michigan cite the precedents.
        Mr. Hoffman: Fourth Hinds', section [3942]. I copied it from 
    that precedent. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if I may be 
    permitted, from what I have heard of the amendment, this seems to 
    be a pure limitation that no funds shall be permitted to be paid to 
    any person who is required as a condition precedent to employment 
    to do certain things. There is no additional duty in any way 
    imposed upon anyone and there is no legislation contained in the 
    limitation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The author of the amendment has cited as a precedent supporting 
    his contention that the amendment is in order, a decision appearing 
    in section 3942 of the fourth volume of Hinds' Precedents. The 
    Chair has examined that decision and is inclined to agree with the 
    gentleman from Michigan that there is some analogy between the 
    question under consideration here and the question under 
    consideration under that decision, but the Chair invites attention 
    to the fact that this decision was made in 1901. The Chair also 
    invites attention to a subsequent decision, on January 6, 1923, 
    which appears in section 1706 of volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents. 
    This is a rather lengthy decision, but it appears to the Chair to 
    be directly in point on the question here presented.
        After citing numerous precedents, the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole, Mr. Hicks, had the following to say:

            As a general proposition the Chair feels that whenever a 
        limitation is accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' 
        ``until,'' ``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-
        called limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to 
        its ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the 
        conservative side. By doing so appropriation bills will be 
        relieved of much of the legislation which is being constantly 
        grafted upon them and a check given a practice which seems to 
        the Chair both unwise and in violation of the spirit, as well 
        as the substance, of our rules. Without endeavoring to lay down 
        any hard and fast rule, the Chair feels that the following 
        tests may be helpful in deciding a question of order directed 
        against a limitation, first having determined the powers 
        granted or the duties imposed by existing law:
            Does the limitation apply solely to the appropriation under 
        consideration?
            Does it operate beyond the fiscal year for which the 
        appropriation is made?
            Is the limitation accompanied or coupled with a phrase 
        applying to official functions, and if so, does the phrase give 
        affirmative directions in fact or in effect, although not in 
        form?
            Is it accompanied by a phrase which might be construed to 
        impose additional duties or permit an official to assume an 
        intent to change existing law?
            Does the limitation curtail or extend, modify, or alter 
        existing powers or duties, or terminate old or confer new ones? 
        If it does, then it must be

[[Page 6067]]

        conceded that legislation is involved, for without legislation 
        these results could not be accomplished.
            If the limitation will not fairly stand these tests then in 
        my opinion the point of order should be sustained. Applying in 
        the present instance the standards set forth, the judgment of 
        the Chair is that the point of order is well taken and the 
        Chair sustains it.

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    amendment provides--

            That no part of the appropriation herein made shall be 
        available until the agency charged with the administration of 
        the fund shall be satisfied, and shall so certify to the 
        Secretary of the Treasury, that no person employed upon the 
        work provided has been required as a condition precedent to 
        employment to join or not to join or to pay any sum to any 
        organization.

        The Chair is of opinion that this amendment would impose 
    additional duties upon the officials who would have to make the 
    certificate contemplated by the amendment. The Chair is likewise of 
    opinion the effect of this amendment would be to impose additional 
    duties upon the Secretary of the Treasury, at least to the extent 
    of requiring him to receive the certificate contemplated under the 
    amendment. Therefore, under the precedents cited by the Chair, 
    appearing in section 1706 of volume VII, Cannon's Precedents, the 
    Chair is of opinion that the amendment does embrace legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair in effect overruled the decision 
in 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3942 on the basis of the rationale 
contained in the ruling in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1706 as 
reiterated in the headnote. The Chair's ruling in 4 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 3942 is clearly not supportable under the modern practice. See 
also Sec. 51.6, supra. The well-reasoned statement of the doctrine of 
limitations by Chairman Hicks, contained in 7 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 1706, serves as an essential basis for determining the propriety 
of amendments in the form of limitations.

Requiring a Hearing Before Making Determination

Sec. 52.3 During consideration of an appropriation for the Office of 
    Information of the Department of Agriculture, language providing 
    that transfers from other appropriations to this appropriation, 
    where authorized, should be adjusted as determined by the Bureau of 
    the Budget, whenever such other appropriations are found to vary 
    from the original budget estimates therefor, was ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation

[[Page 6068]]

bill (H.R. 7786), a provision as described above was under 
consideration. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order to the language appearing on page 207 
    (19) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The language objected to stated: that if the total amounts of the 
        appropriations from which transfers to this appropriation are 
        herein authorized exceed or fall below the amounts estimated 
        therefor in the budget, the amounts transferred therefrom to 
        this appropriation shall be increased or decreased in such 
        amounts as the Bureau of the Budget, after a hearing thereon 
        with representatives of the Department, shall determine are 
        appropriate to the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . I make the point of order that these provisions require 
    additional duties upon the part of both the Secretary of 
    Agriculture and the Bureau of the Budget and constitute legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and are, therefore, subject to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . I am of the 
    opinion that the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Keating] makes the point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 207 of the bill, which has been pointed 
    out by him, on the ground that it includes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in violation of the rules of the House. The 
    gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point of order. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Duty of Determining Rationale or Motive

Sec. 52.4 The application of any limitation on an appropriation bill 
    places some minimal extra duties on federal officials, who, if 
    nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds 
    falls within that prohibited by the limitation; but when an 
    amendment, while curtailing certain uses of funds carried in the 
    bill, explicitly places new duties on officers of the government or 
    inevitably requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, 
    discern the motives or intent of individuals, or make judgments and 
    determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it 
    assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of 
    order.

    On July 31, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6069]]

ering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and 
Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21653, 21675, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Note: The principles stated in this precedent are difficult 
        to apply, of course, and some rulings may seem to have departed 
        from the strictest application thereof. Thus, as an example, in 
        one line of rulings, amendments were held in order which sought 
        to withhold payments under military or defense contracts in 
        situations in which work stoppages or strikes had impeded 
        performance of the contracts. (See 87 Cong. Rec. 4837, 4838, 
        4890, 4891, and 4901, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., rulings of June 6 
        and June 9, 1941; and 106 Cong. Rec. 12269, 12270, 86th Cong. 
        2d Sess., June 9, 1960.) Such rulings would probably not be 
        regarded as within the guidelines noted above for determining 
        whether proposed limitations are allowable under Rule XXI 
        clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may be 
    used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any school, or 
    to force any student attending any elementary or secondary school 
    to attend a particular school against the choice of his or her 
    parents or parent. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Conte: On page 56, line 11, 
        strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school, or to force any student attending any elementary or 
        secondary school to attend a particular school against the 
        choice of his or her parent or parents, in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance.''

        And on page 56, line 16. Strike lines 16 through 20 and insert 
    the following:

            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school or the attendance of students at a particular school in 
        order to overcome racial imbalance as a condition precedent to 
        obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any State, 
        school district or school.''

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the rulings of 
    the Chair heretofore on this bill this afternoon show clearly that 
    this is legislation on an appropriation bill and not a simple 
    limitation in that the language of the amendment will require 
    someone in the executive department to determine whether busing is 
    to overcome racial imbalance. Therefore, it imposes additional 
    duties and as such I consider it to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair has so ruled on a 
    number of occasions on this bill to 
    date. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, I do not see where these 
    amendments I

[[Page 6070]]

    have, which only change several words in order to overcome racial 
    imbalance, and these are the words that I add, and that is the 
    crucial term--I do not see where it gives the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare or its head or anyone under the Secretary 
    any additional burdens that the present Jamie Whitten sections 408 
    or 409 do not. I think it is certainly a limitation on the 
    expenditure of funds, and, therefore, the point of order should be 
    overruled.
        Further, I may say, Mr. Chairman, if a point of order would lie 
    on this, it will certainly lie on sections 408 and 409, and I will 
    offer such. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair 
    recognizes that this is a very difficult matter. The proposed 
    amendment for section 408 is different from section 408 of the bill 
    in that it has added the words ``in order to overcome racial 
    imbalance.''
        The Chair believes that this would impose duties upon officials 
    which they do not have at the present time, and therefore, it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard for a minute?
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will please desist until the Chair 
    has finished his ruling on the second amendment because they are 
    being considered en bloc.
        The additional words in the amendment to section 409 are ``in 
    order to overcome racial imbalance'' and this clearly requires 
    additional duties on the part of the officials. Therefore, it is 
    not negative in nature and is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the Chair was not asked to rule on 
the sections of the bill being amended, requiring the determination of 
whether a student was being bused ``against the choice of his parents 
or parent'', that language might also have been construed as 
legislation.

Receiving Information

Sec. 52.5 While it is not in order in an appropriation bill to insert 
    by way of amendment a proposition which places additional duties on 
    an executive officer, the mere requirement that the executive 
    officer be the recipient of information is not considered as 
    imposing upon him any additional burdens and is in order.

    The ruling of June 11, 1968,(3) is discussed in the 
``Note on Contrary Rulings,'' which follows Sec. 53.6, infra. One of 
the issues also addressed in the proceedings of that day was the effect 
of a seeming imposition of duties on private individuals or others not

[[Page 6071]]

in the employ of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 16712, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Determinations

Sec. 52.6 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing reduction of 
    expenditures through an apportionment procedure authorized by law, 
    but requiring such reduction to be made ``without impairing 
    national defense,'' was held to require the executive branch to 
    make new determinations and therefore to be out of order as 
    legislation.

    On May 29, 1957,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7665), amendments were offered as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 8069, 8070, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: On 
        page 10, line 5, strike out ``$392 million'' and insert ``$400 
        million''. . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan] 
        as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Ford: On page 
        10, line 5, strike out ``$392 million'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``400 million'' and on page 10, line 6, immediately 
        before the period insert the following: ``Provided, That 
        appropriations made by this title shall, without impairing 
        national defense, be reduced in the amount of not less than $8 
        million through the apportionment procedure provided for in 
        section 3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 
        U.S.C. 665).''. . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I renew my 
    point of order that the gentleman's amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, also that it imposes additional duties.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Johansen] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Johansen: Mr. Chairman, may I say that in the appropriation 
    bill in the 81st Congress, second session, a provision, section 
    1214, to the effect that appropriations, reappropriations, contract 
    authorizations, and reauthorizations made by this act for 
    departments and agencies in the executive branch of the Government 
    shall without impairing national defense be reduced in an amount of 
    not less than $550 million.
        It is on the basis of that sort of limitation that I offered 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Johansen] offers an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute to the pending amendment, on page 10, 
    line 6, by adding language contained in the proviso of the 
    substitute. That language indicates that the appropriations made by 
    this title shall without impairing the national defense be reduced 
    in the amount of not less than $8 million through the apportionment 
    procedures provided for in another section of exist

[[Page 6072]]

    ing law, which section vests authority in the executive branch to 
    make certain apportionments.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the language of this 
    proviso imposing, as it does, an obligation and requirement on the 
    executive branch to make reductions without impairing the national 
    defense and without establishing any standards therefor is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, is subject to the point of 
    order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Duties Indirectly Resulting From Operation of Other Laws

Sec. 52.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that none of the 
    funds therein shall be used to pay any employee of the Department 
    of Agriculture who serves as a member of the Board of Directors or 
    as an officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation was held to be a 
    negative limitation and in order although indirectly effecting a 
    change in policy.

    On May 11, 1960,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12117, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: . . . This reverses a decision made by 
    the Banking and Currency Committee and the Congress in 1949, when 
    the CCC Charter Act was amended to strike out a similar restriction 
    which had been enacted in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and 
    the mere fact it is put in the form of a limitation on the use of 
    funds appropriated by the bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, 
    volume 7, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives 
    puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it

[[Page 6073]]

        assumes affirmative form by direction to an executive in the 
        discharge of his duties under existing law it ceases to be a 
        limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would also have to 
    recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers of the 
    Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protection of 
    the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government money. On 
    the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at additional 
    expense to the Government. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    section clearly provides a limitation on the use of funds that are 
    appropriated in this bill. It does not change the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation charter. It does not change any basic law. It just 
    simply limits what the money in this bill can be used for. It has 
    been my experience and observation during the years here that the 
    Chair has many times said that it is a negative limitation on the 
    use of money and that it is clearly in order, and on that I rest 
    the committee's position.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A discussion comparing the precedents cited 
above, 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1691 and 1694 can be found in 
the introduction to Sec. 51, supra. An issue suggested by the debate on 
May 11, 1960, is whether language in an appropriation bill should be 
ruled out if it may lead prospectively or indirectly to the imposition 
of duties on officials, by the operation of other laws. The ruling 
suggests that only where the duties are imposed directly by the 
language of the provision in question is it subject to a point of 
order.

Discretionary Transfer of Funds

Sec. 52.8 Language in an appropriation bill making an appropriation for 
    specific ob

[[Page 6074]]

    jects ``together with such amounts [transferred] from other 
    appropriations . . . as may be determined by the Secretary,'' was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.
    On May 17, 1951,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 5468, 5469, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Office of Information

            For necessary expenses in connection with the publication . 
        . . and distribution of bulletins, documents, and reports, the 
        preparation, distribution, and display of agricultural motion 
        and sound pictures . . . and the coordination of informational 
        work and programs authorized by Congress in the Department, 
        $1,271,000, together with such amounts from other 
        appropriations or authorizations as are provided in the 
        schedules in the budget for the current fiscal year for such 
        expenses, which several amounts or portions thereof, as may be 
        determined by the Secretary, not exceeding a total of $16,200, 
        shall be transferred to and made a part of this appropriation, 
        of which total appropriation amounts not exceeding those 
        specified may be used for the purposes enumerated as follows: 
        For preparation and display of exhibits, $104,725. . . .

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in lines 4 to 9, inclusive, 
    page 46, on the ground that it involves additional duties on the 
    part of the Secretary of Agriculture.
        The Chairman:(9) Does the gentleman from Mississippi 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Requiring Annual Report

Sec. 52.9 Language in a general appropriation bill requiring that all 
    interchanges of appropriations made under the authority granted the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs ``shall be reported to Congress in 
    the annual Budget'' was held legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 83 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For administrative expenses, including personal services in the 
    District of Columbia and elsewhere; not to exceed $2,500 for 
    printing and binding; purchase of periodicals, directories, and 
    books of reference; purchase and oper

[[Page 6075]]

    ation of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; traveling 
    expenses of employees; rent of office and storage space; telegraph 
    and telephone tools; and all other necessary expenses not 
    specifically authorized herein, $204,000; in all, $1,745,000, to be 
    immediately available and to remain available until June 30, 1940: 
    Provided further, That not to exceed 5 percent of the amount of any 
    specific authorization may be transferred, in the discretion of the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to the amount of any other specific 
    authorization, but no limitation shall be increased more than 10 
    percent by any such transfer. All interchanges under this 
    authorization shall be reported to Congress in the annual Budget.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the language beginning on page 68, line 23, 
    down to the end of the paragraph. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman:(11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes the point of order that 
    the proviso beginning in line 23 on page 68 provides an expenditure 
    not authorized by existing law. The particular language of this 
    proviso was the subject of a point of order last year as shown by 
    the Record of May 14, 1937, page 4603. The language is very clear 
    and specific and is exactly the same as the language carried in 
    last year's bill with the exception of the last sentence, which 
    reads:

            All interchanges under this authorization shall be reported 
        to Congress in the annual Budget.

        It seems to the Chair that the last sentence is clearly subject 
    to a point of order.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order against the 
    proviso beginning in line 23 of page 68.

Sec.  52.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that a 
    statement of any transfer of appropriations made thereunder shall 
    be included in the annual budget was held to be legislation and not 
    in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1937,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6523), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3801, 3802, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         interchange of appropriations

            Not to exceed 10 percent of the foregoing amounts for the 
        miscellaneous expenses of the work of any bureau, division, or 
        office herein provided for shall be available interchangeably 
        for expenditures on the objects included within the general 
        expenses of such bureau, division, or office; but no more than 
        10 percent shall be added to any one item of appropriation 
        except in cases of extraordinary emergency, and then only upon 
        the written order of the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, 
        That a statement of any transfers of appropriations made 
        hereunder shall be included in the annual Budget.

[[Page 6076]]

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire section on the ground it is 
    legislation. It gives additional authority to the Secretary of 
    Agriculture and places new duties upon him.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    proviso at the bottom of the paragraph is clearly legislation, and 
    therefore the point of order of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Snell] is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring Administration and Disbursement in Certain Manner

Sec.  52.11 A provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that the appropriation for public assistance shall be so 
    administered as to constitute the total amount that will be 
    utilized during such fiscal year for such purposes was held to 
    place additional duties upon the Commissioners and therefore 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not a retrenchment within 
    the Holman rule exception.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Public Assistance

        For the purpose of affording relief to residents of the 
    District of Columbia who are unemployed or otherwise in distress 
    because of the existing emergency, to be expended by the Board of 
    Public Welfare of the District of Columbia by employment and direct 
    relief, in the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and under 
    rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board and without 
    regard to the provisions of any other law, payable from the 
    revenues of the District of Columbia, $900,000, and not to exceed 
    7\1/2\ percent of this appropriation and of Federal grants 
    reimbursed under this appropriation shall be expended for personal 
    services: Provided, That all auditing, disbursing, and accounting 
    for funds administered through the Public Assistance Division of 
    the Board of Public Welfare, including all employees engaged in 
    such work and records relating thereto, shall be under the 
    supervision and control of the Auditor of the District of Columbia: 
    Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so apportioned 
    and distributed by the Commissioners over the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered, during such fiscal 
    year, as to constitute the total amount that will be utilized 
    during such fiscal year for such purposes: Provided further, That 
    not more than $75 per month shall be paid therefrom to any one 
    family.
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso appearing

[[Page 6077]]

    on page 58, line 2, after the word ``Columbia'' and ending on line 
    7 with the word ``purposes.''
        I make the point of order that this proviso is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language about which the gentleman complains reads as follows:

            Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so 
        apportioned and distributed by the Commissioners over the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered 
        during such fiscal year as to constitute the total amount that 
        will be utilized during such fiscal year for such purposes.

        Unquestionably that is a limitation upon an appropriation and 
    therefore comes within the rules of the House. The object is to 
    save money, and the provision shows on its face that it will save 
    money. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Chair has examined the 
    language employed very carefully, and if I am correct in my 
    construction of that language, it seeks to impose an additional 
    burden upon the Commissioners who are charged with the duty of 
    administering the fund sought to be appropriated. In addition to 
    that, there is nothing apparent in the language of the section that 
    will result in a saving. The inference that we have from the 
    statement of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations is 
    not sufficient to bring it within the rule that a saving will be 
    effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the point of order 
    is well taken and so rules.

Additional Determination to That in Pending Language

Sec.  52.12 Legislation permitted to remain in an appropriation bill 
    may be perfected by germane amendments which do not provide 
    additional legislation, but to a legislative provision in an 
    appropriation bill authorizing transfers between appropriations 
    with the approval of the Director of the Budget an amendment 
    requiring the Director to first determine that such transfers would 
    not result in a deficiency requiring restoration of funds was held 
    to add requirements for additional determinations.

    On Feb. 19, 1953,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
3053), a point of order was raised against an amendment, as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 1280, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            ``Military personnel requirements,'' Department of the Air 
        Force, $115 million; the foregoing amounts under this heading 
        to be derived by transfer from such appropriations available to 
        the Department of Defense for obligation during the fiscal year 
        1953 as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense with the 
        approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

[[Page 6078]]

        Mr. [Samuel W.] Yorty [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yorty: On page 12, line 17, after 
        the word ``Budget'', insert a new sentence as follows: ``Before 
        approving any such transfer, the Director of the Bureau of the 
        Budget shall first determine that such transfer will not result 
        in a deficiency requiring restoration of any of the amount 
        transferred to the appropriation from which the transfer is 
        approved.''. . .

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against the amendment, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and imposes new duties on the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from 
    California desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yorty: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am simply spelling out one of 
    the conditions under which the transfer of funds is to be approved 
    by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. This appropriation 
    bill already legislates, in that it requires the approval of the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget. I am simply saying that he 
    find a condition precedent before he approves that transfer. I do 
    not think the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

        In the opinion of the Chair the amendment contains legislation, 
    contrary to the rules of the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Requirement for Promulgation of Regulations

Sec.  52.13 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses shall be 
    available for expenses of attendance of officers and employees at 
    meetings or conventions ``under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary,'' was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

        On May 2, 1951,(18) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill (H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following 
    provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel 
        expenses shall be available, under regulations prescribed by 
        the Secretary, for expenses of attendance of officers and 
        employees at meetings or conventions of members of societies or 
        associations concerned with the work of the bureau or office 
        for which the appropriation concerned is made.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against section 104 that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and involves additional duties.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the Chair understand that 
    the gentleman from New York raises objection to the para

[[Page 6079]]

    graph because of the use of the language ``under regulations 
    prescribed by the Secretary'' in lines 18 and 19?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do object to those words, and feel that that 
    makes the section out of order as it now stands, but I would still 
    press the point of order even with those words eliminated.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: I wonder if the gentleman 
    would accept the section if it remains as is except for the 
    elimination of the words ``under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary.''
        Mr. Keating: I feel that even with the elimination of those 
    words it would still involve legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    for exactly the same reasons for which the Chair has held section 
    102 subject to a point of order.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

To the Extent the Secretary Finds Necessary

Sec.  52.14 In an appropriation bill, providing funds for grants to 
    states for unemployment compensation, language stating ``only to 
    the extent that the Secretary finds necessary,'' was held to impose 
    additional duties and to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

        On Mar. 27, 1957,(20) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
    Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of 
    order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 4559, 4560, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Grants to States for unemployment compensation and 
        employment service administration: For grants in accordance 
        with the provisions of the act of June 6, 1933, as amended (29 
        U.S.C. 49-49n), for carrying into effect section 602 of the 
        Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, for grants to the States 
        as authorized in title III of the Social Security Act, as 
        amended (42 U.S.C. 501-503), including, upon the request of any 
        State, the purchase of equipment, and the payment of rental for 
        space made available to such State in lieu of grants for such 
        purpose, for necessary expenses including purchasing and 
        installing of air-conditioning equipment in connection with the 
        operation of employment office facilities and services in the 
        District of Columbia, and for expenses not otherwise provided 
        for, necessary for carrying out title IV of the Veterans' 
        Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 684) and title XV 
        of the Social Security Act, as amended (68 Stat. 1130), $262 
        million, [of which $12 million shall be available only to the 
        extent that the Secretary finds necessary to meet increased 
        costs of administration resulting from changes in a State law 
        or increases in the numbers of claims filed and claims paid for 
        increased salary costs resulting from changes in State salary 
        compensation plans embracing employees of the State generally 
        over those upon which the State's basic grant (or the 
        allocation for the District of Columbia) was based, which 
        increased costs of administration cannot be provided for by 
        normal budgetary adjustments:] . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[[Page 6080]]

        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language beginning after the first figure in line 5, with the words 
    ``of which'' down to the word ``adjustments'', in line 15, as 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill and not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: I do, Mr. Chairman. 
    This language has been carried in the bill for about 10 years, I 
    think. It was first put in, I believe, under the leadership of Mr. 
    Keefe when he was chairman of this subcommittee because we thought 
    it was in the form of a limitation on an appropriation bill and 
    would discourage supplementals and deficiencies that had previously 
    occurred. This $12 million was set aside for the specific reason of 
    taking care of unseen workloads that developed during the year and 
    increased States salaries which by law we are bound to provide when 
    the States increase salaries. So, in order to provide a fund like 
    this that would prevent them from coming back with supplementals 
    each year we agreed on this language. It was the intention of the 
    committee to be a limitation upon an appropriation.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add to my point of 
    order that it requires additional duties of the Secretary.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    words referred to, beginning in line 5 and ending in line 15, are 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has studied the legislation and finds in agreement 
    with the statement of the gentleman from New York that additional 
    duties are imposed upon the Secretary, as shown in line 6, which 
    reads, ``that the Secretary finds necessary,'' and so forth. 
    Therefore, the Chair must uphold the point of order.

Mandating Contracting Practices

Sec.  52.15 To the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
    Judiciary appropriation bill an amendment providing that ``all 
    repair and overhaul on Civil Aeronautics Administration airplanes 
    costing more than $100 shall be done on contract after submission 
    of bids'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not in order.

    On May 3, 1946,(2) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6056), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 4424, 4425, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6081]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Randolph:
            On page 56, line 25, strike out ``$1,500,000'' and insert 
        ``$1,200,000.''
            On page 57, line 9, strike out the period, insert a colon 
        and the following: ``Provided, That no funds in this paragraph 
        shall be expended for the pay of any employees of the Civil 
        Aeronautics Administration for the maintenance of more than one 
        parts warehouse, nor for the repair or overhaul of aircraft 
        costing more than $100 per airplane: And provided further, That 
        all repair and overhaul on Civil Aeronautics Administration 
        airplanes costing more than $100 shall be done on contract 
        after submission of bids. . . .''

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on 
    my point of order. The amendment is a directive under the guise of 
    a limitation in the last proviso.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from West 
    Virginia desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Randolph: Not at this point.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. Randolph: I am ready to hear the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from West Virginia offers an 
    amendment to page 56, line 25, and page 57, line 9, to the bill 
    H.R. 6056. The amendment down to and including the word 
    ``airplanes'' and the comma, is perhaps nothing more than a 
    limitation and in order. The language following the comma after the 
    word ``airplane'' seems to require of the Civil Aeronautics 
    Administration other responsibilities and to impose additional 
    duties upon that agency of Government. Therefore it would be 
    legislation and subject to a point of order. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Requiring Subjective Determination of ``Full Benefit''

Sec. 52.16 An amendment in the form of a limitation prohibiting use of 
    an appropriation for promulgation of orders establishing wholesale 
    prices on commodities to be sold at retail which do not give all 
    retail distributors full benefit of the lowest wholesale prices 
    established for any retail distributor was held to impose 
    affirmative duties not already in the law and therefore not in 
    order.

    On June 18, 1943,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2968, a war agencies appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 6126, 6127, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: At 
    the end of the paragraph on page 13 insert the following language: 
    ``Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for the promulgation of orders or directives establishing 
    wholesale prices on commodities to be sold at retail, which do not 
    give all retail distributors the full benefit of the lowest 
    wholesale price established for any retail distributor.''

[[Page 6082]]

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that under the guise 
    of limitation it proposes affirmative legislation. It is a 
    proposition to restrict executive discretion. It constitutes 
    legislation and is not in order on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the committee to the fact that 
    the language attempted to be inserted by the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Minnesota really divides itself into two parts and 
    in order that the Members may understand it the Chair will read the 
    amendment for the information of the committee:

            Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall 
        be used for the promulgation of orders or directives 
        establishing wholesale prices on commodities and articles sold 
        at retail, which do not give all retail distributors the full 
        benefit of the lowest wholesale price established for any 
        retail distributor.

        The Chair is of opinion that the first part of the amendment 
    ending with the comma, were it offered alone, would be a limitation 
    within the rules of the House and would not be subject to a point 
    of order; but when the latter part is added, it goes beyond the 
    point of a limitation and imposes upon the officials charged with 
    the administration of this act certain affirmative duties and is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The point of order is therefore sustained.

Requiring Determination That Recipient ``Participates, Cooperates, or 
    Supports''

Sec. 52.17 To a general appropriation bill providing funds, inter alia, 
    for a national foundation on the arts, an amendment prohibiting 
    payment of such funds to any person or organization which supports 
    any action resulting in the destruction of a structure of historic 
    or cultural significance [thus requiring the official administering 
    the program to make certain new determinations], was held to impose 
    additional duties and was ruled out as legislation.

        On Apr. 5, 1966, (6) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill (H.R. 14215), a point of order was raised against the 
    following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 7688, 7689, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Widnall [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Widnall: Page 42, before the 
        period in line 2, insert the following: ``Provided further, 
        That the amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall be 
        available to any organization, or entity, only on condition 
        that not more than 12\1/2\ percent of the

[[Page 6083]]

        amount so made available be expended in any one State: And 
        provided further, That no part of any amount appropriated under 
        this paragraph shall be used to make grants to any 
        organization, or entity, or to pay the salary of (or to cover 
        expenses incurred by) any person who, or organization which, in 
        his, or its, official, or unofficial capacity, participates in, 
        cooperates with, or supports any action which could result in 
        the destruction of any structure, or place, of local or 
        national historic or cultural significance, including the 
        Metropolitan Opera House located at 39th Street and Broadway in 
        New York City''.

        Mr. [Winfield K.] Denton [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Denton: Mr. Chairman, this changes existing legislation. It 
    provides that there should be quotas among the States when the 
    existing legislation does not contain such a provision. This is 
    legislation that changes existing legislation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New Jersey desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Widnall: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a type of 
    amendment that has been accepted before on similar legislation. It 
    seeks to protect the interests of the States in these grants and in 
    the distribution of funds under this program. I think it is a very 
    equitable amendment and should be accepted by the Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        This amendment would impose new duties on the officials charged 
    with the administration of this program in determining whether 
    grants should be made to any person or organization which 
    participates and cooperates with or supports any action which could 
    result in the destruction of any structure or place of local or 
    national historic or cultural significance.
        For the reasons above stated, the amendment is obviously 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

New Determinations Not Required by Law in Making Allocation of Funds

Sec. 52.18 Where existing law (20 USC Sec. 238) provides, in its 
    allotment formula for determining entitlements of local educational 
    agencies to a certain category of assistance in federally affected 
    areas, that the Commissioner shall determine the ``number of 
    children who . . . resided with a parent employed on federal 
    property situated in the same State as such agency or situated 
    within reasonable commuting distance from the school district of 
    such agency'', an amendment to an appropriation bill containing 
    funds for ``impacted school assistance'' prohibiting the use of 
    funds in that bill for assistance ``for children whose parents are 
    em

[[Page 6084]]

    ployed on Federal property outside the school district of such 
    agency'' was held to impose the additional duty on federal 
    officials of determining whether the parent was employed within the 
    school district and was ruled out as legislation in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 26, 1973,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 8877), a point of order 
was raised against the following amendment, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 21393, 21394, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William] Lehman [of Florida]: 
        Page 19, line 19, after ``Act'' insert the following: ``: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds contained herein shall 
        be available to make any payment to a local educational agency 
        under the Act of September 30, 1950, which is attributable to 
        children described in section 3(b) of title I whose parents are 
        employed on Federal property outside the school district of 
        such agency''.

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        First, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change the existing 
    law in that it would distinguish between children whose parents 
    work in a key school district and children whose parents work 
    outside the school district. The present law which we have makes 
    absolutely no such distinction.
        The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that this would obviously 
    impose additional duties upon whatever Federal officials there are 
    in the entire program and would require them to establish 
    procedures with all sorts of red tape to determine where the place 
    of work is, whether they work there or not, whether the parents 
    were in the school district or not.
        Such procedures do not exist in the law because they are not 
    required under present law. . . .
        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the point of order made by the chairman of the 
    subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman). Mr. Chairman, 
    the point of order I wish to concur in is that the language of the 
    amendment is legislation in an appropriation bill. It requires a 
    different method of allocating funds to eligible school districts 
    than that provided in the authorizing legislation, Public Law 81-
    874.
        Mr. Chairman, I realize that the gentleman from Florida has 
    carefully phrased his amendment in an attempt to avoid this 
    prohibition in clause 2 of rule XXI. But in this attempt, the 
    gentleman has failed. The exception to the rule dealing with a 
    retrenchment of

[[Page 6085]]

    appropriations is subject to the qualification that it must not 
    impose additional administrative burdens and ministerial duties on 
    the administration in carrying out the basic law for which the 
    appropriation is made. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the annotations to rule XXI, clause 2, appearing on 
    page 472 of the House Rules and Manual for the 93d Congress in 
    which it is noted:

            But such limitations must not give affirmative directions 
        (IV, 3854-3859, 3975; VII, 1637), and must not impose new 
        duties upon an executive officer (VII, 1676; July 31, 1969, p. 
        21631-33; June 11, 1968, p. 16712), and must not be coupled 
        with legislation not directly instrumental in affecting a 
        reduction (VII, 1555, 1557).

        I have checked to determine whether or not any additional 
    ministerial duties will be required in carrying out the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida and I am advised that this 
    will require administrators of the program to make an additional 
    extraction from survey data gathered from parents to determine 
    whether or not the place of work of the parent is located within or 
    without the school district.
        Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple task. In many school 
    systems, these survey forms run into many thousands and nationwide, 
    this would multiply this ministerial task by each of the several 
    thousand school districts participating in Public Law 91-874.
        The ruling which I seek is consistent with the rulings of the 
    Chair June 26, 1968, February 19, 1970, and April 14, 1970, found 
    on pages H18894, H1088, and H3036 of the Congressional Record for 
    those respective dates. I urge that the Chair sustain the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, 
    this is an appropriate retrenchment under the Holman Rule and that 
    the legislation is appropriate under that rule.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair feels that while the amendment is 
    in the form of a limitation it also would require additional 
    determinations not now required by law. Since it would require 
    additional duties, the amendment is legislation on the 
    appropriation bill and not in order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be emphasized that the provisions 
in question above did not comprise a negative prohibition on the 
availability of funds for an otherwise eligible class of recipients, 
but rather a redefinition of the entire class, contrary to that class 
of eligible recipients found in existing law. See also Sec. Sec. 36.8-
36.12, supra, for discussion of other examples of provisions affecting 
allocation of educational assistance.

New Direction in Fund Distribution Not Required by Law

Sec. 52.19 A provision in an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    denying the use of any funds for im

[[Page 6086]]

    pacted school aid until the official allocating the funds makes an 
    apportionment thereof contrary to the formula prescribed by 
    existing law was held to impose additional duties upon that 
    official, thus changing existing law and constituting legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Education Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16916), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 11676, 11677, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Michel: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

                          Title I--Office of Education

                 school assistance in federally affected areas

            For carrying out title I of the Act of September 30, 1950, 
        as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 13), and the Act of September 23, 
        1950, as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 19), $440,000,000 of which 
        $425,000,000 shall be for the maintenance and operation of 
        schools as authorized by said title I of the Act of September 
        30, 1950, as amended, and $15,000,000 which shall remain 
        available until expended, shall be for providing school 
        facilities as authorized by said Act of September 23, 1950: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available to pay 
        local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any 
        other section of said title I until payment has been made of 90 
        per centum of the amounts to which such agencies are entitled 
        pursuant to section 3(a) of said title and 100 per centum of 
        the amounts payable under section 6 of said title. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Then I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is that it 
    contains legislation in an appropriation bill, to wit, the language 
    on page 2, lines 6 to 12 is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill providing for different dispositions of funds under those 
    sections than are provided by law. Therefore I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, it is as 
    plain as the nose on my face, and I have got a nose, that this is 
    clearly a limitation upon the expenditure of funds. That is clearly 
    it. I suggest the point must be overruled.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I would 
    like to say

[[Page 6087]]

    first, Mr. Chairman, if the proviso to which I have referred 
    authorizes the use on a different formula than that provided in the 
    basic authorizing legislation, and I do not believe that the 
    proviso is a limitation or retrenchment of appropriations which 
    would be an expansion, the proviso is neither a limitation nor 
    retrenchment of appropriations, because it permits payment to be 
    made in excess of the payments authorized by the above quoted 
    section of Public Law 81-874.
        It may be helpful to the Chairman and to my colleagues in 
    understanding the point that the reference contained in section 
    5(c) just quoted, that various other sections of entitlements to 
    payments are to the so-called familiar references to categories A 
    and B children under impacted aid.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara), has raised a point of order against the 
    proviso appearing in the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    and referred to in the original bill as the proviso on page 2 of 
    the bill on the ground that it constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. That proviso 
    would make appropriations in the bill unavailable for payment to 
    local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any other 
    section of title I of the act of September 30, 1950--which 
    authorizes school assistance in federally affected areas--until 
    payment has been made of 90 percent of entitled allotments pursuant 
    to section 3(a) of said title I and of 100 percent of amounts 
    payable under section 6 of that title. The gentleman from Michigan 
    contends that such a requirement for payments of funds appropriated 
    in this bill has the effect of changing the allotment formula in 
    the authorizing legislation of funds for ``category A students,'' 
    and is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill prohibited by 
    clause 2, rule XXI.
        On June 26, 1968, during consideration of the Department of 
    Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for 
    fiscal year 1969, the Chair--the gentleman now occupying it--
    sustained a point of order against an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for educationally deprived children until 
    there was made available therefrom for certain local educational 
    agencies an amount at least equal to that allotted in the preceding 
    year, since that amendment would have required the Commissioner of 
    Education to make an apportionment of appropriated funds contrary 
    to the formula prescribed by existing law, thus imposing additional 
    duties on that official and changing existing law.
        The Chair feels that that decision is controlling in this 
    instance. To make the appropriations authorized under certain 
    sections of the ``impacted school aid'' legislation contingent upon 
    allotment of certain percentages of entitled funds under other 
    sections of that authorizing legislation is to impose additional 
    duties on the official making the allotment and to change the 
    enforcement formula in the authorizing legislation is in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Requiring Investigation

Sec. 52.20 To an appropriation bill an amendment imposing

[[Page 6088]]

    new conditions and formulas for determining amounts to be charged 
    as rent for public housing units was held to alter existing law and 
    ruled out of order as legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 20, 1952,(12) 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 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  98 Cong. Rec. 2638, 2639, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Hubert B.] Scudder [of 
        California]: On page 24, after line 6, insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That the Public Housing Administration 
        shall investigate the income of the occupants of each housing 
        unit, and the rental for each such unit shall be the rental 
        established by law or 20 percent of the total income of the 
        occupants thereof, whichever is the greater.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, but I reserve it at this time. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California has offered an amendment, to 
    which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] makes a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California, and is of the opinion 
    that the amendment proposes to add new conditions regarding 
    determination of rentals of public housing thus altering existing 
    law. The amendment also would impose additional duties not required 
    by existing law upon housing officials.
        It is the opinion of the Chair, therefore, that the amendment 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Affirmative Directive to Recipient of Funds; Imposing Duty to Monitor 
    Actions of Recipients

Sec. 52.21 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation not negative in effect (rather: providing that none of 
    the funds appropriated would be used for support of military 
    training courses in civil schools unless the authorities of such 
    institutions make known to prospective students certain 
    information) was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 14, 1936,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11035, a War Department appropriation bill. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 2091-94, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the procurement, maintenance, and issue, under such 
    regulations as

[[Page 6089]]

    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 
    . . . $4,067,996; of which $400,000 shall be available immediately: 
    . . . Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
    elsewhere in this act, except for printing and binding and pay and 
    allowances of officers and enlisted men of the Regular Army, shall 
    be used for expenses in connection with the Reserve Officers' 
    Training Corps.
        Mr. [Fred] Biermann [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biermann: On page 59, line 6, 
        after the word ``corps'', insert ``Provided further, That none 
        of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for or 
        toward the support of military training courses in any civil 
        school or college the authorities of which choose to maintain 
        such courses on a compulsory basis, unless the authorities of 
        such institutions provide, and make known to all prospective 
        students by duly published regulations, arrangements for the 
        unconditional exemption from such military courses, and without 
        penalty, for any and all students who prefer not to participate 
        in such military courses because of convictions conscientiously 
        held, whether religious, ethical, social, or educational, 
        though nothing herein shall be construed as applying to 
        essentially military schools or colleges.''

        Mr. [Tilman B.] Parks [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and is in no sense a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
    make an exception of the compulsory feature of this military 
    training for those students who have a genuine conscientious 
    scruple against taking military training. The amendment is of the 
    same piece of cloth as the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio], which has been ruled in order many times in this 
    House.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    first part of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is 
    very much the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Marcantonio], but there is further language in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa which involves 
    legislation which is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            That unless the authorities of such institutions provide 
        and make known to all prospective students by duly published 
        regulation--

        And so forth. That is an affirmative command and direction to 
    the officers of the institution. The Chair thinks the amendment is 
    not in order because it provides legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 52.22 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for soil conservation payments, an amendment 
    providing that no payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any 
    one person or corporation

[[Page 6090]]

    unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid shall be paid to 
    sharecroppers or renters of farms for which payments are made was 
    held to be legislation and not in order, in that, under the guise 
    of a limitation it provided affirmative directions that imposed new 
    duties.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 3427, 3428, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert ``Provided further, That 
    of the funds in this paragraph no payment in excess of $1,000 shall 
    be paid for any one farm operated by one person: Provided further, 
    That no payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person 
    or corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid 
    shall be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which 
    payments are made.''. . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota that it is legislation under the guise of a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a 
    limitation on payments; and in the present instance one would have 
    to turn from the gentleman from Missouri as chairman of the 
    subcommittee to the gentleman from Missouri as parliamentarian. The 
    Chair will find the following on page 62 of Cannon's Procedure:

            As an appropriation bill may deny an appropriation for a 
        purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit the 
        use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for 
        the remainder of it. It may not legislate as to qualifications 
        of recipients, but may specify that no part shall go to 
        recipients lacking certain qualifications.

        In this particular instance the qualification is set up for the 
    landlord that he shall give at least half this payment to his 
    sharecropper or renter. Viewed in this light I believe the Chair 
    will find it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment 
    couples with the purported limitation affirmative directions and is 
    legislation in the guise of a limitation.
        The Chairman: (17) Cannon's Precedents, page 667, 
    volume 7, 1936, section 1672, states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            An amendment may not under guise of limitation provide 
        affirmative directions which impose new duties.

        The last part of the pending amendment states:

            Unless at least one-half of the amount so paid shall be 
        paid to these croppers or renters of farms for which payments 
        are made.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that this requires affirmative 
    action; therefore the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 6091]]

Limitation is Negative, Not Affirmative Direction

Sec. 52.23 A limitation on a general appropriation bill must be in 
    effect a negative prohibition which proposes an easily discernible 
    standard for determining the application of the use of funds, and 
    not an affirmative direction to an executive officer.

    On May 5, 1960,(18) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11998, a Defense Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 9641, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: On page 
    45, after line 6, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 535. No funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to 
    pay any amount under a contract, made after the date of enactment 
    of this Act, which exceeds the amount of a lower bid if such 
    contract would have been awarded to the lower bidder but for the 
    application of any policy which favors the award of such a contract 
    to a person proposing to perform it in a facility not owned by the 
    United States.''
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make a point of order against the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara]. It seems to me this 
    language is clearly subject to a point of order in that it imposes 
    additional duties on the Secretary of Defense. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest 
    in connection with the point of order that this is a limitation on 
    an appropriation. It does not attempt to impose any additional 
    duties on the executive branch nor does it attempt to legislate in 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the committee to previous 
    rulings made on similar points of order and would like in addition 
    to call to the attention of the Committee the ruling that appears 
    in 4 Hinds' Precedents, page 660, in which it is clearly indicated 
    that a limitation is permitted on a general appropriation bill that 
    in effect provides a negative prohibition on the use of the money, 
    and no affirmative direction on the executive branch.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language here offered is a 
    negative prohibition and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point 
    of order.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3975. See also id. at Sec. 3968, where 
        discussion is had concerning the proposition that limitations 
        must be a negative restriction on the use of money and not an 
        affirmative direction to an executive officer. See also 7 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring Special Screening of Each Loan Application

Sec. 52.24 Language in the Agriculture Department appro

[[Page 6092]]

    priation bill in the form of a limitation which provided in effect 
    that no part of the appropriation shall be paid to any employee of 
    the department or agencies thereof to engage in the execution of 
    any loan which has not first been offered to and refused by private 
    lending agencies customarily engaged in making such loans at 
    comparable rates, was held to provide additional functions for 
    employees not required under existing law to determine customary 
    loan practices, and therefore legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 3600, 3601, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 8. None of the funds herein appropriated or authorized 
    hereby to be expended shall be used to pay the compensation or 
    expenses of any officer or employee of the Department of 
    Agriculture, or of any bureau, office, agency, or service of the 
    Department or any corporation, institution, or association 
    supervised thereby, who engages in, or directs or authorizes any 
    other officer or employee of the Department or of any such bureau, 
    office, agency, service, corporation, institution, or association 
    to engage in the negotiation, solicitation, or execution of any 
    loan which has not first been offered to and refused by the private 
    lending agencies customarily engaged in making loans of similar 
    character and at comparable rates in the region where such loan is 
    proposed to be made. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 8 on the ground that this section is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
    Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I simply call the 
attention of the Chair to the fact that while many of the Government 
lending agencies or semi-Government lending agencies are not included 
in this bill, yet there are appropriations here for the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, the Rural Electrification Administration, and 
Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, all of which make loans to farmers. 
If this provision stays in the bill it means that the officials of 
these organizations must in addition to the duties which are imposed 
upon them by law make an investigation in the case of every 
application, to determine whether or not the application has been 
offered to and refused by private lending agencies customarily engaged 
in making loans of a similar character in the region where the loan is 
to be made. It has been held time and time again that where a provision 
of this kind imposes duties upon a Federal official which are not 
required by law it is legislative in character and subject to a point 
of order. . . .

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William M. Whittington (Miss.).

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

[[Page 6093]]

        The matter is not altogether free from doubt, but in view of 
    the language of section 8, and in view of the additional duties 
    imposed and the additional determinations that must be made, it 
    seems to the Chair that such language is legislative in character. 
    Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Requirement of Satisfactory Performance as Condition Precedent

Sec. 52.25 An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of 
    a limitation providing that no part of the money therein 
    appropriated shall be paid to any state unless and until the 
    Secretary of Agriculture was satisfied that state had complied with 
    certain conditions was held to be legislation imposing new 
    discretionary authority on a federal official.

    On Apr. 23, 1937,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6523), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 3783, 3784, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: 
        Page 72, line 13, after the word ``probation'', insert 
        ``Provided further, That no part of the money herein 
        appropriated shall be paid to any State unless and until, to 
        the satisfaction of the Secretary of Agriculture, such State 
        shall have provided by law or regulation modern means and 
        devices to safeguard against accidents and the loss of life on 
        highway projects within such State.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment. It is legislation under the 
    guise of a limitation. The amendment provides affirmative direction 
    which is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will be pleased to hear 
    the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact we have previously authorized appropriations to be made 
    under the Federal Highway Act which was passed and approved by the 
    President on July 11, 1916. Yearly there is authorized under that 
    act an appropriation of $125,000,000 which is disbursed according 
    to regulations set up not only by the Congress in the organic act 
    but also by regulations of the Bureau of Public Roads. If the 
    Bureau of Public Roads under the terms of the act can withhold any 
    funds which have been authorized by the Congress from any of the 
    States by reason of a regulation which it might set up, likewise 
    the Bureau can limit the expenditure within any State by providing 
    certain traffic safeguards to those using the highways as a 
    condition precedent to the spend

[[Page 6094]]

    ing of Federal funds in the construction and maintenance of 
    Federal-aid roads. For this reason my amendment is purely a 
    limitation upon the distribution among and the use of the highway 
    funds by the State.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order on the ground that 
    although the amendment is drawn in the guise of a limitation, it 
    constitutes new legislation in that it imposes additional duties 
    upon the Secretary.

Change of Official Authorized to Make Expenditure

Sec. 52.26 An amendment providing that certain funds for river and 
    harbor projects shall be allocated and expended by the Secretary of 
    War and the Chief of Engineers, rather than the Secretary upon the 
    advice of the Chief of Engineers as required by existing law, was 
    held to constitute a change in existing law and was therefore not 
    in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 14, 1936,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the War Department appropriation bill (H.R. 
11035), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 2103, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mansfield: On page 68, after the 
        colon, at the end of line 10, insert the following:
            ``Provided further, That expenditures under this 
        appropriation for river and harbor improvements shall be 
        limited to projects that have heretofore been specifically 
        authorized by Congress and all projects so authorized shall be 
        taken under consideration by the Secretary of War and the Chief 
        of Engineers, and the funds shall be allocated and expended in 
        such manner as in their judgment will best serve the interests 
        of commerce and navigation.''

        Mr. [Tillman B.] Parks [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order against that because it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        I invite the attention of the Chair to section 627 of title 
    XXXIII of the Code. The gist of that section is that when an 
    appropriation has been made in lump sum and there should be a 
    surplus for the projects the lump sum was intended to cover that, 
    that surplus may be applied to other authorized projects as 
    determined by the Secretary of War upon the advice of the Chief of 
    Engineers. I also cite the chairman's attention to section 622.
        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not change 
    existing law. If the amendment is adopted, the money will be 
    expended just exactly as it has been expended ever since the Budget 
    was adopted. It is a limitation

[[Page 6095]]

    and not legislation. It simply provides that the money shall be 
    expended in the manner in which the law now prescribes.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    section quoted by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Parks], 627 of 
    United States Code, title XXXIII, states how funds for river and 
    harbor improvements shall be expended. Among other things, it says 
    that the allotments to the respective works consolidated shall be 
    made by the Secretary of War upon recommendation by the Chief of 
    Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of this amendment is in order down to and 
    including the word ``Congress,'' but then it seeks to make 
    mandatory upon the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers the 
    allocation of these funds. The organic law provides that these 
    allocations shall be made by the Secretary of War and by him alone, 
    although upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers.
        The Chair thinks that it is legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill and therefore sustains the point of order.

Approval of Expenditure Rates

Sec. 52.27 Language in an appropriation bill making money available for 
    the hire of draft animals with or without drivers at local rates 
    approved by the director was held legislative in nature and not in 
    order.

    On May 19, 1937,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 4814, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Salaries and expenses, National Capital parks: For 
        administration, protection, maintenance, and improvement of the 
        Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, Arlington Memorial Bridge, 
        George Washington Memorial Parkway, Federal parks in the 
        District of Columbia, and other Federal lands authorized by the 
        act of May 29, 1930 (46 Stat. 482), including the pay and 
        allowances in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 
        27, 1924, as amended, of the police force for the Mount Vernon 
        Memorial Highway and the George Washington Memorial Parkway, 
        and the purchase of one passenger-carrying automobile and 
        operation, maintenance, repair, exchange, and storage of three 
        automobiles, revolvers, ammunition, uniforms, and equipment, 
        per-diem employees at rates of pay approved by the Director not 
        exceeding current rates for similar services in the District of 
        Columbia, the hire of draft animals with or without drivers at 
        local rates approved by the Director, traveling expenses and 
        carfare, and leather and rubber articles for the protection of 
        public property and employees, $176,000.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the last paragraph. It creates additional duties and 
    imposes discretion in the Director of the Service. This language 
    appears on page 114, line 23. It

[[Page 6096]]

    imposes additional duties on the Director. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair inquires of the 
    gentleman as to whether or not this language is intended to 
    increase or add new duties to the Director?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I would say it does not, and 
    restricts the rates. It states they are not to exceed the current 
    rates.
        The Chairman: Are these draft animals hired now with or without 
    drivers?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I am not sure I can give the Chair 
    that information.
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: They are hired with or 
    without.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to ascertain whether or not 
    this changes existing law; that is, whether there is a change in 
    the method in which these animals have to be hired.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: It is my information at the present 
    time they are hired either way, with or without.
        The Chairman: What is the necessity for this language, then?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I may say to the Chair it has been in 
    the appropriation bill several years and there have been no 
    changes.
        The Chairman: The fact it has been carried in previous bills 
    does not necessarily mean it is in order. Unless the gentleman can 
    cite some provision of law which would control the question, the 
    Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is good.
        In the absence of a citation, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Travel Expenses and Attendance at Meetings at Discretion of Commission

Sec. 52.28 Appropriations for traveling expenses, including expenses of 
    attendance at meetings considered necessary by the National 
    Bituminous Coal Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, for 
    the efficient discharge of its responsibilities were held 
    authorized by a law permitting inclusion of such language in a 
    general appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 14, 1939,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2739, 2740, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    National Bituminous Coal Commission in performing the duties 
    imposed upon said Commission by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 
    approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72), including personal services 
    and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; traveling 
    expenses, including expenses of attendance at meetings which, in 
    the discretion of the Commission, are necessary for the efficient 
    discharge of its responsibilities . . . $2,900,000. . . .

[[Page 6097]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make a point of order against the paragraph on the 
    ground it delegates additional power and discretion to the 
    Commission, and I call particular attention to lines 23, 24, and 25 
    of page 9, which also contain the words ``in the discretion of the 
    Commission.''
        It seems to me this makes an appropriation and leaves the 
    amount of the appropriation which shall be spent to the discretion 
    of the Commission or gives the Commission power to determine 
    whether the appropriation should be made. It is the same thing as 
    delegating authority to the Commission to make an appropriation, 
    and is clearly legislation.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard in opposition to the point of order.
        If the distinguished gentleman from New York will read title V, 
    section 83, he will find full and ample authority for the language 
    to which he objects. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair rules that 
    the inclusion of the words ``in the discretion of the Commission'' 
    is probably covered by the citation given by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson]. Title V, section 83, of the United States 
    Code provides:

            That no money appropriated by any act shall be expended for 
        membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the 
        United States in any society or association, etc., or for the 
        expenses or attendance of any person at any meeting or 
        convention of members of any society or association unless such 
        fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid by specific 
        appropriations for such purpose and are provided for in express 
        terms in some general appropriation.

        The language in the paragraph under consideration seems to 
    comply with that provision, and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This statutory authority, now contained in 
5 USC Sec. 5946, and 5 USC Sec. 4110, also specifically authorizes 
appropriations for attendance at any meetings necessary to improve an 
agency's efficiency. Thus, new discretionary authority is not conferred 
by this language, since the law provides for its inclusion in a general 
appropriation bill.

No Funds Except Where Secretary Determines National Security Dictates

Sec. 52.29 To a proviso in a general appropriation bill denying the use 
    of funds to pay price differentials on contracts made for the 
    purpose of relieving economic dislocations, an amendment exempting 
    from that prohibition contracts determined by the Secretary of the 
    Army pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
    inappropriate therefor by

[[Page 6098]]

    reason of national security considerations was ruled out as 
    legislation imposing new duties on the Secretary, absent any 
    showing of existing provisions of law requiring such a 
    determination to be made.

    On Sept. 16, 1980,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 8105, the Defense Department 
appropriation bill, a point of order was sustained against an amendment 
offered to a provision of the bill as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 25606, 25607, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That no funds herein appropriated shall be 
    used for the payment of a price differential on contracts hereafter 
    made for the purpose of relieving economic dislocations: Provided 
    further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be 
    used except that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be 
    awarded on a formally advertised competitive bid basis to the 
    lowest responsible bidder.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: 
        Page 41, line 23, strike out ``Provided further'' and all that 
        follows through ``economic dislocations:'' on page 42, line 1, 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``Provided further, That no funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for the payment of a price 
        differential on contracts hereafter made for the purpose of 
        relieving economic dislocations other than contracts made by 
        the Defense Logistics Agency and such other contracts of the 
        Department of Defense as may be determined by the Secretary of 
        Defense pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
        inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
        considerations:''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and therefore in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        I respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 11.2 which states:

            It is not in order to make the availability of funds in a 
        general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive 
        determination by an executive official which he is not 
        otherwise required by law to make.

        I also respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to 
    section 843 of the House Manual, which states in part:

            The fact that a limitation on the use of funds may . . . 
        impose certain incidental burdens on executive officials does 
        not destroy the character of the limitation as long as it does 
        not directly amend existing law and is descriptive of functions 
        and findings already required to be undertaken under existing 
        law.

        The amendment prohibits the payment of price differentials on 
    contracts except ``as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense 
    pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
    inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
    considerations.''

        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense

[[Page 6099]]

    which is not now required under current law.
        Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to existing 
    laws and regulations'', there is no existing law at the present 
    time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute the 
    existing law, and require this new determination. . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, the amendment prohibits the payment of price 
    differentials on contracts except--and I quote:

            As may be determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant 
        to existing laws and regulations as not to be inappropriate 
        therefor by reason of national security considerations.

        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense which is not now required under the 
    current law. Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to 
    existing laws and regulations,'' there is no existing law at the 
    present time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute 
    the existing law and require this new determination.
        I would urge that the Chair rule that this amendment is out of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would appear to call for a determination by the 
    Secretary of Defense as to appropriateness by reason of national 
    security considerations. Unless the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) can cite to the Chair those provisions of existing law 
    requiring such determinations with respect to defense contracts, 
    the Chair must conclude that the amendment would impose new duties 
    upon the Secretary and would constitute legislation.
        Mr. Addabbo: I accept the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has sustained the point of order.

Making Lesser Determination Than That Contemplated by Law

Sec.  52.30 To a section of a general appropriation bill exempting 
    cases where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
    were carried to term from a denial of funds for abortions, an 
    amendment exempting instead cases where the health of the mother 
    would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term was held not 
    to constitute further legislation, since determinations on the 
    endangerment of life necessarily subsume determinations on the 
    endangerment of health, and the amendment did not therefore require 
    any different or more onerous determinations.

    On June 27, 1984,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appro

[[Page 6100]]

priation bill (H.R. 5798), an amendment was offered to the bill as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
        employees health benefit program which provides any benefits or 
        coverages for abortions, under such negotiated plans after the 
        last day of the contracts currently in force. . . .
            Sec. 619. The provisions of section 618 shall not apply 
        where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
        were carried to term.

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: On page 51, in line 6, 
        delete ``life'' and insert in lieu thereof ``health''. . . .

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    is legislating on an appropriations bill, in violation of rule XXI, 
    clause 2, and I ask that it be ruled in such a way by the Chair. . 
    . .
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states, 
    ``No provision changing existing law shall be reported in any 
    general appropriation bill. . . .'' Out of this language comes the 
    general restriction prohibiting the consideration of legislation as 
    part of an appropriation bill. One way the Chair decides whether a 
    limitation constitutes legislation is to determine whether the 
    provision adds new affirmative directions for administrative 
    officers.
        Clearly, section 619 of H.R. 5798 would have been subject to a 
    valid point of order, had any Member sought to raise one. The 
    ``life of the mother'' exception to a limitation on funding for 
    abortions on an appropriations measure has on numerous occasions 
    been ruled out of order. This happened last year on this very 
    legislation.
        But, no Member raised that point of order on section 619. My 
    amendment seeks to amend section 619 by enlarging the exception to 
    apply to the ``health of the mother,'' rather than to the ``life of 
    the mother.'' The appropriate test is not whether section 619, as 
    amended, would be subject to a point of order but, rather, the test 
    is whether my amendment adds new or different affirmative 
    directions to an administrative officer. The question is whether my 
    amendment would change the nature of the legislation already on 
    this bill.
        To answer that question, we must refer to section 618 of the 
    bill, which prohibits the use of funds appropriated by the bill to 
    pay for an abortion or for administrative expenses in connection 
    with any health plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
    Program [FEHBP] which provides benefits or coverages for abortions. 
    Clearly, the first part of this section is a nullity, because there 
    is no authorization to use one penny appropriated by the bill to 
    pay directly for an abortion. The operative language is the second 
    part.
        The administrative burden imposed by section 619 is that the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management is required to 
    review contracts with health care providers to ensure that they 
    provide no reimbursement for abortions, unless the life of the 
    mother

[[Page 6101]]

    is at stake. Examining those same contracts to ensure that they 
    provide no reimbursement for abortions unless the health of the 
    mother is at stake is precisely the same administrative burden. 
    Each involves reviewing 130 contracts to see whether certain 
    language appears in them. There is no different administrative 
    burden.
        Arguably, section 619 creates another administrative burden 
    which requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
    to monitor the implementation of health benefit plans to ensure 
    compliance with the restriction. In this role, section 619 asks the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management to second guess 
    doctors and insurance carriers to decide whether the life of the 
    mother would truly have been endangered if the fetus had been 
    carried to term. Undoubtedly, this is an affirmative obligation 
    which is nowhere authorized in law and which the Director of the 
    Office of Personnel Management is uniquely unqualified to perform.
        My amendment reduces this administrative obligation. If the 
    Director of the Office of Personnel Management were obliged to 
    ensure compliance with section 619, as amended, he would merely 
    have to determine whether the health of the mother would have been 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This is a much 
    smaller burden.
        The life of the mother is a narrow subset of the health of the 
    mother. Medical personnel can say with far greater assurance that 
    the health of a patient might be impaired than that the life of the 
    patient might be lost. To make a determination that the life of the 
    mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, one 
    must make a prior determination that the health of the mother was 
    also endangered. Hence, section 619, as amended by my amendment, 
    would impose a part of the administrative burden imposed by section 
    619, as reported, but a substantially reduced part. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the precedents, a legislative provision permitted to 
    remain in a general appropriations bill may be perfected by 
    amendment so long as the amendment does not add further 
    legislation. The Chair would refer to Mr. Deschler, chapter XXVI, 
    section 2.3.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the determinations required by 
    section 619 of this bill, the present bill, as to whether the life 
    of the mother is in danger necessarily subsume determinations as to 
    whether the health of the mother is in danger and, for that reason, 
    the amendment adds no different or more onerous requirements for 
    medical determination to those already required and contained in 
    section 619.
        The Chair, therefore, would overrule the gentleman's point of 
    order.

Requiring Determination of Interest Costs

Sec.  52.31 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein as contributions to international 
    organizations in excess of the U.S. share of the organization's 
    assessment budget after deducting inter

[[Page 6102]]

    est costs for loans through external borrowing was ruled out as 
    legislation, requiring federal officials to determine certain 
    interest costs, a duty not discernably required by existing law.

        On Dec. 9, 1982,(15) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
    State, and the Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 6957), a point of 
    order against a provision was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. ----, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For a ruling on a 
        subsequent amendment to the bill having a similar purpose, see 
        Sec. 59.19 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a point of order to the proviso on page 30.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                  International Organizations And Conferences

                  contributions to international organizations

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
        annual obligations of membership in international multilateral 
        organizations, pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific 
        Acts of Congress, including funds for the payment of 1983 
        assessed contributions to the Inter-American Institute for Co-
        operation on Agriculture, $449,815,000: Provided, That none of 
        the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
        a United States contribution to an international organization 
        in excess of the United States share of the organization's 
        assessment budget after deducting from that budget any interest 
        costs for loans incurred on or after October 1, 1982 through 
        external borrowing. . . .

        A major test of whether a provision in an appropriations bill 
    constitutes legislation under clause 2 of rule XXI is whether the 
    provision imposes on the Executive a new duty not mandated in 
    existing law.
        With respect to the issue addressed in the proviso, it is not 
    the normal practice of these international organizations to engage 
    in external borrowing. Thus, U.S. assessed contributions are not 
    normally used for this purpose.
        In the event that such organizations were to engage in external 
    borrowing and to pay off such loans from their assessed budgets, 
    the executive branch would be required to perform a series of 
    actions in order to comply with the proviso in question.
        First, because in some cases the United States pays its 
    contribution in installments, the executive branch would be 
    required to ask each organization if it, in fact, intends to engage 
    in any external borrowing, and if so, the amount they intend to 
    borrow and at what interest rate.
        Second, prior to final payment of the U.S. assessed 
    contribution, the executive branch is required to again inquire of 
    each of the 44 organizations whether it has, in fact, engaged in 
    any borrowing and the precise amount of interest paid as a result.
        Third, the executive branch would be required to verify the 
    response from each organization.

        Fourth, the executive branch would be required to calculate the 
    U.S. pro

[[Page 6103]]

    rata share of such interest payments for each organization engaged 
    in such borrowing.
        Fifth, the executive branch would be required to subtract the 
    U.S. pro rata share determined in the preceding procedure from its 
    final assessed payment to each affected organization.
        None of these actions are required of the executive branch 
    under existing law and none are currently performed by the 
    executive branch as a matter of routine practice. . . .
        More fundamentally, under existing law, the United States is 
    obligated to pay the full amount of its assessed contribution to an 
    international organization. This obligation can only be changed by 
    a superseding provision of law. The proviso attempts to be such a 
    law and as such is legislative in nature. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is 
    subject to a point of order, but at this time of the night we want 
    to save time. So, I am going to concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the Chair 
    upholds the point of order.

Requiring Evaluation of ``Propriety'' and ``Effectiveness''

Sec. 52.32 Language in the guise of a limitation requiring federal 
    officials to make evaluations of propriety and effectiveness not 
    required to be made by existing law is legislation; a proviso in a 
    general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for 
    grants ``not properly reviewed under procedures used in the prior 
    fiscal year'' or for grantees not having ``an established and 
    effective program in place'' was held to require new determinations 
    by federal officials not required by existing law for the fiscal 
    year in question and to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On Oct. 6, 1981,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health and 
Human Services appropriation bill (H.R. 4560), a point of order was 
sustained against a provision in the bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Johnston [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language on page 13 of the bill, lines 
    15 through 24.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
        this paragraph shall be used to fund any grant to any business, 
        union, trade association, or other grantee which is not 
        properly reviewed under the peer review procedures used in 
        fiscal year 1980. Furthermore, none of the

[[Page 6104]]

        funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be used to 
        provide grants to any business, union, trade association, or 
        other grantee that does not have an established and effective 
        program for educating employers or employees about occupational 
        hazards and disease.

        Mr. Chairman, the language prohibits grants to any grantee 
    which does not have ``an established and effective program'' for 
    education. In order to implement this requirement, the Department 
    would have to establish a new procedure for determining what 
    represents an ``established and effective'' program.
        In addition, this would preclude as a recipient any group 
    establishing such a program in the future.
        Both of these requirements impose additional duties on the 
    Department and those represent legislation on an appropriations 
    bill.
        In addition, it precludes the Secretary from monitoring the 
    expenditures of these funds in the future--all of this in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI, of the House. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . . I would like to make 
    the point that the Department has established procedures under 
    which these grants are made available, and this simply is a 
    limitation of the funds which can be expended under the procedures 
    which the Department has now and has had in the past.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Johnston) makes a point 
    of order against the language contained on page 13 of the bill. The 
    Chair has been persuaded by the argument, because he is not sure 
    what is meant by ``properly reviewed'' or what is contained in ``an 
    established and effective program,'' as contained on line 23, and 
    upholds the point of order of the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Johnston) on the basis that those terms impose new duties and 
    determinations on executive officials.

Determining That Life of Mother Endangered if Fetus Carried to Term

Sec. 52.33 A provision in a general appropriation bill requiring new 
    determinations by federal officials is legislation and subject to a 
    point of order, regardless of whether or not private or state 
    officials administering the federal funds in question routinely 
    make such determinations.

    On June 17, 1977,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 
7555), a point of order was made and sustained against a provision in 
the bill as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 19698, 19699, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday,

[[Page 6105]]

    June 16, 1977, the Clerk had read from section 209, line 2, on page 
    40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments? . . .
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 209 which states:

            None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
        perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
        endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

        My point of order is simply that this is legislation in an 
    appropriation act. Obviously and implicitly in this language is the 
    duty on the part of some administrative agency, or on the part of 
    whoever is going to disburse the funds, to ascertain from some 
    physician that the life of the mother or the pregnant woman would 
    be endangered if the fetus is carried to term. This is imposing an 
    additional burden on whatever administrative agency has to carry 
    out this task. On that basis I make a point of order that this is 
    legislation in an appropriation act. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise in opposition to the point of order.
        The provision in question here is identical--I repeat for the 
    purpose of emphasis, the provision in question is identical--to the 
    provisions of Public Law 94-439, that is the Labor-HEW 
    Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1977. It does not impose any 
    additional burdens on any officer of the Federal Government. The 
    determination as to whether the life of the mother is endangered 
    would of course be made by a physician, but not a Federal official, 
    and the physician would have to make that determination anyway 
    whether or not this provision is in the bill, and any physician who 
    is treating a woman seeking an abortion would have to make a 
    judgment as to her state of health. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, in support 
    of the argument presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it 
    should be noted by the Chair that medicaid funds which this section 
    affects are administered by the States and not by the Federal 
    Government.
        In addition to that, the judgment required by section 209 would 
    have to be made by private physicians who might be reimbursed, but 
    it would be State officials who would be doing reimbursing with 
    Federal funds, not Federal officials.
        As the Chair knows, the imposition of additional duties on 
    Federal officials, is a proper test of whether or not the language 
    goes beyond a limitation. In this case it does not involve a 
    judgment by a Federal official, only by a reimbursing State 
    official on the certification in most cases by a private doctor. 
    Therefore I do not believe it imposes any additional duties. It 
    simply is a limitation on the manner in which the funds may be 
    expended. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The language in question, section 209 of the bill, prohibits 
    the use of funds in the act to perform abortions except where the 
    life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
    term. It is well established that a limitation is not in order on 
    an appropriation bill if it requires new duties and determinations 
    on the executive branch and requires investiga

[[Page 6106]]

    tions. Section 209 by its terms requires the Federal Government to 
    determine, in each and every case where an abortion may be 
    performed with Federal funds, whether the life of the mother was 
    endangered. Whether or not such determinations are routinely made 
    by practicing physicians on a voluntary basis, the language in the 
    bill addresses determinations by the Federal Government and is not 
    limited by its terms to determinations by individual physicians or 
    by the respective States.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Duty of Determining Compliance With Federal Law

Sec. 52.34 It is in order on a general appropriation bill to deny funds 
    for the payment of salary to a federal employee who is not in 
    compliance with a federal law, for such limitation places no new 
    duties on a federal official who is already charged with enforcing 
    the law.

    On Sept. 10, 1981,(1) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to rehire 
certain federal employees engaged in a strike in violation of federal 
law (5 USC Sec. 7311; 18 USC Sec. 1918) was held in order as a 
limitation not requiring new determinations on the part of federal 
officials administering those funds, since existing law (5 USC 
Sec. 3333) requiring an affidavit undertaking not to strike to be 
signed by federal employees, and a court order enjoining the strike in 
question, already imposed an obligation on the administering officials 
to enforce the law. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 74.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 20109, 20110, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The precedents cited by the Chair in 7 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1661 and 1662 were examples of 
limitations held in order to deny payments to federal employees who 
``willfully'' refuse to perform their duties. The determination of 
``willfulness'' arguably involves an investigation into intent or 
motive, and might have rendered those amendments suspect under more 
recent precedents.

Funds Conditioned Upon Duties Already Required by Existing Law

Sec. 52.35 Where existing law authorizing public works employment 
    programs required a federal official to consider the severity and 
    duration of unemployment in project areas and to make grants to 
    local governments to be administered for the direct benefit and 
    employment of

[[Page 6107]]

    unemployed residents of the affected community, language in a 
    general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein 
    where less than a certain percentage of the prospective employees 
    had resided in the area and had been unemployed for a stated length 
    of time was held in order as a limitation which did not impose upon 
    federal officials any substantially new duties not already required 
    by existing law.

    The proceedings of Aug. 25, 1976,(2) are discussed in 
Sec. 65.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 27737-39, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.36 An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying 
    availability of funds therein to pay certain benefits to persons 
    simultaneously entitled by law to other benefits, or in amounts in 
    excess of those other entitlement levels, was held in order as a 
    limitation, since existing law already required executive officials 
    to determine whether and to what extent recipients of funds 
    contained in the bill were also receiving those other entitlement 
    benefits.

    The determination of the Chair on June 18, 1980,(3) was 
that, where existing law (19 USC Sec. 2292) established trade 
readjustment allowances to workers unemployed because of import 
competition and required the disbursing agency to take into 
consideration levels of unemployment insurance entitlements under other 
law in determining payments, an amendment to a general appropriation 
bill reducing the availability of funds therein for trade adjustment 
assistance by amounts of unemployment insurance did not impose new 
duties upon officials, who were already required to make those 
reductions. The amendment was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 15354-56, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Page 
    39, line 4, strike out ``$1,841,000,000'' and insert 
    ``$1,486,000,000''. . . .
        On line 7, after ``1980'' insert ``: Provided further, That 
    none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph and made available 
    on October 1, 1980 shall be used to pay trade readjustment benefits 
    under part I of subchapter B of chapter 2 of Title I of the Trade 
    Act of 1974 for any week to any individual who is entitled to 
    unemployment insurance benefits for such week:

[[Page 6108]]

    Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
    paragraph and made available on October 1, 1980 shall be used to 
    pay trade readjustment benefits under part I of subchapter B of 
    chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to any individual in 
    an amount for any week in excess of the weekly unemployment 
    insurance benefits which he received or which he would have 
    received if he applied for such insurance.''. . .
        Mr. [Elwood H.] Hillis [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment violates rule XXI of clause 2 of 
    the rules of the House in that it constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriation bill. The amendment is a change in law and not a mere 
    limitation of the expenditure of the funds appropriated.
        The amendment does not on its face retrench Federal 
    expenditures covered by the bill. Under the precedents of the House 
    in order for an amendment to be covered by the so-called Holman 
    rule, it must on its face reduce Federal expenditures. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that a similar situation is 
    presented by the pending amendment which has two parts. Part one of 
    the amendment would reduce the appropriations. The second part of 
    the amendment, the legislative part, must stand by itself and on 
    its face retrench expenditures, which it fails to do.
        Chapter 26, section 10.4 of Deschler's procedure states:

            An amendment to a general appropriation bill, proposing 
        legislation which will not patently reduce expenditures, though 
        providing for a reduction in the figures of an appropriation, 
        is not in order under clause 2 Rule XXI. . . .

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, this is a straight limitation on an 
    appropriations bill which does nothing more than limit the use of 
    the funds under this program. In order to be considered as a proper 
    limitation on the use of funds, the amendment must prohibit the use 
    of money for some purpose already authorized by law. It has been 
    consistently upheld that the House has the right to refuse to 
    appropriate for any purpose which it may deem improper, even though 
    that purpose may be authorized by law. The principle of limitations 
    on appropriation bills is derived from this concept. If the House 
    has the right to refuse to appropriate anything for a particular 
    purpose authorized by law, it can appropriate for only a part of 
    that purpose and prohibit the use of money for the rest of the 
    purpose authorized by law. My amendment clearly passes this test.
        This language will not require any extra work on the part of 
    the executive officer administering the funds. Both the trade 
    adjustment assistance program and the regular unemployment 
    insurance programs are administered by the same agencies, the State 
    unemployment insurance agencies and the amount and length of an 
    individual's regular unemployment insurance benefits must currently 
    be determined in order to determine the size of the trade 
    adjustment benefit.
        The language of the current law is significant in this regard; 
    part (c) of section 232 states the following:

            The amount of trade readjustment allowance payable to an 
        adversely affected worker . . . for any week

[[Page 6109]]

        shall be reduced by any amount of unemployment insurance which 
        he receives, or which he would receive if he applied for such 
        insurance, with respect to such week; but, if the appropriate 
        State or Federal agency finally determines that the worker was 
        not entitled to unemployment insurance with respect to such 
        week, the reduction shall not apply with respect to such week.

        The only determinations required under my amendment are: First, 
    the point in time when an individual's regular unemployment 
    benefits are exhausted; and second, the amount per week of such 
    benefits.
        Both such determinations are required under current law, in the 
    section I just cited, as part of the process for calculating the 
    trade adjustment benefit to which an individual may be entitled. 
    Consequently, no additional duties are required of the executive 
    officers administering these funds under the language of my 
    amendment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that my amendment is 
    not legislation and the point of order should not lie.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John B. Breaux (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Illinois and 
    because a reading of section 2292 of title 19, United States Code 
    indicates that the determinations required by the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois are precisely those required by the 
    existing law in 19 U.S.C. 2292, the amendment, therefore, is in 
    order as a negative limitation on use of funds in this bill and the 
    ``Holman rule'' is not applicable.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the language of the amendment been 
considered legislation, the ``Holman rule'' exception would not have 
been applicable, since the reduction of the lump-sum figure was not the 
necessary result of the language contained in the amendment.

Requiring Determination of Motive or Intent

Sec. 52.37 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for abortions or abortion-related material and 
    services, and defining ``abortion'' as the intentional destruction 
    of unborn human life, which life begins at the moment of 
    fertilization was conceded to impose affirmative duties on 
    officials administering the funds (requiring determinations of 
    intent of recipients during abortion process) and was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    The proceedings of June 27, 1974,(5) are discussed in 
Sec. 25.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 21687-94, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6110]]

Requiring Substantive Determination Not Required by Law

Sec. 52.38 A restriction on the use of funds in a general appropriation 
    bill which requires a federal official to make a substantive 
    determination not required by any law applicable to his authority, 
    thereby requiring new investigations not required by law, is 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(6) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for the General 
Services Administration to dispose of United States owned agricultural 
land declared surplus was ruled out as legislation requiring the 
finding that surplus United States owned lands are ``agricultural'', 
where the law cited by the proponent of the amendment defining that 
term was not applicable to the GSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 126 Cong. Rec. 22156, 22158, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 57.17, infra.

Requiring Evaluation and Interpretation

Sec. 52.39 To a general appropriation bill containing funds for 
    operation of the Smithsonian Institution, an amendment prohibiting 
    the use of those funds for programs that present the theory of 
    evolution as the sole explanation of life's origins was held to 
    require new determinations as to the theoretical basis of the 
    funded programs and to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On July 22, 1981,(7) the Chair held that an amendment to 
a general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation which required 
a federal official to evaluate the theoretical basis of a program in 
determining whether to apply the limitation was legislation, where that 
duty was not already required by law. Under consideration was H.R. 
4035, Department of the Interior appropriation for fiscal 1982, 
providing in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 16822, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, 
    including research in the fields of art, science, and history, 
    development, preservation, and documentation of the National 
    Collections; . . . $136,374,000: Provided, That funds appropriated 
    herein are available for advance payments to independent 
    contractors performing research services or participating in 
    official Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That none of 
    these funds

[[Page 6111]]

    shall be available to a Smithsonian Research Foundation.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of 
        California]: On page 44, line 25, strike the period and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: ``Provided further, That none of 
        these funds shall be available for public exhibits and 
        performances that present the theory of evolution as the sole 
        explanation of life's origins.''.
            Page 45, line 16, strike the period and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``Provided further, That none of the 
        funds shall be made available for museum programs that present 
        the theory of evolution as the sole explanation of life's 
        origins''. . . .

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill contrary to clause 2 of rule 
    XXI. The amendment provides that funds would not be available for 
    exhibits and performances that present the theory of evolution as 
    the sole explanation of life's origins. This would require 
    Smithsonian officials to make a determination whether or not an 
    exhibition or performance presents the theory of evolution as the 
    sole explanation of life's origins. . . .
        Because this amendment does require that a determination be 
    made that is not now required by law, it legislates on an 
    appropriation bill. These determinations are not ministerial in 
    nature. They would require a determination regarding the sole 
    explanation of life's origins. This is a matter which academicians 
    for centuries have not agreed upon. It would require a significant 
    level of activity on the part of Smithsonian officials to determine 
    the sole explanation of life's origins. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . There would be a preferred way to offer 
    the thought expressed by this amendment, and that would be through 
    an authorization bill. But it relates to an authorization, or the 
    subject relates to the Smithsonian Institution, and I am advised 
    that we do not have an authorization bill going through the House 
    that governs or covers or relates to the Smithsonian Institution. 
    It has just been there so long, the memory of man runneth not to 
    the contrary, we do not have an authorization, so the only ability 
    a Member has, in effect, in a matter of this type is the 
    appropriation vehicle. . . .
        The second argument is that the amendment would--I concede 
    there is some merit to the gentleman from Illinois' argument--that 
    it would, one interpretation would cause the operator of the museum 
    to survey the field to determine what theories exist as to the 
    origin of man and, therefore, it could be argued that it imposes 
    new duties.
        I submit in response to that contention that there is nothing 
    in this amendment that would preclude the museum operator from 
    exhibiting the theory of evolution, but they could not use it as a 
    means, as an explanation of life's origin. To that extent I do not 
    believe that it imposes any new duties.
        The Chairman: (8) . . . If there is no further 
    argument, the Chair has considered the amendments, the arguments of 
    the gentleman raising the point of order and the response thereto 
    and is prepared to rule and does now rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments would require more than incidental 
    determinations

[[Page 6112]]

    by some public official. The amendments would require that a 
    Federal official substantially evaluate public exhibits and 
    performances, and in the case of the second amendment, museum 
    programs, to draw conclusions therefrom as to their theoretical 
    basis.
        The Chair finds that the amendments constitute legislation 
    which would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Relationship of Limitation to All Agencies Funded

Sec. 52.40 In determining whether a restriction on the use of funds in 
    a general appropriation bill constitutes legislation in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2, the Chair must assess the impact of that 
    language on all of the agencies funded in the bill to which the 
    limitation applies in order to discern whether new duties would be 
    imposed on any federal official so affected.

        On June 14, 1978,(9) The Chair found that, to a 
    general appropriation bill from which all funds for the Federal 
    Trade Commission had been stricken as unauthorized, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of all funds in the bill to limit advertising 
    of (1) food products containing ingredients found safe by the Food 
    and Drug Administration or considered ``generally recognized as 
    safe'', or not containing ingredients found unsafe by the FDA, and 
    (2) toys not declared hazardous or unsafe by the Consumer Product 
    Safety Commission, imposed new duties upon the Federal 
    Communications Commission (another agency funded by the bill) to 
    evaluate findings of other federal agencies--duties not imposed 
    upon the FCC by existing law and therefore violated Rule XXI clause 
    2. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 58.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 17644-47, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting Funds to Administer or Enforce Law With Respect to Small Firms

Sec. 52.41 While an amendment to a general appropriation bill may not 
    directly curtail executive discretion delegated by law, it is in 
    order to limit the use of funds for an activity, or a portion 
    thereof, authorized by law if the limitation does not require new 
    duties or impose new determinations.
    Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibited the 
use of funds therein for the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to administer or enforce regulations with respect to 
employers of 10 or fewer employees included in a category having an 
``occupational injury lost work day case rate'' less than the national 
average, except to perform certain enumerated functions and 
authorities, but exempted from the prohibition farming operations not 
maintain

[[Page 6113]]

ing a temporary labor camp, the amendment was held not to constitute 
additional legislation on an appropriation bill.

    The proceedings of Aug. 27, 1980,(10) are discussed in 
Sec. 73.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 23519-21, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring ``Buy American'' Policy Where There is Domestic Production

Sec. 52.42 A section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for the purchase of foreign-made tools except 
    to the extent that General Services Administration determines that 
    domestically produced tools are not available for procurement, was 
    held to impose additional duties on a federal official and was 
    ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7158 (Treasury Department and Postal 
Service appropriation bill), a point of order was sustained against the 
following provision in the bill:

11. 128 Cong. Rec. 28067, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall be available for the procurement of or for the 
        payment of the salary of any person engaged in the procurement 
        of any hand or measuring tool(s) not produced in the United 
        States or its possessions except to the extent that the 
        Administrator of General Services or his designee shall 
        determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity 
        of hand or measuring tools produced in the United States or its 
        possessions cannot be procured as and when needed from sources 
        in the United States and its possessions or except in 
        accordance with procedures prescribed by section 6-104.4(b) of 
        Armed Services Procurement Regulation dated January 1, 1969, as 
        such regulation existed on June 15, 1970. This section shall be 
        applicable to all solicitations for bids opened after its 
        enactment. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: The point of order is 
    against section 505 of H.R. 7158 as constituting legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Section 505 prohibits appropriated funds from being used in the 
    procurement of any hand or measuring tool not produced in the 
    United States or its possessions unless the Administrator of 
    General Services makes a determination that a satisfactory quality 
    and sufficient quantity of hand or measuring tools produced in the 
    United States cannot be procured as and when needed from domestic 
    sources. . . .
        Section 505 is not merely a limitation on appropriated funds 
    but establishes a procurement requirement not contained in existing 
    law, and requires a determination with respect to such procurement 
    by the General Services Administrator that would not be required to 
    be performed under existing law. . . .

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 6114]]

        The Chair would cite Deschler and Brown's Procedure, chapter 
    26, section 19.5:

            A section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
        use of funds in the bill for the purchase of foreign-made tools 
        except to the extent that the administrator of the General 
        Services Administration determines that domestically produced 
        tools are unavailable for procurement, was held to impose 
        additional duties on the Federal official and was ruled out as 
        legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

        So for the reasons as stated precisely by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) the Chair sustains the point of order and 
    the section is stricken.

Prohibiting Funds to Interfere With Rulemaking Authority

--Implicitly Requiring Agency to Reevaluate Directives and Regulations

Sec.  52.43 A provision in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein by the Office of Management and Budget to 
    ``interfere with'' the rulemaking authority of any regulatory 
    agency was ruled out as legislation which would implicitly require 
    that agency to make determinations not required by law in 
    evaluating and executing its responsibilities mandated by law.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7158 (Treasury Department and Postal 
Service appropriation bill), a point of order was sustained against the 
following provision of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 128 Cong. Rec. 28062, 28063, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Office of Management and Budget

                             salaries and expenses

            For necessary expenses for the Office of Management and 
        Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, services as 
        authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $2,500 for 
        official representation expenses, $33,000,000: Provided, That 
        none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the 
        Office of Management and Budget to interfere with the 
        rulemaking authority of any regulatory agency.

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against the limitation on the use of funds by the 
    Office of Management and Budget contained in lines 18 through 21 on 
    page 14. . . .
        . . . [T]his limitation provides ``that none of the funds made 
    available by this act may be used by OMB to interfere with the 
    rulemaking authority of any regulatory agency.''
        This proviso is subject to a point of order because it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 
    2 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the word ``interfere'' might 
    be easily in

[[Page 6115]]

    terpreted to change existing law. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
    of 1980, no agency can require anyone to comply with a form 
    requesting information from more than nine persons unless that form 
    has been approved by OMB. Some forms are, of course, designed to 
    fulfill some regulatory objective. To the extent that OMB rejects 
    or modifies a form which was originated for a regulatory purpose, 
    it might be thought to be ``interfering'' with rulemaking 
    authority. More specifically, if a form is proposed as a part of a 
    regulation, OMB might file public comments on the form, and if the 
    OMB Director finds that the agency's response to his comments were 
    unreasonable, he could disapprove the form. This might be, of 
    course, interpreted as ``interference.''
        Furthermore, under Executive Order 12,291, entitled ``Federal 
    Regulation,'' OMB is given authority to require agencies to comply 
    with various administrative requirements before proposing certain 
    regulations, and to consider advice on those proposed regulations 
    before issuing them in final form. Although the executive order is 
    carefully written to indicate that OMB's authority exists only ``to 
    the extent permitted by law,'' activities under the order might 
    also be thought by some people to be ``interference'' in agencies' 
    rulemaking authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would cite the following provision from Deschler's 
    [Procedure], chapter 26, section 11.1, under the general heading 
    ``Imposing Duties on an Executive Official.''

            Sec. 11.1 Parliamentarian's Note: The application of any 
        limitation on an appropriation bill places some minimal extra 
        duties on federal officials, who, if nothing else, must 
        determine whether a particular use of funds falls within that 
        prohibited by the limitation. But when an amendment, while 
        curtailing certain uses of funds carried in the bill, 
        explicitly places new duties on officers of the government or 
        implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile 
        evidence, or make judgments and determinations not otherwise 
        required of them by law, then it assumes the character of 
        legislation and is subject to a point of order.

        With that citation in mind, and with the arguments made by the 
    gentleman from New York, the maker of the point of order, and 
    because of the entire scope of the duties imposed by law upon the 
    Office of Management and Budget in relationship to regulatory 
    agencies, the Chair feels that the Committee on Appropriations has 
    not sustained the burden of showing that the proposed language 
    would not change and augment the responsibilities imposed by law on 
    the Office of Management and Budget and, therefore, sustains the 
    point of order.

Duties Already Being Performed Pursuant to Provisions in Annual 
    Appropriation Acts

Sec.  52.44 A provision in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to perform abortions except where the life of 
    the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to

[[Page 6116]]

    term, and providing that the several states shall remain free not 
    to fund abortions to the extent they deem appropriate, is 
    legislation requiring federal officials to make determinations and 
    judgments not required by law, notwithstanding the inclusion in 
    prior year appropriation bills of similar legislation applicable to 
    funds in prior years.

    On Sept. 22, 1983,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health and 
Human Services appropriation bill (H.R. 3913), a point of order was 
sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 204. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be used 
    to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term: Provided, however, 
    That the several States are and shall remain free not to fund 
    abortions to the extent that they in their sole discretion deem 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the point of order.
        The gentleman is correct that this language was ruled out of 
    order in 1977.
        However, the fact is that while Chairman Bolling could in 1977 
    say with justification that this language then imposed a 
    determination on Federal officials, the same situation does not 
    exist today as we consider this bill today.
        Mr. Chairman, our requirement that Federal officials determine 
    danger to the life of the mother has been in effect now for 8 
    consecutive years. What was in 1977 a new determination is not new 
    today. We have had 8 years of experience.
        The administrative requirements and the procedures for making 
    this determination have been in operation, as I said, under the 
    existing law for the past 8 years. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this 
    language does not now require a new determination and I ask that 
    the Chair overrule the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazan, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The precedent cited by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) 
    reads as follows:

            A paragraph in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
        use of funds in the bill to perform abortions except [where] 
        the mother's life would be endangered if the fetus were carried 
        to term was ruled out of order as legislation requiring Federal 
        officials to make new determinations and judgments not required 
        by law as to the danger to the mother in each individual case.

        The argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts that for the 
    past several years this provision has been in the law does not 
    necessarily stand muster. The fact that a legislative provision has 
    been carried in general appropriation bills in the past does not 
    protect that provision from a timely point of order under rule XXI, 
    clause 2.

[[Page 6117]]

        Therefore the Chair must sustain the point of order. Apparently 
    the point of order was not raised in the past several years so the 
    1977 rule would still apply.

Eligibility for Food Stamps Where Principal Wage Earner is on Strike

Sec.  52.45 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting 
    the use of funds therein for food stamps to a household whose 
    principal wage earner is on strike on account of a labor dispute to 
    which he or his organization is a party, except where the household 
    was eligible for and participating in the food stamp program 
    immediately prior to the dispute, and except where a member of the 
    household is subject to an employer's lockout, was held to impose 
    new duties and require new investigations by executive branch 
    officials and was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 21, 1977,(17) during consideration of H.R. 7558 
(Department of Agriculture and related agencies appropriations, 1978), 
an amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 20150-52, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 39, line 13, add 
        the following new paragraphs: ``Provided further, That no funds 
        appropriated in this Act shall be used to make food stamps 
        available for the duration of a strike to a household while its 
        principal wage-earner is, on account of a labor dispute to 
        which he is a party or to which a labor organization of which 
        he is a member is a party, on strike: Provided further, That 
        such ineligibility shall not apply to any household that was 
        eligible for and participating in the food stamp program 
        immediately prior to the start of such strike, dispute, or 
        other similar action in which any member of such household 
        engages: Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not 
        apply to any household if any of its members is subject to an 
        employer's lockout.''

        Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, made a point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
    with regard to the pending amendment that the language provides not 
    only the limitation, but it provides that food stamps shall not be 
    available for the duration of a strike to a household while its 
    principal wage earner is out of work on account of a labor dispute.
        The question of ``on account of a labor dispute'' would 
    require, first, an investigation and determination.

        Next it says to which he is a party. That in turn would require 
    an investigation and a determination of whether he is ``a party.''

[[Page 6118]]

        Then it goes further and says ``a labor organization of which 
    he is a member is a party''. That, too, would require an 
    investigation and a determination.
        Going down further we come to the statement where it says 
    ``immediately prior to the start of such strike.'' I do not know 
    how anybody--even though that would require special duties--I do 
    not know how a fellow would perform those duties by knowing how to 
    anticipate what is just in advance of a strike. Certainly it would 
    require a very far-seeing man, knowing some of the things we read 
    about.
        Then it goes further and says, ``or other similar action in 
    which any member of such household engages.''
        All of these, Mr. Chairman, would require special duties.
        As I read the last proviso it says:

            Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not apply 
        to any household if any of its members is subject to an 
        employer's lockout.

        That, in turn, would require a special investigation and 
    special determination. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I fully recognize the fact that the 
    Congress has had this exact amendment before it on a number of 
    occasions, and in no way would make it in order if it were not. I 
    would suggest, however, that in the food stamp program, 
    determinations must be made. By its very nature, the food stamp 
    program does not go to all American families, but goes to families 
    after complete investigations as to the income of the family, as to 
    whether they are at work; if they are not at work, why they are not 
    at work.
        I would further point out that nine States limit all forms of 
    welfare to strikers. The case in point yesterday in the Supreme 
    Court justified that particular ruling by the States. Programs are 
    administered by the States, and I suggest that it does not call 
    upon the Department of Agriculture to ask any questions or have any 
    duties that are not now in law. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair has had an opportunity 
    to examine the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook) and also to consult the precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) 
    does provide that no funds appropriated in this act shall be used 
    to make food stamps available for the duration of a strike to a 
    household while its principal wage earner is, on account of a labor 
    dispute to which he is a party or to whom a labor organization of 
    which he is a member is a party, on strike.
        The amendment further provides that such ineligibility shall 
    not apply to any household if any of its members is subject to an 
    employer's lockout.
        The amendment on this general subject which was offered in 
    1974, the Chair would point out, was not challenged by a point of 
    order.
        The amendment that was offered in the 92d Congress in 1972, 
    which was ruled in order, was in fact different from the amendment 
    presently being offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook).
        The Chair would state that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) differs in a number of 
    significant respects from the amendment held in order in the 92d

[[Page 6119]]

     Congress, 2d session, insofar as it does specify that the 
    ineligibility would apply to an individual who was the principal 
    wage earner of a household, that it applies to one who is 
    determined to be a member of a labor organization which is on 
    strike, and it further requires, in order to be carried out, a 
    determination whether that individual in the household, or any of 
    its members, is subject to an employer's lockout.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment does, therefore, 
    impose additional duties upon a Federal official who is not merely 
    the recipient of information--going beyond language that was held 
    in order in previous Congresses and, therefore, does amount to 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the 1972 ruling referred to above, an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds 
in the bill for making food stamps available during a strike to a 
household ``which needs assistance solely because any member of such 
household is a participant in such strike'' was held in order as a 
valid limitation.(19) Although the Chair tried to 
distinguish the 1972 ruling, the 1977 precedent above should be 
considered as effectively overruling the earlier decision. The 
amendment at issue in 1972 would be viewed in the current practice as 
requiring new determinations by executive officials, such as whether, 
for example, a household needed assistance ``solely'' because a member 
of the household was participating in a strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 23364, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1972 [under 
        consideration was H.R. 15690].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 53.--Duties Imposed on Nonfederal Officials or Parties

    It has been seen that the inclusion in an appropriation bill of 
language that imposes new duties, not authorized in law, on federal 
officials is subject to the point of order that such language is 
impermissible legislation.(20) A more difficult question 
arises where language seems to impose new duties on nonfederal 
officials or on private individuals. Whether the mere imposition of 
certain duties on such parties, without more, constitutes an 
impermissible attempt to legislate, does not clearly emerge from the 
precedents. Many cases which seem to decide the question appear, on 
closer analysis, to turn on somewhat different issues, express or 
implied; perhaps such cases can be better understood if they are 
analyzed in terms of certain issues that were

[[Page 6120]]

implied or assumed in the debate, even if the final ruling was not 
expressly based thereon. The purpose of this section is to address 
these implied issues and to address the apparent inconsistencies in the 
precedents, and to suggest guidelines for future decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 52, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It will be noted that, in several precedents that involve local 
officials and address the issue directly, the assumption is made in the 
debate and in the ruling that the test of whether the language in 
question is permissible is whether it seeks to impose duties on 
officials who are in fact ``federal.'' (1) In some 
precedents of this kind, an attempt is made to endow a local official 
or private person with status as a ``federal'' official by virtue of 
his role in receiving, disbursing, or administering federal funds or 
otherwise participating in some manner in the federal program under 
discussion. If such entity can in fact be seen as having federal 
status, the resolution of the issues becomes easier because the rulings 
discussed above (2) are directly applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 53.4 and 53.5, infra; and see the ruling of June 23, 
        1971, discussed in the ``Note on Contrary Rulings'' which 
        follows Sec. 53.6, infra.
 2. Sec. 52, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attempts to impose duties on local officials not having the status 
of direct or indirect beneficiaries would in some cases ``change 
existing law'' by violating fundamental division between state and 
federal authority. In most cases, the ``local officials'' arguably have 
the status of direct or indirect beneficiaries of federal funding 
programs. The question then arises of the applicability of the many 
precedents indicating that ``limitations'' are allowed which seek only 
to require such beneficiaries to undertake certain actions or fulfill 
certain requirements as a condition to receiving the benefits of the 
federal funds. Such provisions, if they do no more than to describe the 
qualifications of persons who are to benefit from federal funds, are 
frequently allowed in appropriation bills.
    The fundamental issue to be addressed in many cases is not the 
status, federal or local, of the official on whom duties are imposed 
but whether the imposition of the duties violates some substantive 
legislative intent, already existing, with respect to the division 
between local or state and federal roles in the administering of 
federal funds. It should be noted here that in one 
instance,(3) the argu

[[Page 6121]]

ment was made in support of a point of order, that issues involved in 
the provisions of the appropriation bill in question had in fact been 
considered in committee as part of the process of devising the 
authorizing legislation, and the substance of the language in the 
appropriation bill had been rejected. In that instance, the Chair 
overruled the point of order, thereby rejecting the suggestion that the 
provisons of the appropriation bill were matters of substantive 
legislation. In the current status of rulings on the subject, however, 
the Chair would probably be more likely to consider evidence that the 
subject matter of proposed language either was in fact taken into 
consideration during the deliberations of a legislative committee, or 
is the type of substantive issue which should be addressed by such a 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the comments in the ``Note on Contrary Rulings,'' following 
        Sec. 53.6, infra, with respect to the proceedings of Oct. 14, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, it would appear useful in future rulings on the 
issues raised in this section, to focus attention less on the fact that 
officials on whom duties are sought to be imposed are ``local'' and 
inquire instead whether such imposition of duties violates the intent 
of existing law with respect to a substantive plan for a division of 
state and federal responsibility, taking the purposes of existing 
legislation into account. If not, the issue would then be whether the 
language in question constituted a permissible or impermissible attempt 
to attach conditions to be met by prospective direct or indirect 
beneficiaries of funds before they become entitled to the benefits of 
the funds.                          -------------------

Affirmative Directive to Nonfederal Recipient of Funds

Sec. 53.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation, allowing the use of funds only if certain actions are 
    taken by nonfederal institutions, was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On Feb. 14, 1936,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11035, a War Department appropriation bill. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 2091-94, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 supplies, etc.]. . . .
        Mr. [Fred] Beirmann [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biermann: On page 59, line 6, 
        after

[[Page 6122]]

        the words ``corps'', insert ``Provided further, That none of 
        the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for or toward 
        the support of military training courses in any civil school or 
        college the authorities of which choose to maintain such 
        courses on a compulsory basis, unless the authorities of such 
        institutions provide, and make known to all prospective 
        students by duly published regulations, arrangements for the 
        unconditional exemption from such military courses, and without 
        penalty, for any and all students who prefer not to participate 
        in such military courses because of convictions conscientiously 
        held, whether religious, ethical, social, or educational, 
        though nothing herein shall be construed as applying to 
        essentially military schools or colleges.''

        Mr. [Tilman B.] Parks [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and is in no sense a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
    make an exception of the compulsory feature of this military 
    training for those students who have a genuine conscientious 
    scruple against taking military training. The amendment is of the 
    same piece of cloth as the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio], which has been ruled in order many times in this 
    House.
        The Chairman:(5) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    first part of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is 
    very much the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Marcantonio], but there is further language in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa which involves 
    legislation which is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            That unless the authorities of such institutions provide 
        and make known to all prospective students by duly published 
        regulation--

        And so forth. That is an affirmative command and direction to 
    the officers of the institution. The Chair thinks the amendment is 
    not in order because it provides legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair in this instance attached 
importance to the fact that the amendment gave an ``affirmative'' 
directive to school authorities and not on the determinations which 
would be required on the federal officials allotting the funds to the 
institutions. This raises a question whether merely negative language, 
a denial of funds to schools which do not exempt students as described 
or publish the specified information, would have been permitted. It can 
be argued even in that case that such exemption of students and 
publication of information are matters that more properly belong to the 
substantive legislation. On the other hand, if it can be said that such 
exemptions from military service or courses are already mandated by 
law, so that the condition imposed on the schools is merely one of 
publishing information about students' legal rights, and carrying

[[Page 6123]]

out ministerial duties to fulfill the law's requirements, then the case 
would be similar to that in the ruling of June 24, 1969 (discussed in 
the ``Note on Contrary Rulings,'' following Sec. 53.6, infra), in which 
the conditional language permitted by the Chair merely required 
institutions to be in compliance with law.

Restricting Funds to Farmers Unless They Agree to Use Funds in Certain 
    Way

Sec. 53.2 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    for soil conservation payments, an amendment providing that no 
    payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person or 
    corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid shall 
    be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which payments are 
    made was held to be legislation and not in order, in that, under 
    the guise of a limitation it provided affirmative directions that 
    imposed new duties.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 3427, 3428, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Francis H.) Case of South Dakota: 
    Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert ``Provided further, That 
    of the funds in this paragraph no payment in excess of $1,000 shall 
    be paid for any one farm operated by one person: Provided further, 
    That no payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person 
    or corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid 
    shall be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which 
    payments are made.'' . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota that it is legislation under the guise of a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a 
    limitation on payments; and in the present instance one would have 
    to turn from the gentleman from Missouri as chairman of the 
    subcommittee to the gentleman from Missouri as parliamentarian.The 
    Chair will find the following on page 62 of Cannon's Procedure:

            As an appropriation bill may deny an appropriation for a 
        purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit the 
        use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for 
        the remainder of it. It may not legislate as to qualifications 
        of recipients, but may specify that no part shall go to 
        recipients lacking certain qualifications.

        In this particular instance the qualification is set up for the 
    landlord that he shall give at least half this payment to his 
    sharecropper or renter. Viewed

[[Page 6124]]

    in this light I believe the Chair will find it is a pure 
    limitation.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment 
    couples with the purported limitation affirmative directions and is 
    legislation in the guise of a limitation.
        The Chairman: (7) Cannon's Precedents, page 667, 
    volume 7, 1936, section 1672, states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            An amendment may not under guise of limitation provide 
        affirmative directions which impose new duties.

        The last part of the pending amendment states:

            Unless at least one-half of the amount so paid shall be 
        paid to these croppers or renters of farms for which payments 
        are made.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that this requires affirmative 
    action; therefore the point of order is sustained.

Restricting Funds for Construction Within a State Unless Governor 
    Approves

Sec. 53.3 An amendment to the Department of Interior appropriation bill 
    providing that none of the funds therein may be used for the 
    purchase of material for new construction of electrical generating 
    equipment in any state unless approved by the Governor or board 
    having jurisdiction over such matters, was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill (H.R. 3838), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 3530, 3531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: On page 
        43, line 3, insert: ``None of the funds herein appropriated may 
        be used for the purchase of material for the beginning of any 
        new construction of electrical generating equipment, 
        transmission lines, or related facilities in any State unless 
        approved by the governor, by the board, or commission of the 
        respective States having jurisdiction over such matters.''

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    clearly legislation on an appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jensen: If the Chair pleases; yes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman, briefly.
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, again I contend, and I am sure 
    rightly so, that my amendment is purely a limitation of 
    appropriation. In many States there are State authorities which 
    pass on such matters as this. They find it is

[[Page 6125]]

    good for the States because of the fact they do not want the 
    Government of the United States to encroach on State rights. So 
    this is in harmony with the programs which are carried on in many 
    of the States at the present time. It is very important and I think 
    for the welfare of this Nation. It is proper and is not legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has examined the amendment and especially invites 
    attention to the following language appearing in the amendment: 
    ``unless approved by the governor, by the board, or commission of 
    the respective States having jurisdiction over such matters.''
        There can be no doubt but what that language would impose 
    additional duties on the governor and the commission and would 
    require affirmative action, therefore it constitutes legislation, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The more compelling ground for ruling the 
amendment above out of order is that the amendment was an improper 
attempt to interfere with the discretion or authority of federal 
officials, those actually involved in the decision-making process (such 
as the Bureau of Reclamation) with regard to projects which are part of 
a federal program. More precisely, the effect of the amendment was to 
limit the authority of federal officials, not the use of funds 
contained in the bill. Moreover, the provisions here in question may be 
regarded as an attempt to alter fundamental relations, already 
established in existing law, between state and federal entities. Viewed 
in this light, the ruling leaves open the question of whether an 
attempt to impose duties on state officials by establishing conditions 
to be fulfilled by prospective beneficiaries of federal funds is 
impermissible in an appropriation bill.

Determination Whether Life of Mother is at Risk as Prelude to Abortion

Sec. 53.4 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds in the bill to perform abortions except where the 
    mother's life would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term 
    was ruled out of order as legislation, since requiring federal 
    officials to make new determinations and judgments not required by 
    law as to the danger to the mother in each individual case.

    The ruling of the Chair on June 17, 1977,(10) was that a 
provision in a general appropriation bill requiring new determinations 
by federal officials is legislation and

[[Page 6126]]

subject to a point of order, regardless of whether or not private or 
state officials administering the federal funds in question routinely 
make such determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 19698, 19699, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, June 16, 1977, the Clerk had read from section 
    209, line 2, on page 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    section 209 which states:

            None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
        perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
        endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

        My point of order is simply that this is legislation in an 
    appropriation act. Obviously and implicitly in this language is the 
    duty on the part of some administrative agency, or on the part of 
    whoever is going to disburse the funds, to ascertain from some 
    physician that the life of the mother or the pregnant woman would 
    be endangered if the fetus is carried to term. This is imposing an 
    additional burden on whatever administrative agency has to carry 
    out this task. On that basis I make a point of order that this is 
    legislation in an appropriation act. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise in opposition to the point of order.
        The provision in question here is identical--I repeat for the 
    purpose of emphasis, the provision in question is identical--to the 
    provisions of Public Law 94-439, that is the Labor-HEW 
    Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1977. It does not impose any 
    additional burdens on any officer of the Federal Government. The 
    determination as to whether the life of the mother is endangered 
    would of course be made by a physician, but not a Federal official, 
    and the physician would have to make that determination anyway 
    whether or not this provision is in the bill, and any physician who 
    is treating a woman seeking an abortion would have to make a 
    judgment as to her state of health. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman (of Maryland): Mr. Chairman, in support 
    of the argument presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it 
    should be noted by the Chair that medicaid funds which this section 
    affects are administered by the States and not by the Federal 
    Government.
        In addition to that, the judgment required by section 209 would 
    have to be made by private physicians who might be reimbursed, but 
    it would be State officials who would be doing reimbursing with 
    Federal funds, not Federal officials.
        As the Chair knows, the imposition of additional duties on 
    Federal officials, is a proper test of whether or not the language 
    goes beyond a limitation. In this case it does not involve a 
    judgment by a Federal official, only by a reimbursing State 
    official on the certification in most cases by a private doctor. 
    Therefore I do not believe it imposes any additional duties. It 
    simply is a limitation on the manner in which the funds may be 
    expended. . . .

[[Page 6127]]

        Mr. Allen:. . . [W]hile it is true that medicaid is generally 
    and in most cases administered by State agencies, there are certain 
    exceptions where the Federal Government actually supports clinics 
    across the Nation. But beyond that, it would certainly be incumbent 
    upon the Treasury Department, the auditors, and maybe the General 
    Accounting Office to see to it that indeed the life of the mother 
    whose abortion is paid for out of Federal funds was endangered, 
    which would require certainly a certification or written opinion or 
    opinion of some kind from some competent physician.
        It seems to me clear that it is legislation in an Appropriation 
    Act.
        Now, the fact that it was in last year's Appropriation Act does 
    not make it the law of the land. It was stricken down as 
    unconstitutional by a Federal court already, that very language, 
    and we are undertaking to reimpose it into this act after it has 
    been held unconstitutional and the Department of HEW has instructed 
    all of its agencies across the country to abide by the Federal 
    court decision and not to deny any woman an abortion merely on the 
    grounds that she is a welfare patient and unable to pay for the 
    cost.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the first place the fact that the same language was in an 
    appropriation act last year gives it no immunity to the point of 
    order.
        The Chair would like to read the section. It is brief:

            Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
        used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother 
        would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

        Now, there is no limitation in that language to state the use 
    of funds, nor is there any limitation in the language to medicaid.
        The Chair, therefore, feels that the statement, which the Chair 
    will read, is applicable and sound.
        The gentleman from Tennessee has made a point of order against 
    the language in the bill that the Chair has just read on the 
    grounds it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The language in question, section 209 of the bill, prohibits 
    the use of funds in the act to perform abortions except where the 
    life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
    term. It is well established that a limitation is not in order on 
    an appropriation bill if it requires new duties and determinations 
    on the executive branch and requires investigations. Section 209 by 
    its terms requires the Federal Government to determine, in each and 
    every case where an abortion may be performed with Federal funds, 
    whether the life of the mother was endangered. Whether or not such 
    determinations are routinely made by practicing physicians on a 
    voluntary basis, the language in the bill addresses determinations 
    by the Federal Government and is not limited by its terms to 
    determinations by individual physicians or by the respective 
    States.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 53.5 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds in the bill to perform abortions, except where a 
    physician has certified the abortion is nec

[[Page 6128]]

    essary to save the life of the mother, was ruled out as legislation 
    since some of the physicians required to make such certification 
    would be federal officials not required under existing law to make 
    such determinations and judgments.

    On June 17, 1977,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7555 (Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare, and related agencies appropriation bill), a 
point of order was sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 19699, 19700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: On page 39, after line 23, 
        add the following new section:

            ``Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to pay for abortions or to promote or encourage 
        abortions, except where a physician has certified the abortion 
        is necessary to save the life of the mother.''. . .

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment, like the prior one, violates the 
    rules of the House, inasmuch as it contains legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The duties that are imposed by this amendment 
    on the executive branch would also apply to the care of a physician 
    operating in Federal hospitals directly in the employ of the 
    Federal Government. New duties would be imposed on them to make 
    certifications in order to perform abortions. It seems to me that 
    such duties could not be properly imposed in an appropriations 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Hyde: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the well-settled rule 
    that the limitation, if it does not impose a burden on a Federal 
    official or impose a burden on the executive branch, is in order. I 
    think this version of the amendment clearly says we are talking 
    about a physician certifying the abortion as necessary. There is 
    certainly no implication or hint that a member of the executive 
    branch would have to exercise any judgment. . . .
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    language contained in this substitute amendment is the same, in 
    essence, as the original amendment. It does not state what 
    physician or by whom the physician would be paid, but it does 
    require the disbursing officer or the agency that is going to 
    disburse these funds to first obtain a written certification from a 
    physician before disbursing those funds. Thus, it imposes two 
    additional duties; first, on some physician, perhaps a physician 
    paid out of Federal funds or medicaid funds or medicare funds, or 
    whatever, to make this determination. It is the same determination 
    that the other original language carried. Then, in addition, it 
    would require the disbursing officer to ascertain whether or not 
    such a certification was made by a physician before he would be 
    authorized to disburse any funds under this act. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language

[[Page 6129]]

    substantially changes the section previously before us in that it 
    specifically requires determination by a non-Federal official. The 
    argument advanced that someone in the employ of the Federal 
    Government may have to issue a check or not issue a check for a 
    certain amount is not apposite to this case, because it has been 
    ruled many times that the application of any limitation on an 
    appropriation bill requiring some minimal extra duty such as the 
    disbursement of checks does not fall within a definition of a 
    limitation that goes beyond the rules. . . .
        I would again call to the attention of the Chair that the 
    programs that this would affect, financed in this bill, are 
    programs in which the Federal payments are disbursed by State 
    agencies and State employees, and so the chain of action involved 
    would be a private physician making a determination as to the 
    physical state of the mother, and then informing a State official 
    as to his right to reimbursement. Only after all of that procedure 
    is gone through would a Federal official issue some sort of 
    funding. So, I would think the amendment would be particularly in 
    order as a proper limitation. . . .
        Mrs. [Yvonne B.] Burke [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    just like to answer the point raised by the gentleman from 
    Maryland, who talked about the financial payments. The point of 
    order was that there were direct agents, employees of the Federal 
    Government, who would have to make this determination.
        We have within this bill employees of public health services; 
    we have military hospital personnel; we have particular provisions 
    for many who are health personnel, who are directly paid by the 
    Federal Government, many of whom are in administrative positions 
    who would be required to make a determination; we have St. 
    Elizabeths Hospital within this bill, and there are many provisions 
    for direct Federal action. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from New York makes a point of order against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois on the ground 
    that it constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. The 
    amendment would prohibit funds in the bill to perform abortions 
    except where the physician involved has certified that the life of 
    the mother was in danger.
        For the reasons stated by the Chair in the just previous 
    ruling, and because the Chair is convinced by the argument of the 
    gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from California that 
    some of the physicians affected by the amendment are Federal 
    officials and would be required by the amendment to perform new 
    duties and determinations not required of them by law, therefore 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Requiring State Official to Make Determinations Not Required by Law

Sec. 53.6 An amendment to an appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    funds therein for certain stream channelization projects unless the 
    appropriate Governor con

[[Page 6130]]

    siders its environmental effects and certifies to the Secretary of 
    Agriculture that such project is in the public interest was held to 
    impose additional duties on an executive official not already 
    required by existing law and was therefore ruled out in violation 
    of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 23, 1971,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 9270 (Department of Agriculture and 
environmental and consumer protection appropriation bill) a point of 
order against the following amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 21647, 21648, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: 
        On page 37, immediately after line 25, insert the following:
            ``No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used for engineering or construction of any stream 
        channelization measure under any program administered by the 
        Secretary of Agriculture unless (1) such channelization is in a 
        project a part of which was in the project construction stage 
        before July 1, 1971; or (2) the Governor of the State in which 
        the channelization is to be located certifies to the Secretary 
        of Agriculture, after consideration of the environmental 
        effects of such channelization, that such channelization is in 
        the public interest.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this language is not 
    a limitation on an appropriation bill, but carries with it the 
    requirements of certain duties by the Governors of the States for 
    certain actions and certain determinations as to whether or not 
    they can be properly made, and therefore brings them within the 
    point of order, which I insist upon. . . .
        Mr. Reuss: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is 
    clearly and squarely within the precedents. It constitutes an 
    appropriation limitation on an appropriation. The statement of the 
    Chair reported in volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents at page 704, is 
    squarely in point.
        In that matter on May 21, 1918, an amendment was offered to the 
    agriculture appropriation bill saying:

            No part of this appropriation shall be available for any 
        purpose unless there shall have been previously issued the 
        proclamation by the President.

        It then refers to the kind of proclamation that the President 
    may offer.
        Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, who, incidentally, was 
    my predecessor in my congressional district, made the point of 
    order that the amendment was legislation, and hence out of order on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chair held:

            A different principle from that of germaneness is involved 
        in the point of order to this amendment. If the Chair 
        understands the amendment it is intended as a limitation on the 
        payment of any money under this

[[Page 6131]]

        paragraph until the President has issued a certain indicated 
        proclamation which in his discretion he may or may not issue. 
        This amendment does not compel him to issue it, but so long as 
        it is unissued the House does not propose, if the amendment is 
        adopted, to allow the Agricultural Department to have the 
        benefit of the appropriation in this paragraph. . . .
            This amendment does not compel the President to issue the 
        proclamation referred to. He may issue it or refuse to issue it 
        in his discretion. But the amendment in substance says to the 
        Department of Agriculture: We propose to withhold from you the 
        benefit of this appropriation during the full period of time 
        during which this proclamation is unissued.

        Mr. Chairman, this puts it on all fours with the amendment that 
    I have offered, which leaves it to the Governor of the State to 
    determine whether the channelization project proposed is in the 
    public interest. It does not impose any duty on the Governor. If he 
    acts under this, then the Secretary of Agriculture is governed by 
    it, and there are no additional duties imposed upon the Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, to the same effect there are numerous other 
    precedents cited. February 24, 1916 there is reported at page 651 
    of 7 Cannon's Precedents a ruling in which the Chair ruled in an 
    almost identical matter that a requirement of a certification by 
    patrons of a rural mail route was not legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, but a permissible limitation. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin has offered an amendment against 
    which the gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, 
    for that reason is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The amendment provides that none of the funds appropriated in 
    the act should be used for stream channelization by the Secretary 
    of Agriculture unless the Governor of the State where the channel 
    is to be located considers its environmental effect and certifies 
    to the Secretary that such channelization is in the public 
    interest.
        The question involved is whether or not the amendment seeks to 
    impose additional duties upon an executive or to require from that 
    executive an additional certification not previously authorized in 
    existing law; if it does so, it constitutes legislation under the 
    precedents.
        The Chair has examined the precedent cited by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin which arose on May 12, 1918. There is some 
    similarity except that the amendment offered on that occasion by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Randall) would have provided 
    that no part of the appropriation shall be available until a 
    previously issued proclamation had been made, and following the 
    word ``proclamation'' in the amendment offered on that occasion 
    appear these words: ``authorized by Section 15 of the Act of August 
    10, 1970.''
        Therefore, it appears to the Chair that the precedent cited by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin is distinguishable from the present 
    case in that the proclamation required in that amendment was one 
    that was already authorized under existing law.

[[Page 6132]]

        The Chair is not aware that the certification and finding 
    required of a Governor by the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin is required or authorized by existing law.
        The Chair would refer the Committee to the decision by Chairman 
    Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, on March 30, 1949, which the Chair 
    regards to be more in point with the present situation. On that 
    occasion an amendment was offered to the Department of Interior 
    appropriation bill providing that none of the funds might be used 
    for the purchase of certain materials and the beginning of certain 
    new construction unless approved by the Governor or by a board or 
    by a commission of the respective State.
        On that occasion, Chairman Cooper held that this was 
    legislation on an appropriation bill in that it required a 
    determination and imposed a burden upon the Governor which did not 
    previously exist.
        The Chair feels that that decision would be controlling in this 
    instance and, since the present amendment would impose additional 
    duties not existing in present law, in violation of clause 2, rule 
    XXI sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In several instances, described 
elsewhere,(16) the Chair and others have assumed that the 
test for determining whether provisions imposing new duties are 
legislative in nature, is whether the duties are imposed on federal or 
nonfederal officials. The view that was at least implied in those 
instances was that only where federal officials are given new 
substantial duties to perform does the imposition render the provision 
improper. In the 1971 ruling above, however, the Chair took the view 
that the conferral of new authority on a state official makes the 
provision subject to a point of order. The Chair apparently rejected 
the view that the state official in the present instance could be 
considered in some sense as having the standing of a direct or indirect 
beneficiary, so that the duties to be performed by him were merely 
those conditions he was required to fulfill to receive the benefit of 
the funds in question, and accordingly rejected Mr. Reuss' argument 
that nothing in the provision compelled the official to do anything. It 
is probably useful to consider this precedent as an example of an 
improper attempt to grant new authority to state officials, or of an 
attempt to change a policy affecting fundamental relations, already 
established in existing law, between state and federal entities. 
Nothing in the ruling, of course, is inconsistent with the principle 
that where a contingency is itself au

[[Page 6133]]

thorized, the contingency may be included in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 53.4 and 53.5, supra, and the ruling of June 23, 
        1971, which is discussed in the ``Note on Contrary Rulings'' 
        below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note on Contrary Rulings

    As indicated above,(17) the precedents just discussed 
represent the line of authority that is in consonance with modern 
precedents. What follows is a discussion of some rulings, particularly 
earlier rulings, that seem to conflict in some degree with the 
principles stated in the precedents discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See the introduction to this section (Sec. 53), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 27, 1952,(18) an amendment to a bill relating to 
housing projects was introduced for purposes of ensuring that certain 
types of projects would be approved by local officials. In response to 
a point of order, the Chair ruled that, to a general appropriation 
bill, an amendment providing that no part of an appropriation for 
defense housing could be used for administrative expenses or salaries 
of the Public Housing Administration, so long as that agency proceeded 
with certain types of projects not approved by local officials, was a 
proper limitation and therefore in order. The amendment would now 
probably be deemed a change in existing law, since the authorizing law 
relating to defense housing was in the nature of an open-ended 
directive to the President to build permanent housing around defense 
installations; no local approval of projects was required. It should 
also be noted with regard to this ruling that, although the Chair held 
the amendment to be germane, such ruling would now at least be 
arguable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 8353, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        8370, a supplemental appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 14, 1965,(19) the ruling of the Chair was that 
language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds for the 
rent-supplement program and specifying that ``no part of the . . . 
appropriation or contract authority shall be used'' in any project not 
part of a ``workable program for community improvement'' (as defined in 
the Housing Act of 1949), or which is without local official approval, 
was held to be a proper limitation and in order. The argument was made 
by Mr. Thomas L. Ashley, of Ohio, that the issues raised by the 
language in question ``were the subject of discussion and, indeed, 
proposed amendments at the time the housing bill was debated and 
considered ear

[[Page 6134]]

lier this year. The amendments which sought to accomplish the same 
objective were rejected.'' Thus, it would seem that the language in 
question was an example of an attempt to change the underlying purposes 
or policy of legislation, such policy having been duly considered. The 
Chair, however, apparently rejected Mr. Ashley's arguments and, in 
overruling a point of order against the language, noted that no 
additional duties were imposed on the administration by the proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 26994, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(20) the Chair ruled that language in a 
general appropriation bill providing funds for the National Teacher 
Corps, specifying that ``none of these funds may be spent . . . prior 
to approval . . . by the state educational agency'' was a proper 
limitation restricting the availability of funds and was therefore in 
order. Arguments that the Chair found persuasive were to the effect 
that, because of the conditional nature of the language, no additional 
duties were affirmatively required. The weight of authority at present, 
however, seems to be that the conditional nature of such language would 
not prevent a finding by the Chair that existing law is sought to be 
changed thereby.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 7119, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. H.R. 14012, a 
        supplemental appropriation bill, was under consideration.
 1. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 47-50, supra, discussing appropriations 
        subject to conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 1968,(2) the Chair seemed to indicate that, 
although it is not in order by way of a limitation to impose new duties 
on an executive officer, it is permissible to make the payment of funds 
contingent upon the performance of certain obligations by private 
citizens or other persons not in the government's employ. For example, 
to a general appropriation bill, including funds for the Treasury 
Department, an amendment providing that none of the funds therein shall 
be used for any expense in connection with customs clearance or import 
licenses for rifles which are not registered with the Commissioner of 
Customs, was held to be a proper limitation and in order. In its 
ruling, the Chair stated, ``The Chair . . . would interpret the 
amendment as not imposing any additional duties of a ministerial sort 
upon the Commissioner of Customs, but rather upon the importer or 
holder of the license.'' The ruling might thus be understood as an

[[Page 6135]]

example of the fine distinctions sometimes required between (1) cases 
in which legitimately imposed qualifications of potential recipients of 
benefits requiring federal expenditures might include certain initial 
actions to be taken by the potential recipients as part of the 
qualifying process, and (2) those cases in which requirements sought to 
be imposed in appropriation bills amount to legislative changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 16712, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11734, a supplemental appropriation bill. See also 
        Sec. 52.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The qualifications of a nonfederal recipient of federal funds were 
also an issue in the ruling of June 24, 1969.(3) The Chair 
on that date ruled that, while an amendment under the guise of a 
limitation may not require affirmative action or additional duties on 
the part of federal officials, it is in order on a general 
appropriation to deny funds to a nonfederal recipient of a federal 
grant program unless the recipient is in compliance with a provision of 
federal law already applicable to it; for such a requirement places no 
new duties on a federal official (who is already charged with 
responsibility for enforcing the law) but only on the nonfederal 
grantee. The amendment in question stated that ``none of the funds 
appropriated by this act for payments authorized by section 1705 of the 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, shall be used to formulate 
or carry out any grant or loan to any institution of higher education 
unless such institution shall be in full compliance with section 504 of 
Public Law 90-575.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 17085, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12307, a general appropriation bill.
 4. Section 504 of Pub. L. No. 90-575, which was concerned with 
        eligibility for student assistance, stated in part that 'if an 
        institution of higher education determines . . . that [an] 
        individual has been convicted (of certain crimes) then the 
        institution . . . shall deny . . . further payment . . . for 
        the direct benefit of [the individual under the programs 
        specified].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 1971,(5) the Chair indicated the applicable 
principle to be that, where language on an appropriation bill 
restricting the availability of funds therein for certain purposes or 
to certain recipients requires an executive official to determine the 
applicability of that restriction in a specific case, it must be shown 
that such official is not being called upon to perform substantial 
duties in addition to those required by law.

[[Page 6136]]

The ruling of the Chair in this instance was that an amendment to an 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for making 
food stamps available during a strike to a household ``which needs 
assistance solely because any member of such household is a participant 
in such strike'' was in order as a valid limitation which did not 
impose substantial affirmative duties on executive officials. As in the 
June 17, 1977, precedents,(6) the implied assumption in the 
discussion of the point of order on June 23, 1971, was that the test 
for allowing the amendment was whether or not it imposed additional 
duties on federal officials. The ruling supports the view that, where 
the conditions stated in an appropriation bill can be seen merely as 
those which prospective recipients or beneficiaries must fulfill in 
order to qualify as proper beneficiaries, the conditions will be 
allowed. (The Holman rule, mentioned in debate, is not strictly 
applicable here, since the question in applying the Holman rule is not 
whether the provision in question is legislative in nature; the 
question is whether a provision which is admittedly legislative in 
nature is to be permitted because it fulfills the precise requirements 
of the Holman rule exception to the general rule against legislation on 
appropriation bills.) It should also be noted with regard to this 
ruling that, during argument on the point of order, Mr. James G. 
O'Hara, of Michigan, argued that the official administering the program 
under the proposed amendment would have the additional burden of 
determining whether a potential recipient needed food stamps solely 
because a family member was on strike, or whether there were other 
reasons or motives for such action. The Chair apparently accepted the 
view of Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, that such a determination 
would be made by officials administering the program at the local 
level, who would certify that finding to the federal administrators. As 
noted elsewhere, however,(7) terms requiring definition, or 
terms which relate to motive, intent, and the like, when used in 
general appropriation bills or amendments thereto, frequently raise the 
presumption that the language of a proviso is legislative in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 21671, 21672, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 9270, agriculture, environmental, and 
        consumer protection appropriations for fiscal 1972.
 6. See Sec. Sec. 53.4 and 53.5, supra.
 7. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 25.14 and 50, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In another case of interest on this subject, the Chair ruled on 
Jan. 31, 1941,(8) that an amend

[[Page 6137]]

ment forbidding payments or allowances for an operating differential 
subsidy as provided in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, on 
any vessel unless the owners or operators of such subsidized vessels 
shall have filed with the U.S. Maritime Commission a certificate 
setting forth certain information relative to employees on such 
vessels, was a proper limitation and in order. The amendment, it should 
be noted, required extensive certifications by nonfederal recipients, 
not required by existing law. No argument was advanced that the 
reporting requirements were tantamount to a change in existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 448, 449, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2788, an independent offices appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, it should be remembered that, while some rulings may 
suggest that it is permissible to make the payment of funds contingent 
upon the performance of certain acts or obligations by private citizens 
or other persons not in the federal government's employ, recent rulings 
indicate that it is not in order to make the availability of funds in a 
general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive determination 
by a state or local government official or agency which is not 
otherwise required by existing law.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See, for example, the ruling at 131 Cong. Rec. ----, 99th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 25, 1985, during proceedings relating to H.R. 3038 
        (HUD, independent agencies appropriations for fiscal 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 54. Judging Qualifications of Recipients

Past Employment of Heads of Departments

Sec. 54.1 An amendment providing that no part of an appropriation shall 
    be paid to the head of any executive department who, within a 
    specified period was a partner in a firm which derived any income 
    from representing a foreign government, was held to be a proper 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and in order.

    On July 26, 1951,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4740, a Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and 
the Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 8963, 8965, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John) Phillips (of California): On 
    page 58, following line 14, add a new section to be numbered 
    section 602:
        ``None of the money appropriated in this act shall be paid to 
    the head of any executive department who, within a period of 5 
    years preceding his appointment, was a partner in, or a

[[Page 6138]]

    member of, a professional firm which derived any part of its income 
    from representing, or acting for, a foreign government, or who, 
    acting as an individual, derived income from such 
    representation.''. . .
        The Chairman: (11). . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California has offered an amendment which 
    has been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from New York has 
    made a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not a proper limitation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care. 
    . . .
        It should be clear that almost any limitation must necessarily 
    require some action on the part of somebody. One of the classic 
    illustrations given on many occasions by the distinguished 
    parliamentarian to whom the Chair made reference a few moments ago, 
    Hon. James R. Mann, of Illinois, was that if a provision states 
    that ``no part of this appropriation shall be paid to a red-headed 
    man,'' somebody will have to find that red-headed man and determine 
    whether his hair is red; therefore, it would appear that in any 
    instance where a limitation is sought to be imposed there must be 
    some activity contemplated or some effort exerted by someone to 
    carry out the provisions of the limitation.
        The Chair would invite attention to section 1593 of Cannon's 
    Precedents, and reads the syllabus:

            A provision that no part of an appropriation be used for 
        payment of any employee not appointed through the civil service 
        was held to be a limitation and in order on an appropriation 
        bill. . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For more recent precedents involving limitations on funds for 
        salaries of certain employees as described in provisions of an 
        appropriation bill or amendment, see, for example, Sec. 74, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that that decision is applicable to 
    the pending question raised by the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York. It would appear that the over-all and 
    controlling element of the pending amendment is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. It is entirely negative in character, and does 
    not affirmatively impose any additional duties upon anybody.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Qualification of Nonfederal Supplier of Goods or Services

Sec. 54.2 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that 
    none of the funds therein shall be used to purchase goods or 
    services from suppliers who compensate any of the officers or 
    employees in excess of a certain rate was held a valid limitation 
    on the use of funds in the bill which merely defined nonfederal 
    employer recipients who could not receive funds and did not 
    affirmatively impose salary levels.

[[Page 6139]]

    On June 15, 1972,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15417), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 40, after line 4, 
        insert:
            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be used to purchase goods or services from a supplier 
        which compensates any officer or employee at a rate in excess 
        of level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of 
        title 5, United States Code.''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, again I am referring to Cannon's 
    Procedure of the House of Representatives, and I am referring to 
    pages 69 and 70, under the heading, ``Construed as legislation and 
    not limitations and therefore not admitted''.
        I go on to read:

            Provision that no part of an appropriation should be used 
        except in a certain way, thereby restricting executive 
        discretion to the extent of imposing new duties.

        Now, this is clearly what is being attempted in this amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, only to say that I think this is 
    clearly a limitation on an appropriation bill, and there have been 
    many occasions where appropriations cannot be used to make 
    purchases with corporations where certain activities are carried on 
    by the corporation.
        I have nothing further to say.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is aware of the precedent cited by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, but under the language as it is written in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana it is a negative 
    restriction, and therefore the Chair rules that the amendment is in 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 55. President's Authority

Grant of New Discretionary Authority

Sec. 55.1 Language in a general appropriation bill which authorizes the 
    President to determine amounts of funds to be available in the 
    administration of a program, although such funds are required to be 
    distributed by application of an allotment formula in existing law, 
    confers on the President a dis

[[Page 6140]]

    cretionary authority to make determinations in contravention of 
    that law, and is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    subject to a point of order.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15931), the following 
point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) Are there any points of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the language contained in section 
    411, beginning on line 12, through line 20 on page 61, which reads 
    as follows:

            Sec. 411. In the administration of any program provided for 
        in this Act, as to which the allocation, grant, apportionment, 
        or other distribution of funds among recipients is required to 
        be determined by application of a formula involving the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available for distribution, the 
        amount available for expenditure or obligation (as determined 
        by the President) shall be substituted for the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available in the application of 
        the formula.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that the 
    section in question constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and does not come within the exception.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language is patently legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania concedes the 
    point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Affirmative Directive

Sec. 55.2 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,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867), a

[[Page 6141]]

point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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: (18) . . . The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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 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.

Limiting President's Legal Authority

Sec. 55.3 Where existing law gives the President discretionary 
    authority to furnish and allocate foreign military assist

[[Page 6142]]

    ance, subject to the authorization levels contained therein, it is 
    not in order in a general appropriation bill to include language 
    which would limit the President's authority to allocate excess 
    defense articles to 120 percent of amounts justified to Congress 
    for any country.

    On June 4, 1970,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867), the following paragraph was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 18400, 18401, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Military assistance: For expenses authorized by section 504(a) 
    of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, including 
    administrative expenses and purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
    for replacement only for use outside of the United States, 
    $350,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds contained in this 
    paragraph shall be available for the purchase of new automotive 
    vehicles outside of the United States . . . Provided further, That 
    the military assistance program for any country shall not be 
    increased beyond twenty per centum of the amount justified to the 
    Congress, unless the President determines that an increase in such 
    program is essential to the national interest of the United States 
    and reports each such determination to the House of Representatives 
    and the Senate within thirty days after each such determination: 
    Provided further, That the Excess Defense Articles program for any 
    country shall not be increased beyond twenty per centum of the 
    amount presented to the Congress.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the proviso on lines 16 through 19. This 
    is clearly legislation in an appropriation and is not a proper 
    appropriation limitation. It attempts to provide that excess 
    defense articles programs may be increased up to 20 percent for any 
    country beyond the amounts presented to the Congress.
        As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to go 
    into the substance of the proviso since this language is not in the 
    authorization act. I do want to point out, however, that this 
    proviso particularly is not in the interest of our national 
    security nor is it in the interest of our economic well-being.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to renew my point of order that 
    this is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin has raised a point of order 
    against the language appearing on page 6 of the bill, lines 16 
    through 19, relating to excess defense articles, on the ground that 
    the proviso is in the nature of legislation on an appropriation 
    bill in violation of rule XXI, clause 2.
        The Chair has examined the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
    amended. Section 503 of that act bestows authority for military 
    assistance and gives the President wide discretion in the

[[Page 6143]]

    furnishing and allotment of such assistance, subject of course to 
    the general authorization levels set in section 504. The Chair is 
    of the opinion that the proviso to which the point of order is 
    directed places a limitation upon that Executive discretion as 
    contained in the basic act and is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill that is not in order under the rule.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Requiring Detailed Annual Report

Sec. 55.4 Language in a general appropriation bill requiring the 
    President to report to Congress at least semiannually on certain 
    expenditures of funds under the bill, and detailing the type of 
    justification the President must make in that report, was held to 
    impose new affirmative duties on the President and was ruled out on 
    a point of order.

    On June 4, 1970,(1) 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 
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 108. Any expenditure made from funds provided in this 
        title for procurement outside the United States of any 
        commodity in bulk and in excess of $100,000 shall be reported 
        to the Senate and House of Representatives at least twice 
        annually: Provided, That each such report shall state the 
        reasons for which the President determined, pursuant to 
        criteria set forth in section 604(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961, as amended, that foreign procurement will not 
        result in adverse effects upon the economy of the United States 
        or the industrial mobilization base which outweigh the economic 
        or other advantages to the United States of less costly 
        procurement outside the United States.

        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 108.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adair: This is legislation in an appropriation bill. It 
    requires a report to the Congress of all procurements of more than 
    $100,000 made outside of the United States and prescribes the type 
    of justification that the President must give. Thus, in my opinion, 
    it is clearly legislation.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, to answer a point that has been made 
    earlier by the gentleman from Ohio, this same general subject 
    matter is in existing law in section 604 of the Foreign Assistance 
    Act, where again, in my opinion, it is set forth more fully and 
    effectively.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, we ask for 
    a ruling.

[[Page 6144]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The language in 
    question, the significant part of it, section 108:

            Any expenditure made from funds provided in this title for 
        procurement outside the United States of any commodity in bulk 
        and in excess of $100,000 shall be reported to the Senate and 
        the House of Representatives at least twice annually:

        That, obviously, is an imposition of new duties upon the 
    Executive and it clearly falls within the prohibition of section 
    XXI, clause 2.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Imposing Duties as Condition Precedent to Funding

Sec. 55.5 To a general appropriation bill containing funds for foreign 
    assistance, an amendment restricting the availability of funds 
    therein for certain countries until the President reports to 
    Congress his determination that such country does not deny or 
    impose more than nominal restrictions on the right of its citizens 
    to emigrate was held to impose additional duties on the President 
    and was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Dec. 11, 1973,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Foreign Assistance Appropriation Act 
(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) until the President 
        makes a report to the Congress on his determination that such 
        country does not (1) deny its citizens the right or opportunity 
        to emigrate; (2) impose more than a nominal tax on emigration 
        or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for 
        any purpose or cause whatsoever; or (3) impose more than a 
        nominal tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as 
        a consequence of the desire of such citizen to emigrate to the 
        country of his choice.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment in that it requires a 
    Presidential determination and is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Missouri 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ichord: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from Louisiana 
    would with

[[Page 6145]]

    draw his point of order, because the amendment which I offer is 
    exactly the Vanik amendment which has been adopted by the House by 
    a vote of 4 to 1.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is in order, and I 
    refer the Chair to Hinds' Precedents, section 3942. An amendment 
    which was submitted to an appropriation bill, to an agricultural 
    appropriation bill, provided that no part of the appropriation 
    shall be available for the agricultural college of Utah until the 
    Secretary of Agriculture shall be satisfied and shall so certify to 
    the Secretary of the Treasury that no trustee, officer, instructor, 
    and so forth, is engaged in the practice of polygamy.
        That required a certification by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
    Mr. Chairman. This requires a certification by the President that 
    certain nations do not deny the rights of immigration to their 
    citizens. It is a certification and report on the basis of that 
    precedent, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in 
    order. If not, I have another amendment at the desk which will be 
    in order, on trade to Russia. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment 
    requires the President to make a report to the Congress on his 
    determination that a certain country does not deny its citizens the 
    right or opportunity to emigrate, impose more than a nominal tax on 
    emigration, and certain other factors.
        This evidently places additional duties upon the President and 
    requires new determinations. A similar amendment was ruled out as 
    legislation when the foreign aid appropriation bill was considered 
    in 1972. The Chair holds that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This ruling is another indication, similar 
to the ruling in Sec. 52.2, supra, that the precedent cited in 4 Hinds' 
Precedents Sec. 3942 has been overruled.

Imposing Presidential Determination of Military Procurement Policies

Sec. 55.6 A provision in a foreign aid appropriation bill requiring the 
    President to consider a recipient country's military procurement 
    policies before furnishing assistance under that act or under the 
    Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act was held to 
    require additional duties on the part of the President and was 
    ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 4, 1970,(5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 18408, 18409, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 120. (a) In order to restrain arms races and 
        proliferation of so

[[Page 6146]]

        phisticated weapons, and to insure that resources intended for 
        economic development are not diverted to military purposes, the 
        President shall take into account before furnishing development 
        loans, Alliance loans, or supporting assistance to any country 
        under this Act, and before making sales under the Agricultural 
        Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended:
            (1) the percentage of the recipient or purchasing country's 
        budget which is devoted to military purposes;
            (2) the degree to which the recipient or purchasing country 
        is using its foreign exchange resources to acquire military 
        equipment; and
            (3) the amount spent by the recipient or purchasing country 
        for the purchase of sophisticated weapons systems, such as 
        missile systems and jet aircraft for military purposes, from 
        any country.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against section 120. It clearly constitutes 
    detailed legislative provisions in an appropriation. Furthermore, 
    in essence and detail, its language is already in existing law--
    section 620(s) of the Foreign Assistance Act. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . Does the gentleman from 
    Louisiana care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Again a careful reading will show that the President is 
    directed to take into account various considerations, all of which 
    constitute legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Presidential Determination of Soviet Troop Reductions

Sec. 55.7 To an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriation 
    bill, prohibiting the use of funds in that act in excess of a 
    specified amount for support of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, an 
    amendment providing that the limitation shall cease to apply if the 
    President determines that the Soviet Union has not made comparable 
    withdrawals of forces from the Mideast following the reduction of 
    U.S. troop strength in Europe was held to impose additional 
    affirmative duties upon the President and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Oct. 8, 1970,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 19590), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 35822, 35826, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward G.] Biester [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 6147]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biester: on page 45, line 5, 
        insert the following new section and renumber succeeding 
        sections:
            ``Sec. 844. After June 1, 1971, no part of the funds 
        appropriated in this Act shall be expended for the support of 
        United States Armed Forces assigned to the United States 
        European Command in excess of 270,000 members.''. . .

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Biester: Delete the period at the end of the sentence 
        and insert: ``except that this limitation shall not apply if 
        the President shall determine, after the United States Armed 
        Forces assigned to the United States European Command have been 
        reduced to the level of 290,000, that the Soviet Union has made 
        no comparable withdrawal of forces from the countries of 
        Eastern Europe to the territory of the Soviet Union itself.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it requires a 
    determination on the part of the President.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair has read the 
    amendment and is of the opinion that it does require determinations 
    and additional duties on the part of the President and, therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential Certification Following Investigation of British Aid to 
    Arab League

Sec. 55.8 To the foreign aid appropriation bill, an amendment providing 
    that no part of the funds shall be paid to Great Britain until the 
    President, after investigation, certifies that Great Britain is not 
    selling war material to the Arab League was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and therefore not in order.

    On June 4, 1948,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
6801), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 7207, 7208, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter A.] Lynch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lynch: Strike out the period on 
        line 16, page 3, after the figures 1948 and insert a colon and 
        add the following words: ``And provided further, That no part 
        of the funds appropriated herein shall be paid over or 
        transferred or placed to the credit of, or otherwise made 
        available, directly or indirectly to Great Britain until the 
        President of the United States, after investigation, certifies 
        that he is of the opinion that Great Britain is not selling,

[[Page 6148]]

        leasing, lending, or making otherwise available war material to 
        any member of the Arab League, and that he further certifies 
        that Great Britain has given to the United States Government 
        satisfactory assurance that it will not thereafter sell, lease, 
        lend, or make otherwise available war material to any member of 
        the Arab League, which will or may be used to render 
        inoperative the recommendation of the United Nations General 
        Assembly for the partition of Palestine made on November 29, 
        1947.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and requires additional duties of officials of 
    the United States. . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York contains a limitation upon an appropriation bill and also 
    embodies legislation; therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Requiring Presidential Proclamation of Foreign Aggression

Sec. 55.9 To a bill making appropriations for foreign aid, an amendment 
    providing that all sums granted or used under the Act shall be 
    reduced by any and all sums granted where such country is engaged 
    in acts of aggression as determined by proclamation of the 
    President or by the United Nations, was held to be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and therefore not in order.

    On June 4, 1948,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
6801), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 7209, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: On page 3, line 16, after 
        ``1948'' insert ``And provided further, That all sums granted, 
        lent or used to or for any country under this act shall be 
        reduced by any and all sums granted, lent or used directly or 
        indirectly by or for such country to or for the account or 
        benefit of any country, State, or people engaged directly or 
        indirectly in acts of aggression as determined by proclamation 
        of the President of the United States of America or by the 
        United Nations.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    requires additional duties of officers of the United States. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York contains legislation

[[Page 6149]]

    and, therefore, is subject to a point of order. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

No Funds for Nations Proclaimed to be Aggressors as Determined by 
    President

Sec. 55.10 To a bill making appropriations for foreign aid, an 
    amendment providing that no part be paid to any country which the 
    President proclaims to be an aggressor or a participant in an 
    aggression was conceded to be subject to a point of order as 
    legislation.

    On June 4, 1948,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6801, a bill making appropriations for foreign aid. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 7190, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, That the following sums are appropriated, out of 
    any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for foreign 
    aid for the period beginning April 3, 1948, and ending June 30, 
    1949, and for other purposes, namely: . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Page 1, line 6, after the 
        word ``purposes'', strike out the comma and the word ``namely'' 
        and insert ``on condition, however, that no moneys authorized 
        for appropriation hereunder shall be paid or credited to any 
        country which participates in or aids in acts of aggression, 
        such acts of aggression to be determined by proclamation by the 
        President of the United States, namely.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and that it is not in order at this point in the 
    bill and not germane.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: I agree to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

New Discretionary Authority Bestowed on President

Sec. 55.11 To a supplemental appropriation bill for defense aid to 
    foreign governments, an amendment prohibiting expenditure of such 
    appropriation unless such government transfer collateral security 
    deemed by the President to be satisfactory, was held to be 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 19, 1941,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 2376, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: On page 4, 
    between

[[Page 6150]]

    lines 15 and 16, insert a new section, as follows:
        ``Sec. 4. No part of any appropriation made by this act shall 
    be used to procure defense articles for any foreign government 
    which has not made arrangements, prior to receiving such articles, 
    in order to protect the economic and financial interest of the 
    United States, to reimburse the United States for the cost of such 
    defense articles, or to guarantee such reimbursement by 
    transferring, or causing to be transferred, to the United States 
    property deemed by the President to be satisfactory collateral 
    security for such reimbursement, insofar as the President shall 
    find that such government has property available for such 
    purpose.''
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not a limitation. 
    It is phrased, generally speaking, as a limitation, but on careful 
    analysis the Chair will see it is not a limitation in that it is 
    not a complete negative, and to be a limitation it must be a 
    complete negative. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Ohio has 
    offered an amendment as a new section to the bill. The amendment is 
    in the form of a limitation, but in the opinion of the Chair, in 
    essence, it clearly is legislative in its character. It is not 
    sufficient for an amendment to be in the form of a limitation. In 
    view of the fact that the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio very clearly imposes an additional duty on the President 
    of the United States, the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is a limitation only in form and that it is legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earmarking Funds for Use as President May Direct

Sec. 55.12 Language in an appropriation bill earmarking some of the 
    appropriations for the Veterans' Administration for use as the 
    President may direct for a special study of the compensation and 
    pensions program was conceded to be legislation and held not in 
    order.

    On Mar. 30, 1955,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5240), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 4070, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            General operating expenses: For necessary operating 
        expenses of the Veterans' Administration, not otherwise 
        provided for, including expenses incidental to securing 
        employment for war veterans . . . $155 million, of which (a) 
        $15,150,000 shall be available for such expenses as are 
        necessary for the loan guaranty program, and (b) $300,000 shall 
        be available as the President may direct for a special study of 
        the compensation and pensions program: Provided, That no part 
        of this appropriation shall be used to pay in excess of 20 
        persons engaged in public relations work. . . .

[[Page 6151]]

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language starting at the end of line 10, page 28, 
    reading ``$300,000 shall be available as the President may direct 
    for a special study of the compensation and pensions program.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    is obviously legislation on an appropriation bill, and the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 56. Determination of National Interest

Military Assistance; Presidential Determination and Report

Sec. 56.1 In a paragraph of a foreign aid appropriation bill providing 
    funds for military assistance, language prohibiting use of those 
    funds for the furnishing of sophisticated weapons systems to 
    certain countries ``unless the President determines that the 
    furnishing of such weapons systems is important to the national 
    security of the United States and reports within thirty days each 
    such determination to the Congress'' was ruled out as legislation 
    on an appropriation bill in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    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. 18400, 18401, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Military Assistance

        Military assistance: For expenses authorized by section 504(a) 
    of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, including 
    administrative expenses and purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
    for replacement only for use outside of the United States, 
    $350,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds contained in this 
    paragraph shall be available for the purchase of new automotive 
    vehicles outside of the United States: Provided further, That none 
    of the funds appropriated in that paragraph shall be used to 
    furnish sophisticated weapons systems, such as missile systems and 
    jet aircraft for military purposes, to any underdeveloped country 
    other than Greece, Turkey, the Republic of China, the Philippines, 
    and Korea, unless the President determines that the furnishing of 
    such weapons systems is important to the national security of the 
    United States and reports within thirty days each such 
    determination to the Congress: Provided further, That the military 
    assistance program for any country shall not be increased beyond 
    twenty per centum of the amount justi

[[Page 6152]]

    fied to the Congress, unless the President determines that an 
    increase in such program is essential to the national interest of 
    the United States and reports each such determination to the House 
    of Representatives and the Senate within thirty days after each 
    such determination: Provided further, That the Excess Defense 
    Articles program for any country shall not be increased beyond 
    twenty per centum of the amount presented to the Congress.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language of the proviso contained in 
    lines 1 through 9 on page 6. This is patently legislation in an 
    appropriation bill. It is not a limitation of funds. It does direct 
    the Executive that funds cannot be appropriated for or furnished to 
    support sophisticated weapons, with certain exceptions listed.
        Mr. Chairman, similar provisions and restrictions are contained 
    in sections 504 and 520(s) of the Foreign Assistance Act, and also 
    section 35 of the Military Sales Act.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and is unnecessary because of similar provisions 
    in the Authorization Act.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    be heard.
        The committee felt this to be a limitation, because the words 
    ``none of the funds appropriated . . . shall be used'' appear in 
    this paragraph.
        This provision was added by the committee to the foreign 
    assistance appropriation bill for fiscal year 1968 in order to stop 
    underdeveloped countries from buying sophisticated weapons systems 
    with U.S. grant-aid funds. The provision was subsequently modified 
    to encourage countries away from arms races. We believe it is a 
    limitation and we ask for a ruling.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    desire to be heard on the point of order.
        This is an amendment that I had offered and it has been in the 
    bill for 4 years now. I believe it comes within the Holman rule. It 
    is a retrenchment of Federal expenditures. It is negative in 
    nature. It is germane, and I do not see where it imposes any 
    addition or affirmative duties on anyone. I think the point of 
    order should be ruled against.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        On September 20, 1966, a point of order was sustained against 
    language which was contained in a foreign aid appropriation bill 
    prohibiting aid to any nation that sells or permits ships on its 
    registry to transport cargo to North Vietnam and containing the 
    phrase ``unless the President determines.'' The important language 
    there is ``unless the President determines.'' The language here 
    appears to be identical, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Economic Assistance; Presidential Determination and Report

Sec. 56.2 Language in a general appropriation bill directing

[[Page 6153]]

    the President to withhold economic assistance to certain countries 
    in an amount equivalent to that spent by those countries for 
    sophisticated military equipment, unless the President determines 
    and reports to Congress that such expenditures are important to the 
    security of the United States, was ruled out as legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 4, 1970,(1) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 18408, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 119. The President is directed to withhold economic 
        assistance in an amount equivalent to the amount spent by any 
        underdeveloped country for the purchase of sophisticated 
        weapons systems, such as missile systems and jet aircraft for 
        military purposes from any country other than Greece, Turkey, 
        the Republic of China, the Philippines, and Korea, unless the 
        President determines that such purchase or acquisition of 
        weapons systems is important to the national security of the 
        United States and reports within thirty days each such 
        determination to the Congress.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language on page 14, lines 13 to 22, 
    section 119, that this is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        It is a good provision, again, but it has no legitimate place 
    in an appropriation bill, especially when even stronger 
    restrictions are already contained in section 520(s) of the 
    existing Foreign Assistance Act. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: . . . This amendment is in 
    the nature of a limitation which would withhold an equivalent 
    amount of aid in cases where underdeveloped countries otherwise 
    recipients of U.S. aid undertake to make purchases of sophisticated 
    weapons systems with their own funds. This limitation applies 
    solely to the appropriation under consideration and does not 
    operate beyond the fiscal year in which the appropriation is made. 
    . . . Under the rules and precedents, limitations may be written 
    into appropriations bills. As Chairman Dingley, of Maine, wrote in 
    1896:

            The House in Committee of the Whole 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.

        Asher C. Hinds, clerk to the Speaker from 1881 until 1891, and 
    editor of the ``Rules, Manual and Digest'' of the House of 
    Representatives in 1899, and of ``Hinds' Precedents'' in 1908:

            Thus the power of limitation is solely a negative power, 
        capable of setting up a barrier, and not a positive power, 
        capable of creative func

[[Page 6154]]

        tions. The appropriation may interfere with Executive 
        discretion only in a negative way. It may decline to 
        appropriate for ships to be built in a navy yard by saying that 
        no part of the appropriation shall be used for that purpose. 
        These negative prohibitions are within the power of the 
        appropriation bill.

        In the past, limitations have prohibited such measures as the 
    payment of troops stationed in certain geographical locations, the 
    appropriations for repair of vessels in private shipyards, and 
    appropriations for the return of a Reserve Force to active duty--
    Cannon's Precedents.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair finds the precedent 
    cited is not germane. Section 119 as it is now drafted reads as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The President is directed to withhold economic assistance 
        in an amount equivalent to the amount spent by any 
        underdeveloped country--

        And again on line 19 it says--
        unless the President determines that such purchase or 
        acquisition of weapons systems is important to the national 
        security of the United States and reports within 30 days each 
        such determination to the Congress.

        It is obviously legislation in an appropriation bill, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 56.3 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    furnishing of economic assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act 
    of 1961 to Communist Nations, unless the President determines that 
    withholding such aid would jeopardize the national security, 
    reports that determination to Congress and publishes it in the 
    Federal Register, was held similar but not identical to the 
    prohibition contained in the authorizing legislation and was 
    therefore ruled out as imposing additional duties on the President.

    On June 4, 1970,(3) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            (b) No economic assistance shall be furnished to any 
        nation, whose government is based upon that theory of 
        government known as communism, under the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, as amended (except section 214(b)), unless the 
        President determines that the withholding of such assistance 
        would be contrary to the national interest and reports such 
        determination to the House of Representatives and the Senate. 
        Reports made pursuant to this subsection shall be published in 
        the Federal Register within seven days of submission to the 
        Congress and shall contain a statement by the President of the 
        reasons for such determination.

[[Page 6155]]

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    section 109, paragraph (b). The provision forbids any economic 
    assistance to Communist countries. As with reference to the 
    previous paragraph, this one is duplicative of section 620(f). In 
    fact, it is far less precise than the provision contained in the 
    authorizing legislation. Therefore, I make the point of order that 
    the language in section 109, paragraph (b) constitutes legislation 
    in an appropriation measure.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language is similar but is not identical to the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961. It imposes new duties upon the President of 
    the United States and as such clearly falls within the prohibition 
    of rule XXI, clause 2.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provisions of the authorizing 
legislation stated:

        (f) No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter, as 
    amended, (except section 2174(b) of this title) to any Communist 
    country. This restriction may not be waived pursuant to any 
    authority contained in this chapter unless the President finds and 
    promptly reports to Congress that: (1) such assistance is vital to 
    the security of the United States; (2) the recipient country is not 
    controlled by the international Communist conspiracy; and (3) such 
    assistance will further promote the independence of the recipient 
    country from international communism. For the purposes of this 
    subsection, the phrase ``Communist country'' shall include 
    specifically, but not be limited to, the following countries: 
    Peoples Republic of Albania, Peoples Republic of Bulgaria, Peoples 
    Republic of China (and other named countries).
See Public Law No. 87-195 as amended by Public Law No. 87-565, 
Sec. 301(d)(3).

No Aid to United Arab Republic Unless President Determines

Sec. 56.4 A provision in a foreign aid appropriation bill prohibiting 
    assistance under that bill for the United Arab Republic ``unless 
    the President determines that such availability is essential to the 
    national interest of the United States'' was held to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On June 4, 1970,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 6156]]

Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill (H.R. 17867), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
        in this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961, as amended, shall be available for assistance to the 
        United Arab Republic, unless the President determines that such 
        availability is essential to the national interest of the 
        United States. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against 
    section 117 on the ground that it constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        It is almost identical with the prohibitions contained in 
    section 620(p) of the existing Foreign Assistance Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language on page 13, line 19, ``unless the President 
    determines,'' is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Nations Assisting Cuba; No Aid Unless President Determines

Sec. 56.5 Language in a general appropriation bill which specifies that 
    no part of funds therein shall be available to nations providing 
    assistance to the Castro regime in Cuba ``unless the President 
    determines that the withholding . . . would be contrary to the 
    national interest'' was held to impose additional burdens on the 
    Chief Executive and was ruled out as legislation.

    On Sept. 20, 1962,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
13175), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 20181, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 6, line 17, as follows: ``unless 
    the President determines that the withholding of such assistance to 
    such country would be contrary to the national interest.''
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language I have just read on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    ruling on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The language referred to by the gentleman from 
    Iowa

[[Page 6157]]

    against which he makes his point of order does impose additional 
    burdens upon the President and is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Nations Dealing With Cuba or North Vietnam; No Aid Unless President 
    Determines

Sec. 56.6 Language in a foreign aid appropriation bill prohibiting aid 
    (not merely limiting funds in the bill) to any nation which permits 
    ships under its registry to carry cargo to Cuba or North Vietnam 
    unless the President determines that withholding of assistance 
    would be contrary to the national interest and reports such 
    determination to Congress, was conceded to be legislation and ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 20, 1966,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
17788), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 23265, 23266, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            (b) No economic 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 items of economic assistance to Cuba, so long as it is 
        governed by the Castro regime, or to North Vietnam, unless the 
        President determines that the withholding of such assistance 
        would be contrary to the national interest and reports such 
        determination to the Foreign Relations and Appropriations 
        Committees of the Senate and the Foreign Affairs and 
        Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives. 
        Reports made pursuant to this subsection shall be published in 
        the Federal Register within seven days of submission to the 
        committees and shall contain a statement by the President of 
        the reasons for such determination.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 8, beginning with line 8, and 
    running through line 22.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 8, beginning with line 8 and running through line 
    22, as being legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Passman] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 6158]]

Procurement From Foreign Firms; Waiver of Restriction by President

Sec. 56.7 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Defense, an amendment denying the use of funds appropriated or made 
    available by the bill for procurement from foreign firms which 
    receive government subsidies thereby constituting unfair 
    competition, but permitting the President to waive such restriction 
    in the national interest with prior notice to Congress was held to 
    be legislation (imposing additional duties) and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    On Sept. 12, 1968,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 18707), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 26563, 26564, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hall: On page 44, after line 14, 
        add a new section 542, as follows:
            ``. . . None of the funds which are appropriated or made 
        available for expenditure by this Act for the procurement of 
        aircraft or major components thereof, shall be expended outside 
        the United States in any instance with a foreign firm which is 
        the recipient of direct foreign government products development 
        support, which would constitute unfair competition for any 
        United States firm which has a similar product, capability, or 
        proposal. This limitation is waived for continuing prior year's 
        procurement actions; and further, this limitation may be waived 
        on determination of necessity in the national interest by the 
        President on prior notification of the House and Senate.''
            And renumber the subsequent section accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order, regretfully, because I have the highest esteem 
    for the gentleman from Missouri.
        In the first place, the amendment states: ``shall be expended 
    outside the United States in any instance with a foreign firm which 
    is the recipient of direct foreign government product development 
    support.'' A determination as to whether or not a foreign firm is 
    the recipient of a direct foreign government subsidy will be 
    difficult. This would place a special burden on the executive.
        Then proceeding further it says: ``which would constitute 
    unfair competition for any U.S. firm which has a similar product, 
    capability, or proposal.'' Here determinations also would have to 
    be made with respect to these matters.
        Now proceeding with the next sentence it says: ``This 
    limitation is waived for continuing and prior year's procurement 
    actions.'' This is clearly

[[Page 6159]]

    legislation on an appropriation bill, just as the previous portions 
    which I have read.
        Under all of the circumstances, I make the point of order that 
    this is legislation on an appropriation bill and requires extra 
    duties to be placed on those who administer it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        I submit that this point of order should not be sustained and 
    should be overruled, because this is a simple limitation on 
    expenditures under the general provisions of this bill which has 
    many additional general provisions limiting expenditures. I think 
    anyone in this Chamber knows that any Government procurement 
    officer and particularly those Government procurement officers who 
    work for the armed services know immediately--and, in fact, it is 
    an open record--when there is a foreign subsidy. That is exactly 
    what is meant by waiver clauses in the amendment which I reread 
    once and which I will not bore the Members with again.
        Insofar as direct subsidy appropriations by a foreign nation 
    are concerned, it is in no way legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, because it only involves techniques of ordinary procurement, 
    contract assignment, and negotiation within or without those who 
    respond to ``requests for proposals,'' in the ordinary manner of 
    contracting for arms. This is the very title of the bill.
        I submit that the point of order should be overruled, although 
    I will be glad to hear any further debate on the question of the 
    substance of the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Texas that the 
    amendment contains legislation which goes beyond the form of proper 
    limitation, and therefore sustains the point of order.

Sales to Communist Countries; Presidential Exception

Sec. 56.8 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture and including funds for the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for export 
    subsidies on commodities being sold to Communist countries except 
    when the President determines such transaction to be in the public 
    interest and reports his finding to the Congress, imposed extra 
    duties on the President and was ruled out as legislation.

    On May 20, 1964,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 11434, 11435, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 31, line 8, after 
        the word

[[Page 6160]]

        ``hereof'' strike the period, insert a colon and the following: 
        ``Provided further, That no part of the funds herein 
        appropriated shall be available for any expense incident to 
        making export payments or export subsidies on any agricultural 
        commodities being sold or sold to the government of any 
        Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961) or to any agency or national thereof, 
        except when the President determines that such guarantees would 
        be in the national interest and reports each such determination 
        to the House of Representatives and the Senate within 30 days 
        after such determination.''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        I will say that I have not had a chance to review the 
    authorities, but it is my recollection during the years that I have 
    served in this capacity handling this bill on the floor of the 
    House, when any provision requires extra duties and imposes those 
    extra duties on the executive department, the President in this 
    instance, such a proposal goes beyond being a restriction on the 
    expenditure of money and amounts to legislation. For that reason, 
    Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, simply to say that in my 
    opinion, the amendment amounts to a limitation on the use of funds 
    and, therefore, comes within the rules.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment to the language appearing at page 31, line 8, to insert 
    the following language:

            Provided further, That no part of the funds herein 
        appropriated shall be available for any expense incident to 
        making export payments or export subsidies on any agricultural 
        commodities being sold or sold to the government of any 
        Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961) or to any agency or national thereof, 
        except when the President determines that such guarantees would 
        be in the national interest and reports each such determination 
        to the House of Representatives and the Senate within 30 days 
        after such determination.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language last read, beginning 
    with the words ``except when the President determines'' does impose 
    additional duties upon the President.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 57. Subject Matter: Agriculture

No Funds to Countries Engaging in Trade With North Vietnam

Sec. 57.1 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no funds appropriated thereby shall be used to administer programs 
    for

[[Page 6161]]

    the sale of agricultural commodities to nations that permit ships 
    under their registry to transport equipment to Communist North 
    Vietnam was held a proper limitation not imposing additional 
    duties.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596, a bill appropriating funds for the Department 
of Agriculture. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8969, 8970, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 36, on line 6 
        strike the period, insert a colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of 
        agricultural commodities pursuant to titles I or IV of Public 
        Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which 
        sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its 
        registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment, materials 
        or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed by a 
        Communist regime.''. . .

        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it imposes new duties, new 
    responsibilities, and determinations beyond the ability of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, who administers this program, to 
    determine. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair would state that it is satisfied that established 
    precedents [justify] its holding the language of the proposed 
    amendment as a limitation on the appropriation, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Allocation of State Agricultural Funds; Grant of Authority Instead of 
    Negative Restriction

Sec. 57.2 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the county 
    agricultural conservation committee in any county ``with the 
    approval of the State committee'' may allot not to exceed five per 
    centum of its allocation for the agricultural conservation program 
    to the Soil Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
    carrying out the program, was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 6162]]

Whole of H.R. 7786 (Department of Agriculture chapter, general 
appropriation bill, 1951), a point of order was raised against the 
following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 5915, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the following language beginning in line 17 
    on page 191--

            Provided further, That the county agricultural conservation 
        committee in any county with the approval of the State 
        committee may allot not to exceed 5 percent of its allocation 
        for the agricultural conservation program to the Soil 
        Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
        formulating and carrying out the agricultural conservation 
        program and the funds so allotted shall be utilized by the Soil 
        Conservation Service for technical and other assistance in such 
        county--

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The language 
    contained in these lines has to do with the administration of the 
    programs in two separate agencies of the Department of Agriculture, 
    which ought to come before a proper legislative committee to have 
    legal determination made. . . .
        The Chairman:(18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Marshall] has made a point of 
    order against the language appearing in that section of the bill on 
    page 191 beginning with the word ``Provided'' in line 17, and 
    continuing through the remainder of that paragraph down to and 
    including the word ``county'' in line 25, on the ground that it 
    includes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the language here in question and is of 
    the opinion that it could be drawn so as to constitute a 
    limitation, but as the language appears now in the bill it does 
    appear to the Chair that it contains legislation. The Chair, of 
    course, has to pass on the question as it is here presented and 
    invites attention to the fact that among other things it includes 
    the words ``with the approval.'' It appears to the Chair that the 
    language quoted does include legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in violation of the rules of the House.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A subsequent amendment to the bill that day 
providing, inter alia, that ``not to exceed 5 percent of the allocation 
for the agricultural conservation program for any county may be 
allocated to the Soil Conservation Service'' for services of its 
technicians in carrying out the agricultural conservation program, was 
held to be a limitation restricting the availability of funds and 
therefore in order. See Sec. 67.13, infra.

Price Support Program; Limiting Payments But Requiring New Duties

Sec. 57.3 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment limiting the 
    use of funds for payments to farmers but at

[[Page 6163]]

    the same time providing definitions, new authorizations, and 
    imposing additional duties on the Secretary of Agriculture was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On June 6, 1961,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7444), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19. 107 Cong. Rec. 9626, 9627, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery (of Kansas): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It provides for new duties on the part of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, in addition to other legislative 
    provisions.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 6164]]

    the chair on the occasion the gentleman from Kansas referred to. It 
    was apparently on the 18th of May 1959.
        The Chair did not understand the gentleman from Kansas to state 
    that the amendment now pending is in identical language as that 
    which was offered in 1959. . . .
        The Chair has the language which was before the Chair in 1959, 
    and will read it:

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

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

Price Support Programs; Equating Costs to Import Quotas

Sec. 57.4 To a general appropriation bill an amendment requiring that 
    when funds in the bill are used to institute agricultural price 
    support for any commodity the Secretary of the Treasury be notified 
    and that he make certain adjustments on the import duty on such 
    commodity was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 1, 1952,(1) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill (H.R. 
7314), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 4743, 4744, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Page 
    45, line 16, after the word ``law'': insert the following: 
    ``Provided, That when any funds contained in this appropriation are 
    used to institute agricultural price support for any commodity, the 
    Secretary of the Treasury shall be notified of such support program 
    and shall make such adjustments in the import duty on such 
    commodity as are necessary so that the duty paid price in United 
    States dollars is not less than the parity price announced by the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for the marketing season of the 
    commodity.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I do not differ with the object of the 
    gentleman, but I think that it is legis

[[Page 6165]]

    lation. However, I will reserve the point of order so that the 
    gentleman may make his presentation. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman concede the 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. D'Ewart: I do.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Payments to Feed Grain Producers; Limiting to Percent of Diverted 
    Acreage

Sec. 57.5 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment limiting any payments to feed grain 
    producers to 20 percent of the fair market value of acreage 
    diverted under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 
    was held a proper limitation imposing only incidental additional 
    duties on the executive branch (the requirements as to 
    determination of the fair market value of such acreage being 
    already contained in law).

    On May 26, 1965,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8370. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 11656, 11657, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Page 33, line 24, after the word ``hereof'', strike the 
        period, insert a colon and the following: ``Provided further: 
        That none of the funds herein appropriated may be used to 
        formulate or carry out a feed grain program during the period 
        ending June 30, 1966, under which the total amount of payments 
        made to feed grain producers under section 16(h) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, and 
        section 105(d) of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, 
        would be in excess of 20 per centum of the fair market value of 
        any acreage diverted under section 16(h) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The existing law expires this year, as I understand it. Whether 
    it will be extended or not I do not know. The proponent of the 
    amendment says this extends existing law. That statement of itself 
    means that it is legislation. Quite definitely you cannot extend 
    existing law without its being legislation. On that basis, I 
    respectfully submit that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point 
    out that the basic legislation determines the limit according to 
    the average yield of the land. This would determine the limit 
    according to the sales value of land, whether that be speculative 
    or productive. And it would cost an additional $9 million to make 
    these appraisals. This is $9 million worth of additional duties 
    placed upon the Secretary of Agriculture and does represent 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill. . . .

[[Page 6166]]

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully read the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois and even though a limitation, as was stated 
    before, on an appropriation bill, may impose additional burdens on 
    the executive branch of the Government; and even though it might be 
    estimated that the cost of those additional burdens may run to any 
    amount, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois is, in fact, a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and therefore overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in Public Law No. 88-26 
(subsection h) the same precise requirements for determining fair 
market value of acreage diverted during the prior crop year were in law 
[see 16 U.S.C. Sec. 590p(h)].

Prohibiting Commodity Storage Charges Not Determined by Competitive 
    Bidding

Sec. 57.6 To an agricultural appropriation bill, including funds for 
    the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of funds therein to pay storage charges on commodities owned by the 
    corporation, when such charges have not been determined by 
    competitive bidding, was held to impose additional duties on the 
    corporation to require competitive bidding and was ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On May 26, 1965,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8370), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 11654, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert R.] Casey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: On page 33, immediately 
        before the period at the end of line 2, insert the following: 
        ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds appropriated by 
        this Act shall be used for the payment of charges for storage 
        of any agriculture commodity belonging to the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation which charges have not been determined by 
        competitive bidding.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment, quite patently, would require 
    extra work on the part of the employees of the Department. They 
    would have to make a finding as to what part had been made by 
    competitive bidding and what part had not. Since the present law 
    does not require competitive bidding, it would require different 
    duties from that required under existing law. For that reason, I 
    think the amendment is legislating in an appropriation bill.

[[Page 6167]]

        The Chairman:(6) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Casey] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Casey: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind saying that I consulted 
    with the Parliamentarian and I do not think my argument would be 
    sustained anyway and there is no use in taking the time of the 
    Committee in this regard.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Casey: No, sir; I do not concede the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this is strictly a limitation on the use 
    of these funds and I ask the Chairman to rule at this point that it 
    is germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment 
    directed to page 33, line 2, which reads as follows: ``Provided 
    further, That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used for the payment of charges for storage of any agricultural 
    commodity belonging to the Commodity Credit Corporation which 
    charges have not been determined by competitive bidding,'' to which 
    amendment the gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order 
    that this imposes additional substantive duties on the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation, and with that contention this occupant of the 
    chair is in complete agreement and, therefore, sustains the point 
    of order.

Poultry Inspection; Authorizing and Directing

Sec. 57.7 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Department of Agriculture is ``hereby authorized and directed to 
    make such inspection of poultry as it deems essential'' was 
    conceded to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On May 11, 1960,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 10032, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Marketing services: For services relating to agricultural 
        marketing and distribution, for carrying out regulatory acts 
        connected therewith, and for administration and coordination of 
        payments to States, $26,838,000, including not to exceed 
        $25,000 for employment at rates not to exceed $50 per diem, 
        except for employment in rate cases at not to exceed $100 per 
        diem pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
        Organic Act of 1944 (5 U.S.C. 574), as amended by section 15 of 
        the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), in carrying out 
        section 201(a) to 201(d), inclusive, of title II of the 
        Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1291) and section 
        203(j) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946: Provided, 
        That the Department is hereby authorized and directed to make 
        such inspection of poultry products processing plants as it 
        deems essential to the protection of public health and to 
        permit the use of appropriate inspection labels where it 
        determines from such in

[[Page 6168]]

        spection that such plants operate in a manner which protects 
        the public health, and not less than $500,000 shall be 
        available for this purpose.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language beginning in line 2, page 17, 
    commencing with the word ``Provided'', right down through the end 
    of that paragraph on page 17, line 9.
        This constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph, beginning in line 15, 
    page 16, through line 9 on page 17, on the ground it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee does not care to oppose the point of order. I do not 
    think there is any question but what points of order lie.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes both points of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Minnesota and the entire paragraph is 
    ruled out as legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soil Conservation Payments; Requiring Pass-through to Sharecroppers

Sec. 57.8 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    for soil conservation payments, an amendment providing that no 
    payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person or 
    corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid shall 
    be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which payments are 
    made was held to be legislation and not in order, in that, under 
    the guise of a limitation it provided affirmative directions that 
    imposed new duties.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 3427, 3428, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert ``Provided further, That 
    of the funds in this paragraph no payment in excess of $1,000 shall 
    be paid for any one farm operated by one person: Provided further, 
    That no payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person 
    or corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid 
    shall be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which 
    payments are made.'' . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota that it is legislation under the guise of a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a 
    limita

[[Page 6169]]

    tion on payments; and in the present instance one would have to 
    turn from the gentleman from Missouri as chairman of the 
    subcommittee to the gentleman from Missouri as parliamentarian. The 
    Chair will find the following on page 62 of Cannon's Procedure:

            As an appropriation bill may deny an appropriation for a 
        purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit the 
        use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for 
        the remainder of it. It may not legislate as to qualifications 
        of recipients, but may specify that no part shall go to 
        recipients lacking certain qualifications.

        In this particular instance the qualification is set up for the 
    landlord that he shall give at least half this payment to his 
    sharecropper or renter. Viewed in this light I believe the Chair 
    will find it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment 
    couples with the purported limitation affirmative directions and is 
    legislation in the guise of a limitation.
        The Chairman: (10) Cannon's Precedents, page 667, 
    volume 7, 1936, section 1672, states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            An amendment may not under guise of limitation provide 
        affirmative directions which impose new duties.

        The last part of the pending amendment states:

            Unless at least one-half of the amount so paid shall be 
        paid to these croppers or renters of farms for which payments 
        are made.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that this requires affirmative 
    action; therefore the point of order is sustained.

Agricultural Stations in Other Countries; Requiring Certification of 
    Adequate Domestic Funding

Sec. 57.9 To a section of an appropriation bill an amendment proposing 
    that ``no money shall be spent on agricultural stations or 
    experiments in other countries until the Secretary of Agriculture 
    certifies that such expenditure is a necessity and that 
    experimental work of a similar nature in the United States is 
    adequately financed,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 7, 1949,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4016), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 4107, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips of California: Page 20, 
        line 10, after the word ``thereon'' and the semicolon, insert 
        ``Provided, That no money shall be spent on agricultural 
        stations or experiments in other countries until the Secretary 
        of Agriculture certifies that such expenditure is a necessity 
        and that experimental work of a similar nature in

[[Page 6170]]

        the United States is adequately financed.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from 
    California desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips of California: Mr. Chairman, I contend that it is 
    a limitation upon the expenditure of funds because it requires that 
    the necessity for them and the limitation for them be provided and 
    certified to before the money is expended.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire further 
    to be heard?
        Mr. Rooney: The statement that no money shall be spent is 
    clearly legislation; and it imposes additional duties on the 
    Department, which makes it legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from California [Mr. Phillips] introduces certain 
    language requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to make certain 
    findings. The Chair construes that language to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it imposes additional duties upon the 
    agency involved. So, the point of order is sustained.

Farm Programs; Directing Secretary How to Administer

Sec. 57.10 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the 
    provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act through the 
    Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation and by utilizing through 
    cooperative agreements the personnel and facilities of the federal 
    land banks and the national farm associations was conceded to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3595, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: To enable the Secretary to carry into 
    effect the provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 
    Act approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), and to reduce and 
    retrench expenditures, said act shall be administered by the 
    Secretary through the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation of the Farm 
    Credit Administration and by utilizing through cooperative 
    agreements the personnel and facilities of the Federal land banks 
    and the national farm-loan associations, $500,000 for necessary 
    expenses in connection with the making of loans under title I of 
    this act and the collection of moneys due the

[[Page 6171]]

    United States on account of loans heretofore made under the 
    provision of said act, including the employment of persons and 
    means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, exclusive of 
    printing and binding as authorized by said act.
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the paragraph for the reason that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Will the gentleman point 
    out what particular parts he feels are legislation?
        Mr. Cooley: The entire section, from line 19, on page 89, down 
    to and including line 8, on page 90.
        Mr. Tarver: So far as the section requires the Secretary to 
    carry out the duties to which reference is made in the paragraph 
    through the Federal Farm Mortgage Administration, of the Farm 
    Credit Administration, and to utilize the personnel and facilities 
    of the Federal land banks, it is legislation, and the committee at 
    the proper time will offer an amendment which will be in conformity 
    with the rules. We concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The point of order to the 
    paragraph is conceded and is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance Bonds; Authority to Require of Contractors

Sec. 57.11 Language in the agriculture appropriation bill permitting 
    the Secretary of Agriculture to require bonds from market agencies 
    and dealers under rules he may prescribe, and authorizing the 
    Secretary to suspend registrants if found insolvent, was conceded 
    to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 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 against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 3586, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Packers and Stockyards Act: For carrying out the provisions 
        of the Packers and Stockyards Act, approved August 15, 1921, as 
        amended by the act of August 14, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 181-229), 
        $350,000: Provided, That the Secretary may require reasonable 
        bonds from every market agency and dealer, under such rules and 
        regulations as he may prescribe, to secure the performance of 
        their obligations, and whenever, after due notice and hearing, 
        the Secretary finds any registrant is insolvent or has violated 
        any provisions of said act, he may issue an order suspending 
        such registrant for a reasonable specified period. Such order 
        of suspension shall take effect within not less than 5 days, 
        unless suspended or modified or set aside by the Secretary or a 
        court of competent jurisdiction.

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the

[[Page 6172]]

    point of order against the language beginning with the word 
    ``Provided'' in line 17, page 80, down to the bottom of and 
    including line 3 on top of page 81, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Farming Materials; Requiring Secretary to Adhere to 
    State Laws

Sec. 57.12 An appropriation for distribution of seeds, fertilizers, or 
    any other farming materials, and providing that the Secretary of 
    Agriculture shall comply with such state laws when applicable to 
    such farming materials under his control, was conceded and held to 
    place additional duties on the Secretary of Agriculture and 
    therefore to comprise legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3494, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hope: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language beginning in line 23 on page 66 with the words ``Provided 
    further,'' and running down through the word ``control'' in line 15 
    on page 67 is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from 
    Kansas on his point of order.
        Mr. Hope: Mr. Chairman, this proviso contains this language:

            That such amount shall be available for the distribution, 
        through established trade channels and non-governmental 
        agencies, including farmers' cooperative associations, of 
        seeds, fertilizers, lime, trees, or any other farming 
        materials, or any soil-terracing services, and making grants 
        thereof to agricultural producers to aid them in carrying out 
        farming practices approved by the Secretary in the 1943, 1944, 
        and 1945 programs under said act of February 29, 1936, as 
        amended.

        It further provides--
        for the reimbursement of any Federal, State, or local 
        government agency for fertilizers, seeds, lime, trees, or other 
        farming materials, or any soil-terracing services, furnished by 
        such agency; and for the payment of all expenses necessary in 
        making such grants including all or part of the costs incident 
        to the delivery thereof, and including the payment of 
        inspection fees or taxes for such inspections as may be 
        required under State laws, and the Secretary shall comply with 
        such State inspection laws whenever they are applicable to any 
        such farming materials under his control.

[[Page 6173]]

        I submit that all of that language is legislation. It imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary. It is not authorized under 
    any existing legislation. It further directs and orders that the 
    Secretary shall comply with State inspection laws whenever they are 
    applicable.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    shorten the debate, may I say to the gentleman that we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The point of 
    order is sustained.

Discretion to Transfer Property

Sec. 57.13 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the Secretary 
    of Agriculture in his discretion to transfer property and equipment 
    of the Hawaii Experiment Station to the experiment station of the 
    University of Hawaii was conceded to be legislation and held not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 15, 1943, (19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised by Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of 
Kansas, against the provision described above, on grounds that it 
constituted legislation. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 3421, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Disease Eradication; Requiring Secretary to Cooperate With State 
    Authorities

Sec. 57.14 Language in an appropriation bill for ``determining and 
    applying such methods of eradication . . . of the disease . . . 
    known as `citrus canker' as in the judgment of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture may be necessary, including cooperation with such 
    authorities of the States concerned . . . as he may deem 
    necessary,'' was conceded and held to impose additional duties on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture and therefore to comprise legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.

[[Page 6174]]

The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 3272, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Citrus canker eradication: For determining and applying such 
    methods of eradication or control of the disease of citrus trees 
    known as ``citrus canker'' as in the judgment of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture may be necessary, including cooperation with such 
    authorities of the States concerned, organizations of growers, or 
    individuals, as he may deem necessary to accomplish such purposes, 
    $13,485: Provided, That no part of the money herein appropriated 
    shall be used to pay the cost or value of trees or other property 
    injured or destroyed.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on page 54, lines 5 to 14, and call 
    attention to the fact that this paragraph delegates additional 
    duties to the Secretary of Agriculture. I call the Chair's 
    particular attention to the language in the first part of the 
    paragraph. . . .
        This clearly is a delegation of additional authority to the 
    Secretary and requires additional duties of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: What is the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Taber: That it delegates additional duties to the Secretary 
    of Agriculture and requires additional responsibilities of him, and 
    thus is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is well taken.
        The Chairman: (2) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cotton Allotment Acres; Requiring New Conditions for Eligibility

Sec. 57.15 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for a program under which farmers who plant a 
    nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres are eligible for 
    federal set-aside payments was ruled out as legislation requiring 
    federal officials to make new determinations of eligibility not 
    required to be made by existing law.

    On June 16, 1976,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 14237), an amendment was offered against which a point of order 
was sustained, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 18666, 18667, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 17, line 22, strike 
        the period after the word ``regulations'' and insert the 
        following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        appropriated or made available under this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out a program for the 1977 crop year under 
        which producers who plant a nonconserving crop on

[[Page 6175]]

        cotton allotment acres are eligible for payments under the 
        second sentence of Section 103(e)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 
        1949 as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.
        The amendment provides, and may I read it:

            That none of the funds appropriated or made available under 
        this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out a program for 
        the 1977 crop year under which producers who plant a 
        nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres. . . .

        There is nothing in existing law that requires the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to determine which farmers plant a nonconserving crop 
    on cotton allotment land. To carry out that amendment would 
    certainly impose on the Secretary an additional duty to determine 
    whether or not that was true. Since there seems to be a mixture of 
    argument pro and con, as well as directed to the matter before us, 
    I would like to call attention to the fact that the crop in this 
    instance as discussed by the proponent is soybeans. Had we not 
    provided those soybeans, the executive branch probably would have 
    kept the embargo on exports longer than it did. . . .
        I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that there is no way in the world 
    that the Secretary of Agriculture can determine which producers 
    plant a nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres without doing 
    something he does not do now and is not required to do now. That 
    brings it where it is clearly subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is parallel in 
    all points to a series of amendments that I have offered over the 
    years which have been challenged in each case by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi and in each case unsuccessfully. In a sense perhaps it 
    is pointless to repeat the arguments that have been made 
    effectively in past years. It is retrenchment to a withholding of 
    funds. It clearly is within the Holman Rule.
        The question was raised as to whether it imposes a new duty 
    upon the Secretary. While the key words, of course, are ``formulate 
    or carry out a program,'' the formulation or carrying out of a 
    program to which the limitation applies would not impose a new duty 
    upon the Secretary because everyone who seeks to get relief under 
    the Disaster Relief program must fill out an application form. It 
    would, of course, therefore, be a very simple matter for this form 
    to require the applicant to state whether or not a nonconserving 
    crop has been planted, if that would indeed be a point in question 
    before the Chair; but there have been at least 15 other almost 
    identical amendments that have been successfully sustained by the 
    Chair in the past, and I feel confident that the Chair will sustain 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Is it the point of the gentleman 
    from Illinois that the determinations called for in the last 4 
    lines of the amendment are already carried out under existing law? 
    Is that the contention?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: They are not.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, in order to carry out the disaster 
    relief

[[Page 6176]]

    provisions of the existing law, a farmer must make application, and 
    on this application he must state certain things and certify 
    certain things. Therefore it is my opinion that this imposes no 
    additional duty upon the administrator of this act for the 
    determination to be made that producers are not planting a 
    nonconserving crop.
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman elaborate on that specific 
    point, about whether or not in order to qualify the farmer is 
    required now under existing law to make application?
        Mr. Findley: Absolutely that is an essential step that applies 
    equally to all farmers who seek relief under the disaster relief 
    provisions of the law. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the gentleman in the 
    well has acknowledged that additional duties are required. There is 
    nothing in my knowledge that in the department they have anything 
    which shows that certain crops were planted. They do not have any 
    such record. If this amendment were adopted they would have to 
    start keeping such records.
        As I understand the gentleman he said there is nothing to keep 
    them from bringing in such a certificate. If these were brought in, 
    the department would have to go over them and determine this, that 
    and the other. There have been a few times in history when they 
    accepted such papers and there was one time when they had 
    certificates certifying more crops than were ever planted.
        As I understood the gentleman, he acknowledges that an 
    additional certificate would have to be supplied with additional 
    information, and from that the Secretary would have to make a new 
    determination, one he does not now have to make.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proponent of the amendment carries the burden of proof to 
    show that a new duty is not required. Based on that the Chair is 
    going to rule that the gentleman from Illinois has not shown that 
    the Department of Agriculture would not be required by his 
    amendment to make new determinations of eligibility under the 
    cotton allotment program, or institute new recordkeeping 
    procedures, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Price Support Loans; Requiring Minimum Interest Rates

Sec. 57.16 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for loans not repayable at a certain minimum 
    interest rate or interest on which at time of default is payable 
    without regard to value of collateral was held to require new 
    determinations not required by law as to the nature of interest on 
    loans and was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On July 29, 1982, (5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6863 (supplemental

[[Page 6177]]

appropriation bill), a point of order against the following amendment 
was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 18624, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: 
        Page 2, line 15, immediately before the period insert the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no funds appropriated or 
        otherwise made available under this chapter shall be available 
        for price support loans for agricultural commodities for which 
        the interest rate is not guaranteed payable at a rate of not 
        less than 9 percent per year and for which the aggregate 
        interest owing at the time of default is payable without regard 
        to the value of the collateral.''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    insist on my point of order.
    The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was set up as a corporation and given 
    the right and the power to sell and to buy and do all those kinds 
    of things a corporation would. It was set up as a corporation for 
    that purpose, to do all the things an average corporation can do.
        I respectfully submit that the language the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Peyser] has offered is not in that charter. Those 
    decisions are left to the officers of the corporation.
        I respectfully submit that the amendment provided that no funds 
    shall be used for which an interest rate of not less than 9 percent 
    is charged on default of its own commodities. That gives 
    affirmative direction and is, therefore, legislation since it 
    applies to the corporation.
        The amendment also requires the Department to determine--and I 
    quote to you--``the aggregate interest owing at the time of 
    default.'' That is not required in the law. That determination is 
    not required, and, therefore, that provision is legislation.
        The amendment also requires that the value of the commodity be 
    determined at the time of default. That is not in the charter and 
    required under law. Commodity value is determined at the time of 
    sale, not at the time of default. That requirement is not required 
    by law and would also be legislation.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: . . . The charter of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation does provide for an interest payment. It provides for 
    an interest payment, and all I am doing is stipulating that the 
    interest payment shall not be less than a certain percent. So I do 
    not believe I am changing anything in the charter that is not 
    already in the charter.
        I am simply stipulating a figure and a word that says, 
    ``guaranteed,'' because in the present situation, with the interest 
    rate that they call for in the Corporation, there is nothing there 
    that says they have to pay it, and they do not. Not paying it is 
    costing $1 billion. So, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I am not at all 
    violating the charter or adding to the charter. I am simply 
    establishing a rate. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] has made a point 
    of order

[[Page 6178]]

    against the amendment essentially on the grounds that it requires 
    additional determinations to be made by the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. While it is drafted as a limitation, the amendment 
    does require the Commodity Credit Corporation to undertake 
    computations and additional duties not now demonstrably required by 
    law. The amendment would require procedures to be put into effect 
    that are not now required.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Prohibiting Disposal of Surplus Agricultural Land

Sec. 57.17 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for the General Services Administration to 
    dispose of U.S.-owned agricultural land declared surplus was ruled 
    out as legislation requiring the finding that surplus U.S.-owned 
    lands are ``agricultural'', where the law cited by the proponent of 
    the amendment defining that term was not applicable to the GSA.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7593 (Department of Treasury and Postal 
Service appropriation bill), a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 22156, 22158, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Page 
        27, after line 17, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 4. None of the funds appropriated by this title may be 
        used by the General Services Administration before January 1, 
        1981, to dispose of any United States owned agricultural land 
        which is determined by the Administrator of the General 
        Services Administration to be surplus. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on 
    my point of order, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    As the distinguished gentleman from Ohio said, if we want to change 
    policy, it explicitly places new duties on the GSA to have them 
    make investigations, compile evidence, make a determination, is 
    this agricultural land or not, as discussed in the colloquy between 
    the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from Ohio.
        There is no definition of agricultural land as it goes in the 
    hierarchy of how the GSA has to do business. This would change 
    their whole way of doing business.
        For instance, under the present law there are airports, and 
    airports have a certain top priority. If, in fact, part of the land 
    around that airport was used for such things as hay cropping, they 
    would then have to make a determination at each and every airport, 
    is there hay cropping here before we can turn this over to a local 
    community for a dollar? . . .
        Mr. Pease: . . . We have had any number of amendments similar 
    to this

[[Page 6179]]

    before us which have been upheld by the Chair. This does not impose 
    new duties on the Administrator of GSA. It merely prohibits him 
    from using any of the funds in this bill to dispose of U.S. owned 
    agricultural land.
        There is a definition in the statute in the Agricultural 
    Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of agricultural land. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure 
    Act of 1979 there is a definition of agricultural land. It says 
    under section 3508, definitions:

            For the purposes of this chapter, the term ``agricultural 
        land'' means any land located in any one or more States and 
        used for agricultural, forestry or timber production purposes.

        In other words, it is not sufficient that it would be suitable 
    for, it must be used or in the process of being used for 
    agricultural purposes under the definition in the existing law.

        Mr. John L. Burton: If I may, Mr. Chairman, that is in the law. 
    The Administrator of GSA would have to look through every piece of 
    property in its jurisdiction, in its inventory and then see if it 
    fits the statute of law. It is not under their law, it is defined 
    and it is in another code section, and they would have to go 
    through every piece of surplus property to make this determination. 
    That is certainly an added burden on them.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is of the opinion . . . that there is nothing in the Federal 
    Property and Administration Services Act which would confer 
    authority on GSA to determine whether certain U.S. owned lands are 
    agricultural lands, and the Chair would sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The statute cited by the gentleman from Ohio contains a 
    definition under title 7, United States Code, with respect to 
    agricultural land owned by foreigners and reported to the Secretary 
    of Agriculture, and not to federally owned land.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where terms used in a purported limitation 
are challenged because of their ambiguity or indefiniteness, the burden 
is on the proponent of such intended limitation to show that no new 
duties would arise in the course of applying the terms thereof.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 58. Commerce

Authorization for Sales of Scientific Reports

Sec. 58.1 An amendment to the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
    and the Judiciary appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    Commerce upon request of any organization or individual to 
    reproduce any scientific or technical report and to sell such 
    reproduction at a cost to be determined by the Secretary was held 
    to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

[[Page 6180]]

    On Mar. 5, 1948,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 5607), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 2233, 2234, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter C.] Ploeser [of Missouri]: 
        On page 56, after line 5, insert the following paragraph:
            ``Technical and scientific services: For necessary expenses 
        in the performance of activities and services relating to the 
        collection, compilation, and dissemination of technological 
        information as an aid to business in the development of foreign 
        and domestic commerce, including personal services in the 
        District of Columbia; not to exceed $25,000 for services as 
        authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
        55a), and not to exceed $50,000 for printing and binding, 
        $520,000, of which $20,000 shall be transferred to the 
        appropriation `Salaries and expenses' under the Office of the 
        Secretary: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized, upon 
        request of any public or private organization or individual, to 
        reproduce by appropriate process, independently or through any 
        other agency of the Government, any scientific or technical 
        report, document, or descriptive material, foreign or domestic, 
        which has been released for public dissemination, and to sell 
        such reproductions at a price not less than the estimated total 
        cost of reproducing and disseminating same as may be determined 
        by the Secretary, the moneys received from such sale to be 
        deposited in a special account in the Treasury, such account to 
        be available for reimbursing any appropriation which may have 
        borne the expense of such reproduction and dissemination and 
        making refunds to organizations and individuals when entitled 
        thereto.''

        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Nebraska 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stefan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be 
    heard on the point of order. . . .
        May I say that a point of order was raised against this item 
    last year and it was eliminated on the point of order. At that 
    time, however, the Department was engaged in some research which it 
    was doing, in which it farmed out certain projects for research to 
    the various colleges and institutions. It was not doing original 
    research but was using other available research agencies to make 
    the research for them. When, however, a point of order was raised 
    in the House the research activities were eliminated.
        The Office is now engaged only in furnishing technical and 
    scientific information to business. The authority for the 
    Department of Commerce to engage in such activities reads as 
    follows:

            It shall be the province and duty of the Bureau of Foreign 
        and Domestic Commerce, under the direction of the Secretary of 
        Commerce, to foster, promote, and develop the various

[[Page 6181]]

        manufacturing industries of the United States, and markets for 
        the same at home and abroad, domestic and foreign, by 
        gathering, compiling, publishing, and supplying all available 
        and useful information concerning such industries and such 
        markets, and by such other methods and means as may be 
        prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or provided by law.

        It is our contention that this is just exactly what the 
    particular office is doing and that under the above language its 
    activities are authorized.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Nebraska desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Stefan: No, Mr. Chairman; I ask that a ruling be made.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment does contain 
    legislation and, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order. 
    .

Authority to Terminate Employment

Sec. 58.2 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of Commerce may, in his discretion, terminate the 
    employment of any officer or employee of the Department of Commerce 
    whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in 
    the interests of the United States, was conceded to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 21, 1950,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 5539, 5540, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 305. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of Commerce may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of any officer or employee of the Department of 
        Commerce whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or 
        advisable in the interests of the United States.

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    section 305 for the same reasons as I did yesterday. I do not want 
    to be repetitious. It is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Mr. Chairman, this is the exact language 
    of the so-called McCarran rider which was stricken yesterday by the 
    Chair on a point of order raised by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] to the provisions of the Department of State 
    portion of the pending bill.

[[Page 6182]]

    Under the circumstances and as much as I dislike to do so, I must 
    concede that the language is exactly the same and further concede 
    that the Chair is expected to rule today as it did yesterday. But I 
    do hope that when we come back to the House with this bill after a 
    conference with the other body that the provisions of this rider 
    will be again contained therein because the Department of Commerce 
    has been shown to need the provisions of the McCarran rider even 
    more so than the Department of State so that the Secretary of 
    Commerce can summarily dismiss any employee who is connected with 
    subversive activities.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] 
    makes the point of order against section 305, page 84, on the 
    ground it contains legislation on an appropriation bill which is in 
    violation of the rules of the House. The gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] concedes that this is the same language as contained 
    in the provision of the pending bill relating to the State 
    Department on which a similar point of order was made on 
    yesterday.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 59.14, infra, for the ruling referred to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language. It appears clearly that 
    there is legislation included in this section of the pending bill. 
    The rules of the House clearly provide it is not in order for 
    legislation to be included in an appropriation bill and, as stated 
    on the same question presented yesterday, the Chair has no 
    alternative other than to sustain the point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Regulations of the Secretary

Sec. 58.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing that 
    appropriations for the Department of Commerce available for 
    salaries and expenses shall be available ``in accordance with 
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary,'' for attendance at 
    meetings of organizations concerned with the activities for which 
    the appropriations are made, was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 21, 1950,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 5537, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 304. Appropriations of the Department of Commerce 
        available for salaries and expenses shall be available, in 
        accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, for 
        attendance at meetings of organizations concerned with the 
        activities for which the appropriations are made.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 304 on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and requires additional duties 
    of the Secretary of Commerce.

[[Page 6183]]

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, it is the contention of the committee 
    that the language contained in section 304 of the proposed bill, 
    page 84, is required by the provisions of five United States Code, 
    section 83.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Keating: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman.

        Mr. Keating: Either this section 304 is necessary or it is not 
    necessary. If it is not necessary and adds nothing, then there is 
    no reason for it; if it does add something, in the way of duties 
    conferred on the Secretary of Commerce, then it is necessarily 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. All of line 14 of section 304 
    requires additional duties on the part of the Secretary of 
    Commerce. The entire section is legislation in this bill.
        My attention has been called to this section of the United 
    States Code, referred to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Rooney], which is general in its terms but does not cover the 
    duties set forth in section 304, which are in addition to those 
    provided in the code. They are discretionary duties.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has examined the section, and also has examined the 
    provisions of the law found in section 83, title V of the United 
    States Code, which appear to the Chair to be ample authority for 
    the provision included in this section.
        However, the Chair does invite attention to the language 
    appearing in line 14 which reads: ``in accordance with regulations 
    prescribed by the Secretary.'' It would appear from that language 
    that this would impose additional duties and confer additional 
    authority on the Secretary. It would to that extent constitute 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        For the reason stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Compare this ruling with Sec. 52.28, supra. 
In the 1950 precedent, there was a requirement for the issuance of 
regulations, rather than discretionary authority given for the issuance 
thereof, and Sec. 304, at issue here also was inadmissible as affecting 
other funds of the department. It should be noted that 5 USC Sec. 4110 
specifically authorizes appropriations for attendance at any meetings 
necessary to improve an agency's efficiency. See also 5 USC Sec. 5946. 
Where the law contemplates inclusion of certain language in an 
appropriation bill, such language, of course, is not legislation. For 
general discussion of provisions in law that authorize inclusion of 
specified language in appropriation bills, see Sec. 26, supra.

[[Page 6184]]

Coast Guard; Earmarking Funds for Unauthorized Project

Sec. 58.4 To a paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for operating expenses of the Coast Guard, an amendment 
    directing the use of additional funds for the preparation of a 
    report by the Coast Guard on search and rescue units was held to 
    impose new duties on federal officials and was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 20, 1973,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill (H.R. 8760), a point of order was raised against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 20530, 20531, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from California 
    reserves a point of order on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Guy A.] Vander Jagt [of 
        Michigan]: Page 3, line 11, strike out ``$543,800,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$544,400,000''.
            And on page 3, line 12, insert immediately after 
        ``reduction'' the following: ``, and of which $600,000 shall be 
        applied to the preparation of a report by the Coast Guard with 
        respect to the closing of certain search and rescue units 
        during 1973, and to the reopening and operation of any search 
        and rescue unit determined by such report to be desirable for 
        the maintenance of an effective search and rescue 
        capability.''. . .

        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    renew my point of order on the basis that the language of the 
    second paragraph of the gentleman from Michigan's amendment is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to repond?
        Mr. Vander Jagt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [To enable the Coast Guard] to carry out the intent of the 
    committee and respond, [it] is helpful to have that additional 
    language in.
        However, since we are making legislative history as to what 
    exactly we are talking about in terms of this $600,000 item, if the 
    gentleman from California's point of order is sustained, I have a 
    substitute amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule on the point of order.
        The gentleman's amendment clearly imposes new duties on the 
    Coast Guard which would, in effect, constitute legislation in an 
    appropriation bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    California.

Export Embargoes; Requiring Determinations of Rationale for Imposition

Sec. 58.5 A substitute amendment to a general appropriation

[[Page 6185]]

    bill precluding the use of funds therein to carry out embargoes on 
    export of agricultural products determined by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to have been imposed as the result of a designated 
    Presidential embargo on exports to one country was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, imposing on that 
    official new duties not required by existing law.

    On July 22, 1980,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, 
and the Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 7584), a substitute 
amendment was ruled out of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 19087-89, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: On page 
        43, after line 5, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 605. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
        be used to carry out or enforce any restriction on the export 
        of any agricultural commodity.''

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: Page 43, 
        after line 5, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 605. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
        used to carry out or enforce any licensing requirement for the 
        export of any agricultural commodity or product which, as 
        determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, was imposed because 
        of the reduction in the sales of agricultural commodities and 
        products to the Soviet Union announced by a presidential 
        memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce, dated January 7, 1980. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I make a point of order 
    on two grounds. First of all, it is not germane to this bill 
    because it makes the determination of the matter the province of 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, which is not covered in this 
    legislation. This is not for the Department of Agriculture.
        Second, it goes beyond the usual amendment limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, requiring determinations to be made and duties 
    to be performed that may not be authorized at this time in law. For 
    both reasons I think the amendment is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) misreads the amendment. The determination was already 
    made by the Secretary of Agriculture in the Federal Register, 
    volume 45, No. 6, dated January 9, 1980. There is a Presidential 
    memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce in which the President has 
    directed the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the 
    Secretary of Agriculture and other appropriate officials, to take 
    immediate

[[Page 6186]]

    action under the Export Administration Act to terminate shipments 
    of agricultural commodities and products, including wheat and corn, 
    to the Soviet Union.
        Therefore, the determination by the Secretary of Agriculture 
    has already been made; it is not to be made in the future. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I will simply point out if that is 
    the intention of the gentleman, his drafting is imperfect because 
    it says that none of the funds appropriated under this act, which 
    will take effect for fiscal year 1981, beginning October 1, may be 
    used for any licensing requirement. That definitely encompasses 
    future determinations and does not simply go to past 
    determinations. That, I think, is well beyond any limitation that 
    is appropriate to an appropriations bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Maryland makes a point of order against the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from North Dakota (Mr. Andrews) on the grounds, first, that it is 
    not germane to the original amendment of the bill; second, that it 
    imposes additional duties and hence it is not in accordance with 
    the rules.
        It is the opinion of the Chair the amendment does appear to 
    impose upon the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibility not 
    only of consulting with the Secretary of Commerce but evaluating 
    whether licensing requirements for export of agricultural 
    commodities were imposed for certain reasons. This is a duty not 
    demonstrably imposed upon the Secretary of Agriculture by existing 
    law and hence in the opinion of the Chair does constitute an 
    additional duty.
        The Chair does find, however, that the substitute is germane, 
    but on the basis of the second objection, upholds the point of 
    order and rules that the amendment is out of order.

Line-of-business Data; Restriction on Discretion to Collect

Sec. 58.6 Language in a paragraph of a general appropriation bill 
    containing funds for the Federal Trade Commission ``for the purpose 
    of collecting line-of-business data . . . from not to exceed 250 
    firms'' was conceded to directly interfere with the discretionary 
    authority of the FTC--a restriction on the scope of the 
    investigation rather than a limitation on availability of funds--
    and was ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 21, 1974,(20) the principle was applied that 
while it is in order on a general appropriation bill to limit the 
availability of funds therein for part of an authorized purpose while 
appropriating for the remainder of it, language which restricts not the

[[Page 6187]]

funds but the discretionary authority of a federal official 
administering those funds may be ruled out as legislation. The 
proceedings are discussed in Sec. 51.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 20600, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Trade Commission; Prohibiting Funds for Regulation of 
    Advertising

Sec. 58.7 To a general appropriation bill from which all funds for the 
    Federal Trade Commission had been stricken as unauthorized, an 
    amendment prohibiting the use of all funds in the bill to limit 
    advertising of (1) food products containing ingredients found safe 
    by the Food and Drug Administration or considered ``generally 
    recognized as safe'', or not containing ingredients found unsafe by 
    the FDA, and (2) toys not declared hazardous or unsafe by the 
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, was held to impose new duties 
    upon the Federal Communications Commission (another agency funded 
    by the bill) to evaluate findings of other federal agencies--duties 
    not imposed upon the FCC by existing law.

    On June 14, 1978,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12934 (Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriation bill), a point of order was 
sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 17644-47, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: On page 
        51 after line 16, insert the following:
            Sec. 605. Except for funds appropriated to the Judiciary in 
        title IV of this act, no part of any appropriation contained in 
        this act may be used to pay the salary or expenses of any 
        person to limit the advertising of: (1) any food product that 
        contains ingredients that have been determined to be safe for 
        human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration or are 
        considered to be ``Generally Recognized as Safe'' (GRAS) and 
        does not contain ingredients that have been determined to be 
        unsafe for human consumption by the FDA; (2) any toy which has 
        not been declared hazardous or unsafe by the Consumer Product 
        Safety Commission. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: The amendment is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and as such is subject to a point of order 
    under rule XXI, clause 2. . . .
        . . . [T]his amendment was directed at the Federal Trade 
    Commission section of the bill which has come out. Therefore, I 
    would also offer alter

[[Page 6188]]

    natively or additionally, the point of order that this is not 
    germane to the bill as it is now before us. . . .
        . . . I should primarily like to speak on the point of order 
    based on the proposition that I just read, that is that this 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and gives to 
    officers of the Government very, very large additional duties as 
    the result of the passage of this amendment, should it be passed.
        I point primarily to the case which I believe is directly in 
    point. On June 21, 1974, there was a point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) to a provision in the 
    appropriations bill at that time, section 511. The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Moss) asserted that the language would impose 
    additional duties on every agency subject to the bill and was 
    legislation on an appropriation. The language of the section was as 
    follows:

            Except as provided in existing law, funds provided in this 
        act shall be available only for the purposes for which they are 
        appropriated.

        Mr. Moss correctly pointed out that if that provision were 
    sustained, it would be necessary in the use of any funds by an 
    agency involved to go back and show that the Appropriations 
    Committee had addressed the specific object of the use of those 
    funds. . . .
        The Chair ruled as follows:

            The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. If the 
        language means what the gentleman from Mississippi now says it 
        does, then the language is a nullity because it just repeats 
        existing law. The Chair is of the opinion, though, that there 
        is a possibility, as earlier indicated during general debate 
        and as suggested by the gentleman from California, that the 
        amendment imposes an additional burden, and the Chair, 
        therefore, sustains the point of order. . . .

        The Food and Drug Administration does not list food products as 
    safe or unsafe. The Food and Drug Administration only determines 
    whether or not ingredients in food products are safe or unsafe. 
    Therefore, if this restriction were placed in law, it would be 
    necessary for an agency like the Federal Communications Commission, 
    when it is determining whether or not funds might be used in order 
    to take some action respecting unsafe foods, to look to see what 
    ingredients were included in the particular food involved. . . .
        The Consumer Product Safety Commission determines what minimum 
    design or what minimum standards, performance standards, are 
    necessary in order for a toy to be permitted to go on the market. . 
    . .
        The point, though, is that the Commission does not establish 
    that this particular toy is unsafe. If we pass this restriction, we 
    would place the burden on the FTC to go in and look at every toy 
    and then apply the standards of the Consumer Product Agency to 
    those toys to find out whether they could be advertised.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a classic example of placing 
    on every agency to whom this restriction would apply very extensive 
    duties beyond that which they are now called upon to exercise. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Chairman, just 
    to reiterate on this point, this amendment was aimed at limiting 
    the Federal Trade Commission. Now that that sec

[[Page 6189]]

    tion has been stricken, the only way it can apply is to the FCC. 
    The FCC does not have to regulate itself for advertising. That 
    jurisdiction falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade 
    Commission.
        Therefore, it creates new legal duties for the FCC, which are 
    beyond the scope of an appropriation bill, which makes it 
    legislation within an appropriation bill and, therefore, subject to 
    rule XXI, clause 2.
        Also the ruling made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
    is accurate. The language does not go to unsafe toys, and they 
    would have additional duties created by this amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota 
    (Mr. Andrews) constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. In 
    addition, he makes the point that because it was drafted originally 
    to be applicable to the Federal Trade Commission and that section 
    of the bill has been stricken, it is no longer germane to the bill.
        The Chair does not find it necessary to rule, however, on the 
    point of germaneness.
        The amendment would prohibit use of any funds in the bill to 
    limit advertising of food products and toys in relation to which 
    determinations have been made by the Food and Drug Administration 
    and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As indicated by the 
    arguments made on the point of order, this bill now contains no 
    funds for the Federal Trade Commission but does contain funds for 
    the Federal Communications Commission. The Chair feels it is 
    necessary to lay that basis in order to determine whether the 
    amendment requires new duties or determinations of a particular 
    agency which are not now required by law.
        The Federal Communications Commission has the authority under 
    the law to regulate interstate and foreign communications and 
    transmissions in wire and radio, but existing law contains no 
    mandate that the Commission consider whether food and toy products 
    are safe or unsafe in regulating broadcasts within its 
    jurisdiction. The amendment would disallow funds for the Commission 
    to limit advertising of certain products, even if the purpose for 
    such regulatory limitations was totally unrelated to the safety of 
    the product in question. In considering any proposal to limit 
    advertising of food or toy products, the Commission would be 
    required to first determine the scope and extent of determinations 
    of other agencies on the safety of those products, and it is far 
    from clear whether such determinations are readily available or 
    sufficiently certain to determine whether the limitation would 
    apply in a particular case.
        Furthermore, in relation to food products, the Commission would 
    have to determine whether the finished food product contained 
    ingredients which have been declared safe if the Food and Drug 
    Administration had made no determination on the safety of such a 
    finished product.
        The Chair would also note that the amendment would prohibit 
    advertising of food products containing ingredients

[[Page 6190]]

    considered to be generally recognized as safe, without specifically 
    indicating whether that determination is to be made by the FDA or 
    by the Federal Communications Commission.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    would impose substantial new duties and requirements on the Federal 
    Communications Commission beyond its authorities under existing law 
    and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Even if FTC funds had remained in the bill, 
the amendment was overly broad since applying to all funds in the bill 
and not confined to FTC activities. The paragraph ruled out as 
unauthorized, supra, containing funds for the FTC, included similar 
language relating to the FTC.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 59. Defense and Foreign Relations

Buy-America; Equating Standards of Quality or Performance

Sec. 59.1 It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    require, as a condition to the availability of funds, the 
    imposition of standards of quality or performance not required by 
    law, whether or not such standards are applicable by law to other 
    programs or activities.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(3) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to procure 
foreign-made items unless their inspection for quality assurance ``uses 
the same standards'' which would be required for domestic products by 
the Department of Defense was ruled out as legislation imposing 
additional duties absent any showing that existing law already required 
such inspection of items produced in foreign countries. The 
proceedings, during consideration of the defense appropriation 
bill,(4) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 28076, 28077, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.

 4. H.R. 4995.

        Mr. [Jim] Dunn [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dunn: Page 68 after line 15, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 792. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
        available for the procurement of any item manufactured in a 
        foreign country unless, during manufacture, the inspection of 
        such item for quality assurance uses the same standards of 
        inspection during manufacture which would be required by the 
        Department of Defense if such item were manufactured 
        domestically.

        Mr. Dunn [during the reading]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.

[[Page 6191]]

        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against the amendment.

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Frenzel) on his point of order.

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the amendment is 
    contrary to rule XXI, clause 2, which provides that no amendment 
    changing existing law can be made on an appropriation bill. The 
    amendment clearly gives the Secretary additional duties, to 
    determine what kind of quality assurance or inspection is required 
    under the terms of the amendment and, therefore, the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.

        Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order should be sustained.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?

        Mr. Dunn: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, is incorrect. 
    The Secretary already has that discretion. We are simply, in this 
    amendment, trying to make certain that the powers that he uses for 
    national companies are the same as for international companies. He 
    already has that power. It does not change his power.

        The Chairman: As the Chair reads the amendment, there is 
    clearly a mandatory authority imposing additional duties; absent 
    any showing that existing law already requires such inspection of 
    items produced in foreign countries, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).

    Parliamentarian's Note: This decision effectively overrules the 
ruling of the Chair on July 28, 1959,(6) wherein an 
amendment denying use of funds to finance construction projects abroad 
that had not met the criteria used in determining the feasibility of 
flood control projects in the United States was held a proper 
limitation, despite any lack of showing that existing law required 
domestic standards to be applied to foreign construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 14522, 14524, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that it is not just the imposition of new 
standards that constitutes legislation rendering language subject to a 
point of order, but the requirement of new procedures or duties 
involved in making the standards applicable in a setting not 
contemplated in the existing law.

Defense Contractors Employing Retired Officers

Sec. 59.2 An amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated in 
    the bill were to be used to enter into con

[[Page 6192]]

    tracts with any concern having on its payroll a retired or inactive 
    military officer was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On June 3, 1959,(7) during consideration of H.R. 7454 
(making appropriations for the Department of Defense), proceedings took 
place as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 9741, 9742, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The appropriation to the Department of Defense for 
        ``Construction of ships, Military Sea Transportation Service,'' 
        shall not be available for obligation after June 30, 1959.

        Mr. [Alfred E.] Santangelo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Santangelo: On page 25, after line 
        17, add new section, as follows:

                              ``General Provisions

            ``Sec. 301. None of the funds contained in this Title may 
        be used to enter into a contract with any person, organization, 
        company or concern which provides compensation to a retired or 
        inactive military or naval general officer who has been an 
        active member of the military forces of the United States 
        within 5 years of the date of enactment of this act.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I renew 
    my point of order. I agree that there are abuses indicated by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Santangelo]. I think those abuses 
    should be corrected. But, I think at this point, this is the wrong 
    way to do it, and for that reason I make the point of order. In my 
    opinion, this amendment or this limitation places additional 
    burdens on the executive branch of the Government which are not now 
    required by law, and therefore it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; therefore subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Santangelo: . . . This is not legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill. This is a limitation of expenditures and 
    restrictions as to the way they shall spend these funds, and it is 
    in no wise legislation. I submit it does not violate the 
    parliamentary rules. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Santangelo] offered an 
    amendment in the nature of an addition to the pending bill by 
    adding a new section, the language of which was reported with the 
    amendment: None of the funds contained in this title may be used to 
    enter into a contract with any person, organization, company, or 
    concern which provides compensation to a retired or inactive 
    military or naval general officer who has been an active member of 
    the military forces of the United States within 5 years of the date 
    of enactment of this act, to which amendment the gentleman from 
    Michigan makes the point of order that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        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

[[Page 6193]]

    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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On May 5, 1960,(9) an amendment 
providing that none of the funds appropriated in the bill may be used 
to enter into contracts with any concern having on its payroll a 
retired military officer was held to be a limitation not imposing 
additional duties on the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 9634-36, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment in question, offered during consideration of H.R. 
11998, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, 
stated:

        [Add] new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 535. None of the funds contained in this Title may be 
    used to pay or reimburse any Defense Contractor which employs a 
    retired commissioned officer within two years after his release 
    from active duty for the purpose of selling or aiding or assisting 
    in the selling of anything of value to the Department of Defense or 
    an Armed Force of the United States, or, which within two years 
    from the release from active duty of a retired commissioned officer 
    knowingly permits any such retired commissioned officer to sell or 
    aid in the selling of anything of value to the Department of 
    Defense or an Armed Force of the United States.''

    It should be noted that the language above, unlike the language of 
the 1959 amendment, would seemingly require some determinations to be 
made by federal officials with regard to whether a defense contractor 
``knowingly'' permitted the proscribed acts, as well as the 
``purposes'' for which a retired officer was employed. These complex 
determinations would now probably be considered such additional burdens 
placed on an official as would render the language subject to the point 
of order.
    In another ruling, on June 15, 1972,(10) an amendment to 
a general appropriation bill providing that none of the funds therein 
be used to purchase goods or services from suppliers who compensate any 
of the officers or employees in excess of a certain rate was held a 
valid limitation on the use of funds in the bill. Although it 
coulampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Wyman: My point of order is that section 743 as presently 
    worded is contrary to the rules of the House in that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill in violation of rule XXI, 
    subsection 2. The section contains the positive amendment in line 
    25, page

[[Page 6194]]

    51, that a certain amount of work must be made available, and on 
    page 52, lines 3 and 4, there is a specific direction to the 
    Secretary of Defense.

        Paragraph 842 of the House Rules Manual, pursuant to rule XXI, 
    subsection 2, provides: ``Propositions to establish affirmative 
    directions for executive officers, eing any additional duties on 
    the executive branch and therefore in order.

    On May 5, 1960,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11998, a bill making appropriations for the Department 
of Defense. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 9641, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: On page 
    45, after line 6, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 535. No funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to 
    pay any amount under a contract, made after the date of enactment 
    of this Act, which exceeds the amount of a lower bid if such 
    contract would have been awarded to the lower bidder but for the 
    application of any policy which favors the award of such a contract 
    to a person proposing to perform it in a facility not owned by the 
    United States.''
        And renumber the following section.
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make a point of order against the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara]. It seems to me this 
    language is clearly subject to a point of order in that it imposes 
    additional duties on the Secretary of Defense. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest 
    in connection with the point of order that this is a limitation on 
    an appropriation. It does not attempt to impose any additional 
    duties on the executive branch nor does it attempt to legislate in 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls the attention of the committee to previous 
    rulings made on similar points of order and would like in addition 
    to call to the attention of the Committee the ruling that appears 
    in 4 Hinds' Precedents, page 660, in which it is clearly indicated 
    that a limitation is permitted on a general appropriation bill that 
    in effect provides a negative prohibition on the use of the money, 
    and no affirmative direction on the executive branch.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language here offered is a 
    negative prohibition and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point 
    of order.

Defense Contracts; Requiring Renegotiation Agreement

Sec. 59.4 To a bill making appropriations for national defense, an 
    amendment providing that no part of such appropriation be used for 
    payments under certain contracts until the contractor shall have 
    filed with the appropriate agency a certificate of costs and an 
    agreement for renegotiation satis

[[Page 6195]]

    factory to the Secretary of War or Secretary of the Navy, was 
    conceded to be legislation and held not in order, in that it 
    granted new authority to an executive officer.

    On Mar. 28, 1942,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6868. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 3139, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Page 36, after line 11, insert a new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 402-A. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
    act shall be available to pay that portion of a contract for 
    construction of any character and/or procurement of material and 
    supplies for either the Military or Naval Establishments, 
    designated as `final payment' until the contractor shall have filed 
    with the procuring agency a certificate of costs and an agreement 
    for renegotiation and reimbursement satisfactory to the Secretary 
    of War or the Secretary of the Navy as the case may be.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that under the guise of a 
    limitation the amendment would require executive action.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order and offer another amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualification of Contractors; Secretary's Approval

Sec. 59.5 To a defense appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    certain funds therein shall not be used under contracts awarded or 
    negotiated after its date of enactment unless the Secretary of 
    Defense finds that such contracts are covered by a vested 
    retirement pension program approved by the Secretary was held to 
    impose additional duties on that federal official and was ruled out 
    as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Sept. 14, 1972,(15) 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 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 30758, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Barry M.] Goldwater [Jr., of 
    California]: On page 52, after line 8, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 745. No part of the funds appropriated under title IV or 
    V of the Act shall be made available in regard to contracts awarded 
    or negotiated after the enactment of this act unless the Secretary 
    of Defense shall first find

[[Page 6196]]

    that all persons employed under such contract or subcontract 
    thereunder, are covered by a vested retirement pension program 
    approved under such standards as the Secretary of Defense shall 
    prescribe.''
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Goldwater) that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it requires additional duties on the 
    part of the Secretary. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair has examined the 
    language of the amendment. The language does place additional 
    duties on the Secretary and, therefore, holds that the amendment is 
    legislation and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ship Construction; Directing Percentage in Private Shipyards

Sec. 59.6 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring that at 
    least 35 percent of funds therein for naval vessel alteration, 
    overhaul, or repair shall be made available for such work in 
    private shipyards, except that the Secretary of Defense may 
    determine that urgency requires such work to be done in the Navy 
    yards or in private yards as he may direct, was conceded to be 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 in that it 
    established affirmative directions and was ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On Sept. 14, 1972,(17) 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 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 30749, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 743. Of the funds made available in this Act for the 
        alteration, overhaul, and repair of naval vessels, at least 35 
        per centum thereof must be made available for such work in 
        privately owned shipyards: Provided, That if determined by the 
        Secretary of Defense to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest based on urgency of requirement to have such vessels 
        altered, overhauled, or repaired as required, such work may be 
        done in Navy or private shipyards as he may direct.

        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    on a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Wyman: My point of order is that section 743 as presently 
    worded is contrary to the rules of the House in that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill in violation of rule XXI,

[[Page 6197]]

    subsection 2. The section contains the positive amendment in line 
    25, page 51, that a certain amount of work must be made available, 
    and on page 52, lines 3 and 4, there is a specific direction to the 
    Secretary of Defense.

        Paragraph 842 of the House Rules Manual, pursuant to rule XXI, 
    subsection 2, provides: ``Propositions to establish affirmative 
    directions for executive officers, even in cases where they may 
    have discretion under the law so to do,''--``are subject to the 
    point of order,'' as are positive requirements in such legislation 
    constituting legislation upon an appropriations bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge that the section be ruled out of order.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Granting Discretionary Authority

Sec. 59.7 Language providing an appropriation for purposes which in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Army are desirable in expediting 
    production for military purposes was held to be legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Aug. 9, 1951,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5054), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 9733, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Expediting Production

            To enable the Secretary of the Army, without reference to 
        section 3734 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, and to 
        section 1136 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (except 
        provisions thereof relating to title approval), to expedite the 
        production of equipment and supplies for the Army for emergency 
        national defense purposes, including all of the objects and 
        purposes specified under each of the appropriations available 
        to the Department of the Army during the current fiscal year, 
        for procurement or production of equipment or supplies, for 
        erection of structures, or for acquisition of land; the 
        furnishing of Government-owned facilities at privately owned 
        plants: the procurement and training of civilian personnel in 
        connection with the production of equipment and material and 
        the use and operation thereof; and for any other purposes which 
        in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army are desirable in 
        expediting production for military purposes, $1,000,000,000.

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, against the language . . . reading as follows: 
    ``and for any other purposes which in the discretion of the 
    Secretary of the Army are desirable in expediting production for 
    military purposes.''
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6198]]

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am not 
    prepared to say that the language is subject to a point of order. I 
    doubt, however, that the language is necessary. I have no serious 
    objection to the language being stricken from the bill, but I do 
    not want to concede that the language is subject to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman refer the Chair to any specific 
    law with reference to this language?
        Mr. Mahon: I do not have the language of the basic legislation 
    before me, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore is subject to 
    the point of order. The point of order is sustained.

Requiring Sole Accounting and Reports on Confidential Military 
    Operations

Sec. 59.8 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing for 
    contingent expenditures by the Secretary of Defense to be accounted 
    for solely on his certificate that the expenses were for 
    confidential military purposes and providing for a quarterly report 
    of such disbursements to Congress was held to impose additional 
    duties on the Secretary and was ruled out as legislation.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11575), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 38825, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Contingencies, Defense

            For emergencies and extraordinary expenses arising in the 
        Department of Defense, to be expended on the approval or 
        authority of the Secretary of Defense and such expenses may be 
        accounted for solely on his certificate that the expenditures 
        were necessary for confidential military purposes; $5,000,000: 
        Provided, That a report of disbursements under this item of 
        appropriation shall be made quarterly to Congress.

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve a point of order with respect to the whole section, and to 
    make the point of order with respect to the provisions reading as 
    follows:

            And such expenses may be accounted for solely on his 
        certificate that the expenditures were necessary for 
        confidential military purposes.

        The point of order which is stated and made is by the same 
    proposition made with respect to the same language which occurs 
    elsewhere in the bill. The point of order is reserved, which I do 
    not wish to make at this time until I check whether or not the 
    special contingencies defense is authorized by an authorization 
    bill or by existing statutory law.
        I point out to the Chair that the operation and maintenance 
    defense agencies provision had a section there of $5,448,000 in it 
    that was, of course, not disturbed by my previous point of

[[Page 6199]]

    order, and this appears to be made up so that the Defense 
    Department would have some $10,448,000 if this is included.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would like to make the 
    observation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) should 
    make his point of order while the paragraph is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, in that event, I will make both 
    points of order; one against the entire paragraph and the other 
    against the phrase involved. However, I would not press the point 
    of order--well, of course, if it is not justified, it can be shown 
    it is not justified, so I do make the two points of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) wish to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, 7 Cannon's Precedents 1273, February 13, 1919, 
    states:

            The organic law creating a department authorizes necessary 
        contingent expenses incident to its maintenance.

        This provision has been in the appropriation bill for decades, 
    and I am not able to cite anything more than I have cited in 
    defense of the language. This language has been carried in the 
    Defense Appropriations Act for as long as I can remember.
        The Chairman: The Chair notes that the paragraph does have 
    legislation, since it requires a report and imposes additional 
    duties. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, that would be both points of order?
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained against the 
    paragraph.

Requiring Reports on Feasibility Projects

Sec. 59.9 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    foreign assistance, an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds 
    carried in the bill for certain capital projects costing in excess 
    of $1 million until the head of the agency involved has received 
    and considered a report, prepared by officials within the agency, 
    on the justification and feasibility of such project was held to 
    impose additional duties and was ruled out as legislation.

    On Nov. 17, 1967,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
13893), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32975, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan: On page 14, immediately 
        after line 16, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 120. None of the funds appropriated or made 
        available by this

[[Page 6200]]

        Act for carrying out titles I, II, and VI of chapter 2, and 
        chapter 4, of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
        amended, may be used for financing, in whole or in part, any 
        capital assistance project as estimated to cost in excess of 
        $1,000,000, until the head of the agency primarily responsible 
        for administering part I of such Act has received and taken 
        into consideration a report on the review of the proposed 
        capital assistance project, conducted by the Controller of such 
        agency with such assistance from other divisions of such agency 
        as he may request, which report shall set forth the 
        Controller's views, comments, and such recommendations as he 
        may deem appropriate with respect to the adequacy of the 
        justification, feasibility studies, and prospects for effective 
        utilization of such project.''. . .

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I must insist 
    upon my point of order to the pending amendment.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    wish to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney of New York: Yes. The point of order is based on the 
    fact that this puts language in the bill, by this amendment, which 
    would cause additional duties to be performed, and it is therefore 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York?
        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that this procedural 
    point would be raised. It would seem to me that, on the basis of 
    the arguments that have been going on almost the entire afternoon, 
    and on the basis of the references made by my distinguished 
    colleague from Maryland in reference to the functions of the 
    Committee on Appropriations, that I will choose to regard my 
    proposal as a limiting amendment, and therefore germane to the 
    argument before us today.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California adds a 
    new section to the bill which would impose additional duties, 
    determinations, and obligations upon the head of an agency that are 
    not now required under existing law. Therefore the Chair holds that 
    the amendment proposes additional legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Requiring Monthly Reports on Small Business

Sec. 59.10 To an appropriation bill, an amendment which would require 
    the Department of Defense to make monthly reports showing the 
    amount of funds spent with small business as defined by the Small 
    Business Administration, and the funds spent with firms other than 
    small business in the same fields of operation, was held to be 
    legislation and therefore not in order.

[[Page 6201]]

    On May 12, 1955,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6042), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 6244, 6245, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: In section 611, on page 
        37, at the end of line 9, strike the period and substitute a 
        colon and add the following language: ``Provided further, That, 
        for the purposes of aiding in carrying out the national policy 
        to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and 
        contracts for supplies and services for the Government be 
        placed with small-business enterprises, and to maintain and 
        strengthen the overall economy of the Nation, the Department of 
        Defense shall make a monthly report to the President, the 
        President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives not less than 45 days after the close of the 
        month, showing the amount of funds appropriated to the 
        Department of Defense which have been expended, obligated, or 
        contracted to be spent with small business as defined by the 
        Small Business Administration, and the amount of such funds 
        expended, obligated, or contracted to be spent with firms other 
        than small business in the same fields of operation; and such 
        monthly reports shall show separately the funds expended, 
        obligated, or contracted to be spent for basic and applied 
        scientific research and development.''

        Mr. [Harry R.] Sheppard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It imposes new duties on the 
    Department which are not presently authorized by law. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendment is a limitation on 
    the language that is in the bill. It merely requires reporting to 
    be done.
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    imposes additional duties which are substantive in nature and, 
    therefore, the proposed amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Where Exception From a Limitation Requires New Duty

Sec. 59.11 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no part 
    of the appropriations therein shall be used to pay compensation of 
    any incumbent appointed to fill a vacancy, and providing that this 
    inhibition shall not apply to employees of certain agencies when 
    certified by the head of the agency to be employed on matters 
    essential to the national defense effort, was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

[[Page 6202]]

    On May 4, 1951,(7) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill (H.R. 3880), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 4914, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: Page 63, after line 12, 
        insert a new section as follows:
            ``No part of any appropriation or authorization contained 
        in this act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
        incumbent appointed to any civil office or position which may 
        become vacant during the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1951: 
        Provided, That this inhibition shall not apply--
            ``(a) to not to exceed 25 percent of all vacancies;
            ``(b) to positions filled from within the agency;
            ``(c) to offices or positions required by law to be filled 
        by appointment of the President by and with the advice and 
        consent of the Senate;
            ``(d) to all employees in veterans' medical facilities;
            ``(e) to employees in the Atomic Energy Commission and the 
        National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics who are certified 
        by the head of the agency, in writing, as being directly 
        employed on matters essential to the National Defense effort;
            ``(f) to employees of the General Accounting Office;
            ``(g) to employees in grades CPC 1 and 2;
            ``Provided further, That when any department or agency 
        covered in this bill shall, as a result of the operation of 
        this amendment reduce their employment to a figure not 
        exceeding 80 percent of the total number on their rolls as of 
        July 1, 1951, such amendment shall cease to apply and said 80 
        percent figure shall become a ceiling for employment during the 
        fiscal year 1952 and if exceeded at any time during fiscal year 
        1952 this amendment shall again become operative.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it places an additional duty upon 
    several of the agencies involved and is, therefore, subject to a 
    point of order. For instance, this language is used: ``to employees 
    in the Committee for Aeronautics who are certified by the head of 
    the agency.''
        Now, that is placing an additional duty on the head of that 
    agency, extra duties and extra authority on him, therefore it is 
    subject to a point of order. Also it says: ``in writing, as being 
    directly employed on matters essential to the national defense.''
        He has got to make a decision there as to what is national 
    defense. He has to make a decision as to what is an essentiality. 
    Therefore, that is placing an additional duty beyond the scope that 
    is proper at this point and, therefore, it is subject to a point of 
    order. I suggest that the point of order go to the entire 
    paragraph. It should be stricken in its entirety.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
    Jensen] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 6203]]

Authorizing Transfer of Trust Funds for Salary Increases

Sec. 59.12 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing a 
    transfer of trust funds sufficient to pay increased salary costs 
    and imposing additional duties on the Administrator of Veterans' 
    Affairs was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    was ruled out by the Chair.

    On Apr. 10, 1963,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5517), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 6160, 6161, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I call attention to 
    the language in lines 15 through 20 on page 49, which reads as 
    follows:

            Sec. 203. The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall have 
        the authority to transfer not to exceed $1,795,000 from the 
        ``Loan guaranty revolving fund'' to any other appropriations of 
        the Veterans' Administration to pay for increased pay costs 
        authorized by or pursuant to law for fiscal year 1963 if in his 
        discretion he finds it necessary.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the language of 
    section 203 on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I read from the report of the committee:

            The committee has included a provision which will enable 
        the Administrator in his discretion to use not to exceed 
        $1,795,000 from the loan guaranty revolving fund to cover the 
        cost of such pay increases if he finds it necessary.

        I submit this goes beyond the scope of the Appropriations 
    Committee and that it imposes additional duties upon the Director 
    of the Veterans' Administration.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Iowa is valid. . . .
        Mr. Gross: The gentleman will agree that the money will come 
    from the loan guarantee revolving fund and not from funds 
    appropriated to the Veterans' Administration specifically for 
    increased pay costs.
        Mr. Thomas: It is not from appropriated funds.
        Mr. Gross: And the war veterans could be penalized through such 
    use of revolving funds.
        Mr. Thomas: No, the veterans will not be penalized. It will 
    help them.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Iowa is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Extension of Foreign Service Appointments

Sec. 59.13 A provision in a general appropriation bill giving

[[Page 6204]]

    the Secretary of State authority to extend foreign service reserve 
    appointments through another year--thus changing the Secretary's 
    authority under existing law--was conceded to be legislation and 
    was ruled out on a point of order.

    On May 28, 1968,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17522), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 15353, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 106. Existing appointments and assignments to the 
        Foreign Service Reserve in the Department of State which expire 
        during the current fiscal year may be extended in the 
        discretion of the Secretary of State for a period of one year 
        in addition to the period of appointment or assignment 
        otherwise authorized.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning with line 25, on page 13, and 
    extending through line 5 on page 14 as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and as calling for added authority on the part 
    of the Department of State without the authority of Congress.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wayne L. Hays (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to admit that the point of order is valid.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authority to Terminate Employment by Secretary of State

Sec. 59.14 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of State may, in his discretion, terminate the employment 
    of any employee of the Department of State or the Foreign Service 
    whenever he shall deem such termination advisable in the interests 
    of the United States, was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not to be a retrenchment within the 
    provisions of the Holman rule.

    On Apr. 20, 1950,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 5480, 5481, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 104. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of 
        the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of 
        any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute 
        discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the 
        employment of

[[Page 6205]]

        any officer or employee of the Department of State or of the 
        Foreign Service of the United States whenever he shall deem 
        such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the 
        United States. . . .

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The language of section 104 gives to the Secretary of 
    State--and I quote from the section--``in his absolute discretion 
    power to terminate the employment of any employee. I do not believe 
    we have ever had legislation in the entire history of this Nation 
    which contained this language ``absolute discretion.''. . . It is 
    my opinion that this language ``absolute discretion'' is a piece of 
    very undemocratic legislation on an appropriation bill and I make 
    the point of order against it. It should be stricken from the bill.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Mr. Chairman, this provision is 
    familiarly known as the McCarran rider and has been in the State 
    Department appropriation bill since 1947. . . . I oppose the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman. I feel that having been in this bill since 
    1947 and because it is so necessary that our State Department be 
    what the public of America wants it to be, the language should be 
    continued in the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] 
    concede that it is legislation?
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, may I most respectfully state that on 
    this subject I will not concede anything.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion 
    this will result in a saving. It is in accordance with the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. When the power authorized in this 
    language is exercised and the Secretary terminates the employment 
    of any officer or employee in his absolute discretion that will 
    result in a saving. That will save money and is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the language 
    does confer definite authority and requires certain acts on the 
    part of the Secretary of State. In response to the argument offered 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] as to the application of 
    the Holman rule it is clearly shown by the precedents and decisions 
    of the House that the saving must be apparent and definite on its 
    face in the language of the bill in order for the Holman rule to 
    apply. Certainly an examination of the language in question clearly 
    shows that any saving would be speculative. In view of the long 
    line of precedents and decisions dealing with the question of 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, which is clearly prohibited 
    under the rules of the House, the Chair has no alternative other 
    than to sustain the point of order.

Requiring Certification of Security Clearance

Sec. 59.15 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a 
    limitation providing that no part of any appropriation in the act 
    shall be used to pay the salary of

[[Page 6206]]

    any person appointed to the Department of State until essential 
    clearance as to loyalty has been certified by the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On May 2, 1946,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6056), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 4366, 4367, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 92 Cong. Rec. 2695, 79th Cong. 2d, Sess., Mar. 27, 
        1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wigglesworth: On page 32, line 23, 
        after the period insert a new paragraph reading as follows:
            ``No part of any appropriation in this act shall be used to 
        pay the salary or wage of any person appointed or transferred 
        to the Department of State after September 1, 1945, until 
        essential clearance as to loyalty has been certified by the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation and the appropriate security 
        committee of the State Department.''. . .

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I renew my 
    point of order and insist on it for the reason it is a direction 
    under the guise of a limitation which casts a serious reflection on 
    the personnel of the State Department and it will cripple their 
    activites. I know all Members of the House appreciate how serious 
    my own thoughts have been along the very same lines. I have 
    expressed myself time and time again on this and the hearings are 
    replete and filled with statements made by the chairman and other 
    members of the committee on that subject. We have brought this 
    forcibly to their attention, but this is too drastic an amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language through the figures ``1945'' is nothing other than 
    a limitation, perhaps; but the remainder of the language does 
    impose responsibilities and duties upon the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation which it may not now be called upon to perform under 
    existing law.
        The Chair is, therefore, constrained to sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Michigan.

Requiring International Organizations to Pay Assessments in Arrears

Sec. 59.16 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of State, 
    including an item for contributions to various international 
    organizations, an amendment providing that none of the funds might 
    be expended until all other members of such organiza

[[Page 6207]]

    tions have met their financial obligations was ruled out as 
    legislation requiring determinations of indebtedness.

    On May 28, 1968,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17522, a bill making appropriations for the 
Departments of State, Justice, and the Judiciary. The Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 15350, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
    annual obligations of membership in international multilateral 
    organizations, pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific Acts 
    of Congress, $118,453,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 5, line 13, replace 
        the period with a colon, and add the following:
            ``Provided, That none of these moneys shall be expended 
        until such time as the financial obligations, past and present, 
        of all other members of each multilateral organization to which 
        this paragraph applies, shall have been fully met.''. . .

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is that the amendment would require someone to do additional 
    duties, to make a determination of what is suggested in this 
    amendment, and therefore it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (18)) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wayne L. Hays (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Only, Mr. Chairman, that it is patently a limitation 
    on the appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes that this amendment does 
    provide additional duties inasmuch as it says that none of these 
    moneys shall be expended until such time as national obligations, 
    past and present, and so on, shall be fully met, and therefore 
    somebody would have to make a pretty thorough study to decide 
    whether this has been met. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Restriction of Foreign Aid to Nations Believed to be Communist 
    Controlled

Sec. 59.17 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    part of any appropriation therein shall be used to make grants or 
    loans to any country which the Secretary of State believes to be 
    dominated by the foreign government controlling the world Communist 
    movement was held to be legislation.

    On July 11, 1955,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security ap

[[Page 6208]]

propriation bill (H.R. 7224), a point of order was raised against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 101 Cong. Rec. 10245, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murray of Illinois: Page 12, after 
        line 10, insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        act shall be used to make grants or loans, or otherwise to 
        furnish assistance, to any country the government of which the 
        Secretary of State believes to be substantially directed, 
        dominated, or controlled by the foreign government or foreign 
        organization controlling the world Communist movement referred 
        to in section 2 of the Subversive Activites Control Act of 
        1950.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [James C.] Murray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I am going 
    to be very brief. I think the language of my amendment speaks for 
    itself, and urge its adoption.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (20) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois imposes on the Secretary of State 
    additional duties, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the imposition 
    of those additional duties constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curtailing Funds to Nations Restricting Emigration

Sec. 59.18 To a general appropriation bill containing funds for foreign 
    assistance, an amendment denying the availability of those funds to 
    any nation ``which requires payment above nominal and customary 
    costs'' for emigration permits was held to impose additional duties 
    of investigation and interpretation upon federal officials and was 
    ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Sept. 21, 1972,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16705), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 18 Cong. Rec. 31835, 31836, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: On page 17, after line 12, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 506. 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 provide 
        loans, credits, financial and investment assistance, or 
        insurance guarantees on sales to or investments in any Nation 
        which requires payment above nominal and customary costs for 
        exit visas, exit permits, or for the right to emigrate.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a

[[Page 6209]]

    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman:(2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Passman: The amendment imposes additional duties on the 
    executive branch in that it requires a determination as to what 
    constitutes a payment above normal and customary cost for exit 
    visas, permits, or the right to emigrate. I would not know how this 
    could be determined without imposing additional duties upon the 
    executive branch.
        Upon that basis I plead that the point of order should and I 
    hope it will be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Vanik: I do not feel that the ancient, decadent body of 
    precedent should prevent a Member from making a legitimate and 
    proper amendment to this bill. We should not be restrained in our 
    legislative efforts in dealing with present-day problems by the 
    dead hand of the past.
        I ask for a ruling, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has examined the amendment, and finds that it would 
    prohibit use of funds appropriated or made available pursuant to 
    this act, in any nation which requires payment above nominal and 
    customary costs for exit visas, exit permits, or for the right to 
    emigrate. It is apparent to the Chair that someone must make a 
    determination of the ``nominal'' and ``customary'' cost, thus 
    imposing additional duties on the executive branch; and therefore 
    in the opinion of the Chair the language constitutes legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Prohibiting Funds for International Organizations for Interest Costs

Sec. 59.19 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    availability of funds for international organizations to pay 
    interest costs for loans was ruled out as legislation, requiring 
    federal officials to make determinations not required by existing 
    law as to interest costs paid by international organizations.

    On Dec. 9, 1982,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, 
and the Judiciary appropriation bill (H.R. 6957), a point of order 
against an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec.----, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: On page 30, 
        line 2, after ``$449,815,000'' insert the following: 
        ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
        paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution 
        to an international or

[[Page 6210]]

        ganization for any interest costs for loans incurred on or 
        after October 1, 1982.''. . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order on the same basis that I have raised the point of 
    order on the proviso that was in the bill originally. This 
    amendment will still require the executive branch to make a 
    determination of what international organizations are paying 
    interest, and to what extent, and that this money would not 
    therefore be available in that portion of our U.S. assessment. So, 
    this goes beyond the present procedure that the executive branch is 
    required to make on our existing law.
        Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa as 
    substituted for the original language in the bill would clearly 
    impose upon the executive branch the new duties not now required by 
    law; and, I submit, still fundamentally legislation in an 
    appropriation bill and is in violation of the letter and spirit of 
    clause 2, rule XXI. I hope that the point of order will be 
    sustained. . . .
        It is the understanding of the gentleman from Iowa that in 
    order to make a determination as to the amount of interest, the 
    executive branch would have to require the organizations to make an 
    investigation to what extent interest payments are included in the 
    U.S. assessment. May I further ask, would the gentleman's amendment 
    also require that conditions be imposed on our contribution 
    requiring an agreement with the United Nations that we now do have 
    as far as our assessment, but not as far as to what the proviso or 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa provides?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we get into 
    what kind of an agreement may be necessary here. We do not even 
    attempt to do that. But they have the records that would be 
    necessary anyway in reviewing their contributions and how much we 
    owed the United Nations. The State Department has those records 
    anyway. They have to have them in order to make the payments. So 
    there is not anything extra here other than some incidental matter 
    of looking at some papers.
        The Chairman: (4). . . The gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Zablocki) makes a point of order with regard to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) for essentially the 
    same reasons that he used against the original proviso, in that it 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill by virtue of the 
    fact that it imposes additional duties upon the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) is correct, that there are additional 
    duties which are not trivial which are imposed upon the executive 
    branch, to determine interest amounts and, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered above by Mr. Smith 
sought to achieve the same result as language that had been ruled out 
of order when carried in the original bill. [See Sec. 52.31, supra, for 
the language of the bill

[[Page 6211]]

and the ruling on the point of order.] Subsequently, on Dec. 9, Mr. 
Smith offered the following amendment:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Iowa: On page 30, line 2, 
    after ``$449, 815,000'' insert the following: ``Provided, That none 
    of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
    a United States contribution to an international organization for 
    those interest costs made known to the United States Government by 
    such international organization for loans incurred on or after 
    October 1, 1982.

The amendment in this form was not subject to a point of order. See 7 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1695, where information ``already known'' to a 
federal official was held in order as a proper limitation not requiring 
new determinations. Where the language on its face merely recites a 
passive situation as a condition precedent for receipt of funds, as 
opposed to imposing an ongoing responsibility on a federal official to 
ascertain information, the language may be a proper limitation.

Limiting Funds for Medical Expenses to Percentage of Customary Charges

Sec. 59.20 A portion of a paragraph in a general appropriation bill 
    denying the use of funds therein under the CHAMPUS program for 
    reimbursement of health care providers in excess of the 80th 
    percentile of customary charges made for similar services in the 
    same locality was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2, where existing law did not impose an affirmative 
    requirement for such determinations but merely authorized issuance 
    of regulations on the subject of reimbursement, even though federal 
    officials were in fact already making such findings pursuant to 
    regulations.

    On Aug. 8, 1978,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 13635), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 24959, 24960, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 844. None of the funds contained in this Act available 
        for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
        Services under the provisions of section 1079 (a) of title 10, 
        United States Code, shall be available for . . . (f) 
        reimbursement of any physician or other authorized individual 
        provider of medical care in excess of the eightieth percentile 
        of the customary charges made for similar services in the same 
        locality where the medical care was furnished. . . .

[[Page 6212]]

        Mr. [Elwood H.] Hillis [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language of section 844(f) on the 
    grounds that it violates rule XXI, clause 2 of the rules of the 
    House in that it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill.
        Section 844 refers to section 1079(a), title 10 of the United 
    States Code. However, section 1079(a) states that the ``methods for 
    making payment shall be prescribed under joint regulations issued 
    by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health, Education, 
    and Welfare.''. . .
        Mr. Chairman, I also cite section 842 of Jefferson's Manual 
    which states in part that--

            Propositions to establish affirmative directions for 
        executive offices even in cases where they may have discretion 
        under the law so to do are subject to a point of order.

        While section 1076 of title 10, United States Code grants the 
    Secretary authority to promulgate regulations, part (f) of section 
    844 of this bill dictates to him the method of determining payments 
    thereby eliminating any discretionary authority on his part. This 
    is clearly legislation insomuch as it requires the Secretary to 
    determine customary charges made for similar services in the same 
    locality where the medical care was furnished. Nowhere in the 
    permanent law is the Secretary required to make these 
    determinations. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this provision 
    in the defense bill grows out of the legislation establishing the 
    CHAMPUS operation. The committee maintains that the language in the 
    bill specifically provides for a limitation in expenditures and 
    that the provision in the bill is not subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon) suggests does not apply to that part of the paragraph to 
    which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hillis) makes the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair observes that the language does require a 
    determination as to what local and customary charges are, and there 
    is nothing presently in existing law that requires those 
    determinations to be made during the next fiscal year. The 
    authorization bill containing such authority is not yet law.
        The Chair sustains the point of order with respect to 
    subparagraph (f) to which the gentleman referred.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authorizing law was later amended to 
require the determination of customary charges.

Limiting Funds for International Narcotics Control; Requiring New 
    Duties

Sec. 59.21 To a foreign aid general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of international narcotics control funds 
    contained therein for the eradication of marihuana through the use 
    of paraquat unless used with another substance which effectively 
    warns potential users of the marihuana that

[[Page 6213]]

    paraquat has been used on it, was ruled out as legislation 
    requiring new duties and determinations of the executive branch 
    (where an authorization bill requiring similar findings had not yet 
    been signed into law).

    The ruling of the Chair on Aug. 4, 1978,(7) was that, 
while a limitation on the use of funds in a general appropriation bill 
does not constitute a violation of Rule XXI clause 2 if it merely 
restates identical language in existing law, the legislation in 
question must have been signed into law. The proceedings are discussed 
in Sec. 23.24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 24436, 24437, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 60. District of Columbia

Limiting Duties of Teachers, Not Funds

Sec. 60.1 A provision in a District of Columbia appropriation bill that 
    teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that necessary 
    or incidental to their regular classroom teaching assignments was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering provisions of H.R. 5996, relating to appropriations for 
personal services of teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3106, 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services of teachers and librarians in accordance 
    with the act approved June 4, 1924 (43 Stat., pp. 367-375) . . . 
    $7,157,820: Provided, That as teacher vacancies occur during the 
    fiscal year 1938 in grades 1 to 4, inclusive, of the elementary 
    schools, such vacancies may be filled by the assignment of teachers 
    now employed in kindergartens . . . : Provided further, That 
    teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that which is 
    necessary or incidental to their regular classroom teaching 
    assignments. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained on page 25, beginning in 
    line 4, as follows--

            That teachers shall not perform any clerical work except 
        that which is necessary or incidental to their regular 
        classroom teaching assignments--
    for the reason that it is legislation and modifies existing law. . 
    . .

        The Chairman: (9) Patently this is legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill, and there is no saving or retrenchment 
    shown. Therefore, it being legislation, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6214]]

Directing Water Supply Treatment in District of Columbia

Sec. 60.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall provide for 
    treating the water supply of the District of Columbia with a 
    fluoride for dental protection was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On June 7, 1951,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4329), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 6271, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Page 17, line 
        12, after the period, insert ``Provided further, That the Board 
        of Commissioners shall provide for treating the water supply of 
        the District of Columbia with a flouride or chemical compound 
        to the extent that it will provide dental protection for the 
        people of the District of Columbia.''

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I concede the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Nebraska 
    concedes the point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Authority Conferred on Federal Official

Sec. 60.3 An amendment in the form of a limitation providing that no 
    part of an appropriation be used for the purchase or sale of real 
    estate or for establishing new offices outside the District of 
    Columbia, except that in an emergency, when Congress is not in 
    session, approval may be given therefor by the Director of the 
    Budget, was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Apr. 14, 1949,(12) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4177), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 4657, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in behalf of the committee.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6215]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 63, 
        line 3, insert a new section in lieu thereof, as follows:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of any appropriations made available by 
        the provisions of this title shall be used for the purchase or 
        sale of real estate or for the purpose of establishing new 
        offices outside the District of Columbia: Provided, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to programs which have been approved 
        by the Congress and appropriations made therefor: Provided 
        further, That in the event of an emergency, when the Congress 
        is not in session, approval may be given by the Director of the 
        Bureau of the Budget, within the limits of available funds.''

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that that 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, the latter part of the 
    amendment giving additional power and responsibility to the 
    Director of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from South 
    Dakota desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Travel

Sec. 60.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing that, ``when 
    specifically authorized by the Commissioners this appropriation may 
    be used for visiting any ward of the Department of Public Welfare 
    placed outside of the District of Columbia and the States of 
    Virginia and Maryland'' was conceded and held to require additional 
    duties and not to be in order.

    On Apr. 8, 1957,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6500), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5293, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 Public Welfare

            Department of Public Welfare, including relief and 
        rehabilitation of indigent residents, maintenance pending 
        transportation of indigent persons, burial of indigent 
        residents of the District of Columbia, temporary care of 
        children while being transferred from place to place . . . and 
        care of boys committed to the National Training School for Boys 
        by the courts of the District of Columbia under a contract to 
        be made by the Commissioners or their designated agent with the 
        Attorney General at a rate of not to exceed the actual cost for 
        each boy committed, $12,450,000: Provided, That when 
        specifically authorized by the Commissioners this appropriation 
        may be used for visiting any ward of the Department of Public 
        Welfare placed outside of the District of Columbia and the 
        States of Virginia and Maryland. . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.

[[Page 6216]]

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: My point of order is with reference to the 
    language on page 16, line 9, beginning with the word ``Provided'' 
    down to and including the word ``Maryland'' on line 13. That is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill in that it requires additional 
    duties of the Commissioners and also is unlimited as to amount. It 
    may be used in visiting any ward of the Department of Public 
    Welfare anywhere in the United States. The language says outside 
    the District of Columbia and the States of Virginia and Maryland. 
    That would permit them to travel anywhere.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rabaut) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, this language has been 
    carried in the bill for probably 4 years. The language itself 
    indicates its purpose. If the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, I will have to concede the point of order.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, of course I insist on the point of 
    order; otherwise I would not have made it.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Restriction on Obligational Authority

Sec. 60.5 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing for 
    ``such sums as may be necessary'' for public buildings projects in 
    the District of Columbia and further specifying that ``no 
    obligation shall be incurred for any . . . project . . . which will 
    (1) result in a deficit in the general fund of the District of 
    Columbia, or (2) exceed the estimated cost as submitted therein to 
    the Congress'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(16) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Capital Outlay, Public Building Construction and Department of 
                            Sanitary Engineering

        For an additional amount for ``Capital outlay, Public Building 
    Construction'' and ``Capital outlay, Department of Sanitary 
    Engineering'', for construction projects as authorized by the Act 
    of April 22, 1904 (33 Stat. 244), the Act of May 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 
    105), and the Act of June 6, 1958 (72 Stat. 183) and as submitted 
    to the Congress in House Document Numbered 403 of June 1, 1960, 
    such sums as may be necessary, but no obligation shall be incurred 
    for any item or project proposed in said document which will (1) 
    result in a deficit in the general fund of the District of 
    Columbia, or (2) exceed the esti

[[Page 6217]]

    mated cost as submitted therein to the Congress.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 5, beginning with line 
    3 and running through line 16. I refer especially to the following 
    language:

            But no obligation shall be incurred for any item or project 
        proposed in said document which will (1) result in a deficit in 
        the general fund of the District of Columbia, or (2) exceed the 
        estimated cost as submitted therein to the Congress.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is subject to other 
    considerations.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it certainly was 
    the intention of the committee, and we think the language is clear, 
    to put a straight limitation on the use of these funds.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against certain 
    language on page 5. The Chair has had an opportunity to study this 
    language, and finds that there is no question but what this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Therefore the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Imposing New Employment Quotas

Sec. 60.6 An amendment providing that no funds appropriated in the act 
    shall be available for the appointment of persons to non-civil-
    service positions in excess of certain quotas applicable by law 
    only to appointments to classified positions was held to be 
    legislation and not a limitation.

    On Mar. 28, 1940,(18) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill [H.R. 9007), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 3632, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 702. No funds appropriated in this act shall be 
        available for the appointment of persons to non-civil-service 
        positions in the departmental service in the District of 
        Columbia unless such appointment is not in excess of the quota 
        of apportionment, established in the manner provided by the 
        civil-service laws for appointment in the classified civil 
        service, for positions (compensated by the funds in the 
        respective titles of this act) of a non-civil-service 
        character: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any 
        position, the appointment of which is made by the President.

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the section on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    aware, of

[[Page 6218]]

    course, that a point of order would be made. I am of the opinion 
    that the language in the section is clearly a limitation on the 
    appropriation and comes within the spirit of the Holman rule. I am 
    advised, however, that the Parliamentarian maintains other views, 
    and for this reason I shall not resist the sustaining of the point 
    of order although I desire to offer amendatory language to take the 
    place of the stricken section.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the language in lines 14 and 15, ``unless such appointment 
    is not in excess of the quota of apportionment,'' and so forth, is 
    clearly subject to a point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Employment at Rates to be Set by Corporation Counsel

Sec. 60.7 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill for the District 
    of Columbia permitting the use of funds in the bill by the Office 
    of the Corporation Counsel to retain professional experts at rates 
    fixed by the commissioner was conceded to be legislation and was 
    ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 18, 1973,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8685), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 11, lines 5 through 
    10, as not being a limitation upon an appropriation bill, and not 
    authorized.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 5. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and shall be available 
        to the Office of the Corporation Counsel to retain the services 
        of consultants including physicians, diagnosticians, 
        therapists, engineers, and meteorologists at rates to be fixed 
        by the Commissioner.

        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Gross)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to say to the members of the Committee that this is a new 
    provision that is carried in the bill at this time. This was sent 
    up from downtown. We at this time, Mr. Chairman, concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 6219]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 61. Education, Health, and Labor

Description of Eligibility for Education Funding; Prohibition on Busing 
    in Order to Overcome Racial Imbalance

Sec. 61.1 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that 
    no part of the funds therein may be used to force busing or 
    attendance of students at a particular school in order to overcome 
    racial imbalance as a condition precedent to obtaining federal 
    funds was held to impose additional duties on federal officials and 
    was ruled out as legislation.

    On July 31, 1969,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill [H.R. 13111), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 21675, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 
    On page 56, line 11, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the 
    following:

            ``Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school, or to force any student attending any elementary or 
        secondary school to attend a particular school against the 
        choice of his or her parent or parents, in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance.''
            And on page 56, line 16. Strike lines 16 through 20 and 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school or the attendance of students at a particular school in 
        order to overcome racial imbalance as a condition precedent to 
        obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any State, 
        school district or school.''

    Note: The provisions sought to be amended were as follows:

            ``Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school, or to force any student attending any elementary or 
        secondary school to attend a particular school against the 
        choice of his or her parents or parent.
            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act 
        shall be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of 
        any school or the attendance of students at a particular school 
        as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
        available to any State, school district, or school.''

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the rulings of 
    the Chair heretofore on this bill this afternoon show clearly that 
    this is legislation on an appropriation bill and not a simple

[[Page 6220]]

    limitation in that the language of the amendment will require 
    someone in the executive department to determine whether busing is 
    to overcome racial imbalance. Therefore, it imposes additional 
    duties and as such I consider it to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair has so ruled on a number of occasions 
    on this bill to date.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Conte: I certainly do.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not see where these amendments I have, which 
    only change several words in order to overcome racial imbalance, 
    and these are the words that I add, and that is the crucial term--I 
    do not see where it gives the Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare or its head or anyone under the Secretary any additional 
    burdens that the present Jamie Whitten sections 408 or 409 do not. 
    I think it is certainly a limitation on the expenditure of funds, 
    and, therefore, the point of order should be overruled.
        Further, I may say, Mr. Chairman, if a point of order would lie 
    on this, it will certainly lie on sections 408 and 409, and I will 
    offer such.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: Certainly.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I would like to affirm the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Sikes), with respect to the 
    earlier ruling by the Chair this afternoon, this being the same 
    factual situation. I submit it is clearly subject to a point of 
    order and clearly in line with the earlier ruling of the Chair this 
    afternoon.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair 
    recognizes that this is a very difficult matter. The proposed 
    amendment for section 408 is different from section 408 of the bill 
    in that it has added the words ``in order to overcome racial 
    imbalance.''
        The Chair believes that this would impose duties upon officials 
    which they do not have at the present time and, therefore, it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The additional words in the amendment to section 409 are ``in 
    order to overcome racial imbalance'' and this clearly requires 
    additional duties on the part of the officials. Therefore, it is 
    not negative in nature and is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 68.8, infra, where prohibition 
against use of funds to ``force busing of students'' was held in order 
on the same day as a limitation where new determinations of intent were 
not required.

Limiting Funds, Not Discretion

Sec. 61.2 Where, under existing law, federal officials have some 
    discretionary authority to withhold federal funds where the 
    recipients are not in compliance with a federally expressed policy, 
    it is nevertheless in order, by way of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, to deny the use

[[Page 6221]]

    of funds for a particular purpose, even though such executive 
    discretion is thereby restricted by implication.

    On July 31, 1969,(4) a point of order against the 
following provision was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any school or 
    the attendance of students at a particular school as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State, school district, or school.

    The proceedings of that date are discussed in Sec. 51.10, supra.

Exception From Busing Limitation

Sec. 61.3 To provisions prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for 
    purposes, in part, of promoting busing in school districts, 
    amendments limiting the application of such provisions to school 
    districts which are not formed on the basis of race or color were 
    held in order as not imposing additional duties on the federal 
    official administering the fund.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 15931, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 60, line 20 after the words ``school district'' insert ``in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of the race 
    or color of prospective students and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race or color'' and on line 23 after the 
    words ``particular school'' insert the words ``other than his 
    neighborhood school.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision as sought to be amended is 
shown below, parentheses indicating the language inserted by the 
amendment:

            ``Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act may 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school or the attendance of students at a particular school 
        (other than his neighborhood school) in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal 
        funds otherwise available to any State, school district (in 
        which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis 
        of geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of 
        the race or color of prospective students and in which 
        personnel are assigned without regard to race or color) or 
        school.''

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendments as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .

[[Page 6222]]

        But to refer to the point of order, as I read the language 
    proposed in the amendment, it seems crystal clear to me that the 
    language imposes on the executive branch additional burdens and 
    consequently is contrary to the rules of the House as far as 
    legislation on an appropriation bill is concerned. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: . . . Mr. Chairman, the limitation is in sections 
    408 and 409. It is a bona fide limitation. All my amendment seeks 
    to do is to prescribe with particularity the school districts to 
    which the limitation in sections 408 and 409 will apply. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There is nothing in Federal law today which 
    would authorize such action by the proper officials in the 
    executive branch of the Government. This addition to the limitation 
    in sections 408 and 409 does put additional burdens on the 
    executive branch of the government to determine these kinds of 
    school districts. It is perfectly obvious by the proposed language 
    that it has to be done in each and every case. It is not authorized 
    by law. It is a new burden. It is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Denying Education Funds Requiring Evaluation of Conduct; Imposing 
    Condition Precedent to Funding

Sec. 61.4 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    none of the funds therein may be used for financial assistance to 
    students who have engaged in certain types of disruptive conduct, 
    and including as a condition precedent to the termination of such 
    assistance a requirement that the college or university at which 
    such student is enrolled has initiated or completed a hearing 
    procedure which is not dilatory, was held to impose additional 
    duties on executive officers and was ruled out as legislation.

    On July 31, 1969,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 13111), the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 21631-33, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 6223]]

        The Chairman: (8) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 407. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to provide a loan . . . a grant, the salary of or 
        any remuneration whatever to any individual applying for 
        admission, attending, employed by, teaching at, or doing 
        research at an institution of higher education who has engaged 
        in conduct on or after October 12, 1968, which involves the use 
        of (or the assistance to others in the use of) force or the 
        threat of force or the seizure of property under the control of 
        an institution of higher education, to require or prevent the 
        availability of certain curriculum, or to prevent the faculty, 
        administrative officials, or students in such institution from 
        engaging in their duties or pursuing their studies at such 
        institution: Provided, That such limitation upon the use of 
        money appropriated in this Act shall not apply to a particular 
        individual until the appropriate institution of higher 
        education at which such conduct occurred shall have had an 
        opportunity to initiate or has completed such proceedings as it 
        deems appropriate but which are not dilatory in order to 
        determine whether such individual was involved in such conduct: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
        Act shall be used to formulate or carry out any grant or loan 
        or interest subsidy to any institution of higher education 
        other than to such institutions certifying to the Secretary of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare at quarterly or semester 
        intervals that they are in compliance with this provision.

        Mr. [Ogden R.] Reid of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a point 
    of order against section 407 of H.R. 13111, as it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Reid of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will.
        Mr. Chairman, section 407 constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and, in my judgment, is inconsistent with rule 
    XXI, section 843 of the Rules of the House of Representatives for 
    the 91st Congress. While a straight limitation on an appropriation 
    bill is in order, it is my understanding of rule XXI which I quote 
    that--

            Such limitations must not give affirmative directions, and 
        must not impose new duties upon an executive officer.

        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, section 407 of the bill in my 
    judgment imposes permanent new duties on the executive and requires 
    as well a number of judgmental decisions not now required by law, 
    which are complex and far reaching. . . .
        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, following this language and keeping 
    in mind rule XXI which prohibits limitations from giving 
    affirmative directions or imposing new duties upon an executive 
    officer, I ask the following questions:
        One. Who is to determine whether proceedings are not dilatory?
        Two. Who is to determine which institutions did not file 
    certifications?
        Three. Who, Mr. Chairman, is to determine and make the judgment 
    as to whether the conduct involved the ``threat of force'' or the 
    ``assistance to others in the threat of force''?
        Four. What constitutes ``property under the control of an 
    institution of higher education''? Does this involve rent, 
    leasehold, or what?

[[Page 6224]]

        Five. What constitutes requiring or preventing ``the 
    availability of certain curriculum''?
        Put another way, Mr. Chairman, the statute requires that a 
    judgment be made as to time, the character of the action involved, 
    and the intent of those so involved.
        Further as to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, under section 
    1706 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, I would quote briefly from 
    the Chairman during the 1923 debate on a D.C. appropriation bill 
    concerning the compensation of jurors. The Chairman asked, and I 
    quote:

            Is (this limitation) accompanied by a phrase which might be 
        construed to impose additional duties or permit an official to 
        assume an intent to change existing law?

            Does the limitation curtail or extend, modify, or alter 
        existing powers or duties, or terminate old or confer new ones? 
        If it does, then it must be conceded that legislation is 
        involved, for without legislation these results could not be 
        accomplished.

        The point of order in this instance against the provision was 
    sustained. . . .
        Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the new duties imposed on an executive 
    officer in section 407 include: First, that he shall receive 
    quarterly or semester certifications from institutions; second, 
    that he shall determine which institutions failed to certify; 
    third, that he shall terminate all aid to those institutions which 
    failed to certify; and, fourth, that student funds are mandatorily 
    to be cut off following the institution of certain proceedings.
        These are, in my judgment, rather formidable new and 
    affirmative duties--national in character.
        Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the institution must initiate such 
    proceedings as it deems appropriate to determine whether a student 
    is involved in this conduct.
        However, such proceedings must not be dilatory. What is not a 
    matter of institutional determination is that which is or is not 
    dilatory. Hence a Federal standard determined by Federal officials 
    will be required.
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order. I rise in opposition to the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from New York.
        Section 407 I feel should be held in order. It is a limitation. 
    It is not legislation on an appropriation bill. It relates clearly 
    to funds appropriated under this act and sets and establishes 
    certain criteria to be met before the funds can be used. It does 
    not force any institution to take any action. It simply requires 
    that certain conditions be met if funds are to be obtained for 
    loans and grants to students and teachers. If the institutions do 
    not care to meet the requirements, they are not under any 
    obligation to take the money. . . .
        . . . I would call the Chair's attention to section 3942 of 
    volume 4 of Hinds' Precedents, which required certification before 
    money could be paid to the Agricultural College of Utah--the 
    certification to be to the effect that no trustee, officer, 
    instructor, or employee of such college is engaged in the practice 
    of polygamy.
        I want to quote, Mr. Chairman, from section 3942:

            While it is not in order to legislate as to qualifications 
        of the recipients

[[Page 6225]]

        of an appropriation, the House may specify that no part of the 
        appropriation shall go to recipients lacking certain 
        qualifications. . . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid) 
    desire to be heard further on the point of order?
        Mr. Reid of New York: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would add one or two 
    brief words. First, there are specific new affirmative directions 
    in section 407, specifically the determination as to whether the 
    proceedings are or are not dilatory. That is a specific requirement 
    upon the Secretary and clearly a new duty.
        In addition, it is very clear that the new duties include 
    determining institutional cutoffs for about 2,300 colleges and 
    universities throughout the United States and the termination of 
    funds to any individual not as a result of conviction or even of 
    completed proceedings. These clearly constitute new duties and 
    affirmative directions.
        The Chairman: The Chair has listened with great attention to 
    the gentleman from New York who has raised the point of order and 
    also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Sikes) who has cited a number 
    of precedents.
        The Chair has read the precedents cited and is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid) has raised this point of 
    order against section 407 on the ground that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has examined the section referred to and notes while 
    it imposes a restriction on the use of funds now in the bill, it 
    also carries a condition precedent to the imposition of this 
    limitation which would require determinations regarding whether or 
    not the limitation is to apply. Some official or officials would be 
    required to follow the hearing procedures at each institution of 
    higher education in many of several forms, including whether the 
    institution has had an opportunity to initiate hearing procedures; 
    whether such procedures are final, and whether they have been 
    dilatory.
        The Chair has examined the ruling made by Chairman Fascell on 
    October 4, 1966, of the 89th Congress, second session, 
    Congressional Record, volume 112, part 18, page 24976, regarding a 
    similar proposition. It was held at that time, that:

            While the House may, by way of a limitation, restrict the 
        use of funds in an appropriation bill, it may not, under the 
        guise of a limitation impose additional new determinations on 
        an Executive.

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In another ruling, on July 31, 
1969,(9) an amendment providing that no part of the funds 
carried in a pending appropriation bill were to be used for financial 
assistance for students who had engaged in force or had used the threat 
of force to prevent faculty or students from carrying out their duties 
or studies was held in order as a limitation not imposing additional 
duties. It is unlikely that this ruling would be followed in current 
prac

[[Page 6226]]

tice, since the imposition of duties, not contemplated in existing law, 
on federal officials, including the determination of intent and other 
findings to be made with respect to student activities would certainly 
be viewed as a change in existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 21636, 21637, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3942, referred to by Mr. Sikes, above, is 
discussed in Sec. 52.2, supra.

Determinations Requiring Evaluations and Judgments May Disqualify 
    Limitation

Sec. 61.5 An amendment providing that no part of the funds carried in a 
    pending general appropriation bill may be used for financial 
    assistance for students who have engaged in ``conduct of a serious 
    nature'' contributing to ``a substantial campus disruption'' and 
    who have used force or the threat thereof to prevent the pursuit of 
    academic aims, was held to impose new duties of determination and 
    judgment on federal officials and was ruled out as legislation.

    On July 31, 1969,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 13111), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 21645, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 52.4, supra, 
        for further discussion of the effect of provisions requiring 
        officials to perform certain duties of evaluation, 
        investigation, and discernment of motive or intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Sikes). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Dellenback to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. (Robert L. F.) Sikes: On page 55 after 
        line 8 insert the following:
            ``Sec. 407. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be used to formulate or carry out any grant to any 
        institution of higher education that is not in full compliance 
        with Section 504 of the Higher Education Amendments of 
        1968.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See note in Sec. 63.5, infra, for provisions of Sec. 504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            ``No part of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
        used to provide a loan, guarantee of a loan, a grant, the 
        salary of or any remuneration whatever to any individual 
        applying for admission, attending, employed by, teaching at, or 
        doing research at an institution of higher education who has 
        engaged in conduct on or after August 1, 1969, which was of a 
        serious nature, contributed to a substantial campus disruption, 
        and involved the use of (or the assistance to others in the use 
        of) force or the threat of force or the seizure of property 
        under the control

[[Page 6227]]

        of an institution of higher education, to require or prevent 
        the availability of certain curriculum, or to prevent the 
        faculty, administrative officials, or students in such 
        institution from engaging in their duties or pursuing their 
        studies at such institution.''

        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brademas: Mr. Chairman, I must make a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman on the ground that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon contains a number of 
    phrases each of which will require a burden on the part of the 
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to make certain 
    judgments and determinations.

        For example, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment uses 
    language which refers to conduct that is ``of a serious nature.'' 
    Who is to decide, Mr. Chairman, when conduct is ``of a serious 
    nature'' or is not ``of a serious nature''?
        His amendment contains language which says that the conduct 
    must have ``contributed to a substantial campus disruption.'' Who 
    defines ``disruption''? Who defines ``substantial''? Those 
    determinations will be burdens imposed upon officials of the 
    executive branch of the Government.
        The gentleman's amendment has a phrase referring to conduct 
    which ``involved the use of force'' or ``the threat of force.'' 
    Once again these phrases require determinations which must be made 
    by the executive branch.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment contains the phrase, 
    ``to require or prevent'' certain kinds of action or occurrences. 
    This is language which clearly involves the stipulation of a 
    purpose which must be in the mind of the person complained of, and 
    a determination must thus be made by the executive branch of the 
    Government on the issue of whether such conduct was indeed intended 
    ``to require or prevent'' the availability of certain curriculums 
    or to prevent the faculty, students, or administrative officials 
    from engaging in their duties, or pursuing their studies.
        For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is very clear 
    that the gentleman's amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and I believe the amendment should be 
    disallowed. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is ready to rule. It is clear 
    from the language of the gentleman's amendment that it does go 
    beyond a negative type of amendment and it does impose upon 
    officials certain duties of determination and judgment which are 
    legislative and subject to a point of order on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

New Determinations Not Required by Law in Making Allocation of Funds

Sec. 61.6 Where existing law (20 USC Sec. 238) provided, in its 
    allotment formula for determining entitlements of local

[[Page 6228]]

    educational agencies to a certain category of assistance in 
    federally affected areas, that the Commissioner shall determine the 
    ``number of children who . . . resided with a parent employed on 
    federal property situated in the same State as such agency or 
    situated within reasonable commuting distance from the school 
    district of such agency'', an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    containing funds for ``impacted school assistance'' prohibiting the 
    use of funds in that bill for assistance ``for children whose 
    parents are employed on Federal property outside the school 
    district of such agency'' was held to impose the additional duty on 
    federal officials of determining whether the parent was employed 
    within the school district and was ruled out as legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    The proceedings of June 26, 1973,(13) are discussed in 
Sec. 52.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 21393, 21394, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Direction in Fund Distribution Not Required by Law

Sec. 61.7 A provision in an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    denying the use of any funds for impacted school aid until the 
    official allocating the funds makes an apportionment thereof 
    contrary to the formula prescribed by existing law was held to 
    impose additional duties upon that official, thus changing existing 
    law and constituting legislation on an appropriation bill.
    On Apr. 14, 1970,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Education Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16916), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 11676, 11677, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Michel: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

                          Title I--Office of Education

                 school assistance in federally affected areas

            For carrying out title I of the Act of September 30, 1950, 
        as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 13), and the Act of

[[Page 6229]]

        September 23, 1950, as amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 19), 
        $440,000,000 of which $425,000,000 shall be for the maintenance 
        and operation of schools as authorized by said title I of the 
        Act of September 30, 1950, as amended, and $15,000,000 which 
        shall remain available until expended, shall be for providing 
        school facilities as authorized by said Act of September 23, 
        1950: Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available 
        to pay local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of 
        any other section of said title I until payment has been made 
        of 90 per centum of the amounts to which such agencies are 
        entitled pursuant to section 3(a) of said title and 100 per 
        centum of the amounts payable under section 6 of said title. . 
        . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Then I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is that it 
    contains legislation in an appropriation bill, to wit, the language 
    on page 2, lines 6 to 12 is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill providing for different dispositions of funds under those 
    sections than are provided by law. Therefore I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, it is as 
    plain as the nose on my face, and I have got a nose, that this is 
    clearly a limitation upon the expenditure of funds. That is clearly 
    it. I suggest the point must be overruled.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. I would 
    like to say first, Mr. Chairman, if the proviso to which I have 
    referred authorizes the use on a different formula than that 
    provided in the basic authorizing legislation, and I do not believe 
    that the proviso is a limitation or retrenchment of appropriations 
    which would be an expansion, the proviso is neither a limitation 
    nor retrenchment of appropriations, because it permits payment to 
    be made in excess of the payments authorized by the above quoted 
    section of Public Law 81-874.
        It may be helpful to the Chairman and to my colleagues in 
    understanding the point that the reference contained in section 
    5(c) just quoted, that various other sections of entitlements to 
    payments are to the so-called familiar references to categories A 
    and B children under impacted aid.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara), has raised a point of order against the 
    proviso appearing in the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    and referred to in the original bill as the proviso on page 2 of 
    the bill on the ground that it constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. That proviso 
    would make appropriations in the bill unavailable for payment to 
    local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of any other 
    section of title I of the act of September 30, 1950--which 
    authorizes school assistance in federally affected areas--until 
    payment has been made of 90 percent of entitled allotments

[[Page 6230]]

    pursuant to section 3(a) of said title I and of 100 percent of 
    amounts payable under section 6 of that title. The gentleman from 
    Michigan contends that such a requirement for payments of funds 
    appropriated in this bill has the effect of changing the allotment 
    formula in the authorizing legislation of funds for ``category A 
    students,'' and is therefore legislation on an appropriation bill 
    prohibited by clause 2, rule XXI.
        On June 26, 1968, during consideration of the Department of 
    Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for 
    fiscal year 1969, the Chair--the gentleman now occupying it--
    sustained a point of order against an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for educationally deprived children until 
    there was made available therefrom for certain local educational 
    agencies an amount at least equal to that allotted in the preceding 
    year, since that amendment would have required the Commissioner of 
    Education to make an apportionment of appropriated funds contrary 
    to the formula prescribed by existing law, thus imposing additional 
    duties on that official and changing existing law.
        The Chair feels that that decision is controlling in this 
    instance. To make the appropriations authorized under certain 
    sections of the ``impacted school aid`` legislation contingent upon 
    allotment of certain percentages of entitled funds under other 
    sections of that authorizing legislation is to impose additional 
    duties on the official making the allotment and to change the 
    enforcement formula in the authorizing legislation is in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Affirmative Directive to Nonfederal Recipient of Funds

Sec. 61.8 An amendment to an appropriation bill, in the form of a 
    limitation providing that none of the funds appropriated would be 
    used for support of military training courses in civil schools 
    unless the authorities of such institutions make certain 
    information known to prospective students, was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 14, 1936,(16) an amendment to a War Department 
appropriation bill was ruled out as legislation. The provision sought 
to be amended was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 2091-94, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 supplies, etc.].

    The amendment that was ruled against is set out below:

        On page 59, line 6, after the words ``corps'', insert 
    ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this act 
    shall be used for or toward the support of military training 
    courses in any civil school or college the authorities of which 
    choose to maintain such courses on a compulsory basis, unless the 
    au

[[Page 6231]]

    thorities of such institutions provide, and make known to all 
    prospective students by duly published regulations, arrangements 
    for the unconditional exemption from such military courses, and 
    without penalty, for any and all students who prefer not to 
    participate in such military courses because of convictions 
    conscientiously held, whether religious, ethical, social, or 
    educational, though nothing herein shall be construed as applying 
    to essentially military schools or colleges.''

    The proceedings that occurred in this connection are discussed in 
greater detail in Sec. 53.1, supra.

Requiring Judgment Whether Duty Is Incidental to Teaching

Sec. 61.9 A provision in a District of Columbia appropriation bill that 
    teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that necessary 
    or incidental to their regular classroom teaching assignments was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    The proceedings of Apr. 2, 1937,(17) relating to a point 
of order against a provision as described above, are discussed in Sec. 
60.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3106, 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Health Activities; Temporary Services at Per Diem Rates When 
    Authorized by Surgeon General

Sec. 61.10 Language in a general appropriation bill to provide for 
    Indian health activities ``including . . . temporary services at 
    rates not to exceed $100 per diem . . . when authorized by the 
    Surgeon General'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 29, 1960,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 11390), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 6863, 6864, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Indian Health Activities

            For expenses necessary to enable the Surgeon General to 
        carry out the purposes of the Act of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2001) (including not to exceed $10,000 for temporary services 
        at rates not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals, when 
        authorized by the Surgeon General); purchase of not to exceed 
        twenty-seven passenger motor vehicles, of which fourteen shall 
        be for replacement only; hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
        aircraft; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone service 
        in private residences in the field,

[[Page 6232]]

        when authorized under regulations approved by the Secretary; 
        and the purposes set forth in sections 321, 322(d), 324, and 
        509 of the Public Health Service Act, $48,276,000.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 28 beginning in line 4 as 
    follows: ``(including not to exceed $10,000 for temporary services 
    at rates not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals, when 
    authorized by the Surgeon General)'' on the ground that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty (of Rhode Island): It is my 
    understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this language is needed in order 
    to get some of our best brains to go into remote areas of these 
    Indian reservations. By not allowing the language to remain in the 
    bill is doing a disservice to the Indian population. I do believe 
    in the basic law there is authority permitting such language as 
    this. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Making Lesser Determination Than That Contemplated by Law

Sec. 61.11 To a section of a general appropriation bill exempting cases 
    where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
    carried to term from a denial of funds for abortions, an amendment 
    exempting instead cases where the health of the mother would be 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term was held not to 
    constitute further legislation, since determinations on the 
    endangerment of life necessarily subsume determinations on the 
    endangerment of health, and the amendment did not therefore require 
    any different or more onerous determinations.

    The proceedings of June 27, 1984,(20) are discussed in 
Sec. 52.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determining That Life of Mother Endangered if Fetus Carried to Term

Sec. 61.12 A provision in a general appropriation bill requiring new 
    determinations by federal officials is legislation and subject to a 
    point of order, regardless of whether or not private or state 
    officials administering the federal funds in question routinely 
    make such determinations.

[[Page 6233]]

    On June 17, 1977,(1) a point of order was sustained 
against the following provision in the Departments of Labor, and 
Health, Education and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7555):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 19698, 19699, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
    perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term.

    The proceedings of that date are discussed more fully in 
Sec. 52.33, supra.

Requiring Determination of Motive or Intent

Sec. 61.13 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for abortions or abortion-related material and 
    services, and defining ``abortion'' as the intentional destruction 
    of unborn human life, which life begins at the moment of 
    fertilization was conceded to impose affirmative duties on 
    officials administering the funds (requiring determinations of 
    intent of recipients during abortion process) and was ruled out as 
    legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    The proceedings of June 27, 1974,(2) relating to a point 
of order against the amendment described above, are discussed in 
Sec. 25.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duties Already Being Performed Pursuant to Provisions in Annual 
    Appropriation Acts

Sec. 61.14 A provision in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to perform abortions except where the life of 
    the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, 
    and providing that the several states shall remain free not to fund 
    abortions to the extent they deem appropriate, is legislation 
    requiring federal officials to make determinations and judgments 
    not required by law, notwithstanding the inclusion in prior year 
    appropriation bills of similar legislation applicable to funds in 
    prior years.

    On Sept. 22, 1983,(3) a point of order was made and 
sustained

[[Page 6234]]

against a provision in a general appropriation bill, as described 
above. The proceedings of that date are discussed in greater detail in 
Sec. 52.44, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. ---- 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination Whether Life of Mother is at Risk as Prelude to Abortion

Sec. 61.15 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds in the bill to perform abortions except where the 
    mother's life would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term 
    was ruled out of order as legislation, since requiring federal 
    officials to make new determinations and judgments not required by 
    law as to the danger to the mother in each individual case.

    The proceedings of June 17, 1977,(4) relating to a point 
of order against a paragraph as described above, are discussed in 
Sec. 53.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 19698, 19699, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 61.16 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds in the bill to perform abortions, except where a 
    physician has certified the abortion is necessary to save the life 
    of the mother, was ruled out as legislation since some of the 
    physicians required to make such certification would be federal 
    officials not required under existing law to make such 
    determinations and judgments.

    The proceedings of June 17, 1977,(5) are discussed in 
Sec. 53.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 19699, 19700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permitting Transfer of Funds With Approval of Bureau of the Budget

Sec. 61.17 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of Labor to allot or transfer, with the approval of the 
    Director of the Budget, funds from a certain appropriation in the 
    bill to any bureau of the Department of Labor, to enable such 
    agency to perform certain services, was held to be legislation and 
    not in order on a general appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 20, 1939,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6235]]

ering H.R. 2868, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk read a 
paragraph providing an appropriation for the Department of Labor, Wage 
and Hour Division, which contained the following proviso:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided, That the Secretary of Labor may allot or transfer, 
    with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 
    funds from this appropriation to any bureau or office of the 
    Department of Labor to enable such agency to perform services for 
    the Wage and Hour Division.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the proviso beginning in line 3, page 5, and 
    including the rest of the section on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill that imposes additional duties 
    upon the Bureau of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: No.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Limiting Funds for Certain Ascertainable Class of Employers

Sec. 61.18 To a paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an 
    amendment prohibiting the use of those funds for expenses of 
    inspection of employers who have submitted plans for compliance 
    with the Occupational Safety and Health Act where the Secretary of 
    Labor has approved such plans, was allowed, since the language was 
    merely descriptive of certain employers as to whom the limitation 
    on the use of funds was made applicable.

    On Sept. 19, 1972,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 16654), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 31322, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] McClure [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McClure: Page 6, line 24, 
        immediately before the period insert the following: ``Provided, 
        That none of these funds shall be used to pay for expenses of 
        inspection in connection with any employer who has submitted to 
        the Secretary of Labor a plan for compliance with the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and such plan has 
        been approved by the Secretary.''. . .

[[Page 6236]]

        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts wish to press the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that this gives the 
    Secretary additional burdens and duties to ascertain whether a plan 
    is acceptable or not. Further, I believe it is nongermane. It is 
    not related to the organic law at all. As I understand the OSHA 
    law, it does not require a plan to be submitted to the Secretary of 
    Labor. Therefore, it is completely nongermane to the legislation. 
    Therefore, I feel a point of order lies against the amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Idaho wish to respond to 
    the point of order?
        Mr. McClure: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Chairman. I 
    recognize the argument that has been made by the gentleman 
    concerning the fact that it imposes a duty, but the duty is already 
    imposed by the OSHA Act to require the Secretary to do certain 
    things with respect to safety regulations. This changes the method 
    by which that action is complied with but does not impose an 
    additional duty.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair has 
    listened carefully to the arguments for and against the point of 
    order. The Chair believes that this is a limitation of funds and it 
    is restricted to the funds contained in the pending bill. It is a 
    limitation on using those funds for inspection of certain employers 
    who have submitted plans for compliance with the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act where those plans have been approved. The 
    amendment is negative and imposes no new duties on Federal 
    officials. Therefore the Chair holds the amendment in order and 
    overrules the point of order.

To the Extent the Secretary Finds Necessary

Sec. 61.19 In an appropriation bill, providing funds for grants to 
    states for unemployment compensation, language stating ``only to 
    the extent that the Secretary finds necessary,'' was held to impose 
    additional duties and to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1957,(10) a point of order was made and 
sustained against a provision in H.R. 6287 (a Departments of Labor, and 
Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill) as described above. 
The proceedings of that date are discussed in greater detail in 
Sec. 52.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 4559, 4560, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring Evaluation of ``Propriety'' and ``Effectiveness''.

Sec. 61.20 Language in the guise of a limitation requiring federal 
    officials to make evaluations of propriety and effec

[[Page 6237]]

    tiveness not required to be made by existing law is legislation; a 
    proviso in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    funds therein for grants ``not properly reviewed under procedures 
    used in the prior fiscal year'' or for grantees not having ``an 
    established and effective program in place'' was held to require 
    new determinations by federal officials not required by existing 
    law for the fiscal year in question and to be legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Oct. 6, 1981,(11) a point of order was made and 
sustained against a provision in an appropriation bill (H.R. 4560) as 
described above. The proceedings of that date are discussed in greater 
detail in Sec. 52.32, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denying Fund Availability to Beneficiary Already Receiving Another 
    Entitlement

Sec. 61.21 An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying 
    availability of funds therein to pay certain benefits to persons 
    simultaneously entitled by law to other benefits, or in amounts in 
    excess of those other entitlement levels, was held in order as a 
    limitation, since existing law already required executive officials 
    to determine whether and to what extent recipients of funds 
    contained in the bill were also receiving those other entitlement 
    benefits.

    The determination of the Chair on June 18, 1980,(12) was 
that, where existing law (19 USC Sec. 2292) established trade 
readjustment allowances to workers unemployed because of import 
competition and required the disbursing agency to take into 
consideration levels of unemployment insurance entitlements under other 
law in determining payments, an amendment to a general appropriation 
bill reducing the availability of funds therein for trade adjustment 
assistance by amounts of unemployment insurance did not impose new 
duties upon officials, who were already required to make those 
reductions. The proceedings of that date are discussed in greater 
detail in Sec. 52.36, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 15354-56, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6238]]

Limiting Funds to Administer or Enforce Law With Respect to Small Firms

Sec. 61.22 While an amendment to a general appropriation bill may not 
    directly curtail executive discretion delegated by law, it is in 
    order to limit the use of funds for an activity, or a portion 
    thereof, authorized by law if the limitation does not require new 
    duties or impose new determinations.

    Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibited the 
use of funds therein for the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to administer or enforce regulations with respect to 
employers of 10 or fewer employees included in a category having an 
``occupational injury lost work day case rate'' less than the national 
average, except to perform certain enumerated functions and 
authorities, but exempted from the prohibition farming operations not 
maintaining a temporary labor camp, the amendment was held not to 
constitute additional legislation on an appropriation bill.
    The proceedings of Aug. 27, 1980,(13) are discussed in 
Sec. 73.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 23519-21, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eligibility for Food Stamps Where Principal Wage Earner is on Strike

Sec. 61.23 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for food stamps to a household whose principal 
    wage earner is on strike on account of a labor dispute to which he 
    or his organization is a party, except where the household was 
    eligible for and participating in the food stamp program 
    immediately prior to the dispute, and except where a member of the 
    household is subject to an employer's lockout, was held to impose 
    new duties and require new investigations by executive branch 
    officials and was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 21, 1977,(14) a point of order was sustained 
against an amendment as described above. The proceedings of that date 
are discussed in detail in Sec. 52.45, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 20150-52, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 62. Interior

[[Page 6239]]



Appropriation Available Pursuant to Regulations by Secretary

Sec. 62.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing that 
    appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses shall be 
    available for expenses of attendance of officers and employees at 
    meetings or conventions ``under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary,'' was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 2, 1951,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel 
        expenses shall be available, under regulations prescribed by 
        the Secretary, for expenses of attendance of officers and 
        employees at meetings or conventions of members of societies or 
        associations concerned with the work of the bureau or office 
        for which the appropriation concerned is made.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against section 104 that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and involves additional duties.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the Chair understand that 
    the gentleman from New York raises objection to the paragraph 
    because of the use of the language ``under regulations prescribed 
    by the Secretary'' in lines 18 and 19?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do object to those words, and feel that that 
    makes the section out of order as it now stands, but I would still 
    press the point of order even with those words eliminated.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: I wonder if the gentleman 
    would accept the section if it remains as is except for the 
    elimination of the words ``under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary.''
        Mr. Keating: I feel that even with the elimination of those 
    words it would still involve legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    for exactly the same reasons for which the Chair has held section 
    102 subject to a point of order.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Available if Determined to be ``Advantageous''

Sec. 62.2 Language in an appropriation bill making available 
    appropriations for the installation of telephones in government-
    owned residences occupied by employees of the National Park 
    Service, provided the Secretary of the Interior deter

[[Page 6240]]

    mines that such services are advantageous in the administration of 
    the park areas, was conceded and held to impose new duties on the 
    Secretary and therefore to be legislation.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Appropriations herein made for the National Park Service 
        shall be available for the installation and operation of 
        telephones in Government-owned residences, apartments, or 
        quarters occupied by employees of the National Park Service, 
        provided the Secretary determines the provision of such 
        services are advantageous in the administration of these areas.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on the ground it is not authorized by 
    law and also because it imposes additional duties on the Secretary 
    in the putting in of telephones in private houses.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order and offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Electric Power Needs

Sec. 62.3 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no funds 
    therein shall be used to operate transmission lines to carry power 
    developed at Fort Randall Dam across the boundaries of South 
    Dakota, unless such power exceeds the requests for power in that 
    state, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    imposing new duties on officials, and not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3838), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer my 
    amendment at this time and ask that it be read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 47, 
        line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon and the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no part of these funds 
        shall be used to build, operate, or administer transmission 
        lines to carry power developed at Fort Randall Dam across the 
        boundaries of the State of South Dakota in which the power is 
        produced, unless the power so produced

[[Page 6241]]

        shall exceed the requests for power in that State.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this particular amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and imposes additional duties on the Bureau of 
    Reclamation. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care 
    and invites attention especially to the language appearing wherein 
    it is stated, ``unless the power so produced shall exceed the 
    requests for power in that State.''
        The insertion of that language in the amendment would impose 
    additional duties under the amendment, therefore would be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Requiring Approval by State Officials of Federal Project

Sec. 62.4 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    providing that none of the funds therein may be used for the 
    purchase of material for new construction of electrical generating 
    equipment in any state unless approved by the Governor or board 
    having jurisdiction over such matters was held to be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3838), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 3530, 3531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of 
        the effect of duties imposed on state or local officials 
        generally, see Sec. 53, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: On page 
        43, line 3, insert: ``None of the funds herein appropriated may 
        be used for the purchase of material for the beginning of any 
        new construction of electrical generating equipment, 
        transmission lines, or related facilities in any State unless 
        approved by the governor, by the board, or commission of the 
        respective States having jurisdiction over such matters.''

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    clearly legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jensen: If the Chair pleases; yes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman, briefly.
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, again I contend, and I am sure 
    rightly so, that

[[Page 6242]]

    my amendment is purely a limitation of appropriation. In many 
    States there are State authorities which pass on such matters as 
    this. They find it is good for the States because of the fact they 
    do not want the Government of the United States to encroach on 
    State rights. So this is in harmony with the programs which are 
    carried on in many of the States at the present time. It is very 
    important and I think for the welfare of this Nation. It is proper 
    and is not legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has examined the amendment and especially invites 
    attention to the following language appearing in the amendment: 
    ``unless approved by the governor, by the board, or commission of 
    the respective States having jurisdiction over such matters.''
        There can be no doubt but what that language would impose 
    additional duties on the governor and the commission and would 
    require affirmative action, therefore it constitutes legislation, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent best represents current 
rulings on issues such as those raised here. But see the ``Note on 
Contrary Rulings,'' which follows Sec. 53.6, supra, especially the 
ruling of Mar. 29, 1966, wherein prior approval by state officials was 
held merely descriptive of qualifications of recipients and not to 
impose new duties on state officials; and the ruling of June 23, 1971.

Granting Discretionary Authority

Sec. 62.5 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of the Interior may utilize appropriations for 
    encouraging self-support among Indians through several stated 
    means, and requiring the exercise of discretion by the Secretary 
    was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in 
    order.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 2637, 2638, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $240,000 . . . Provided, That the expenditures for the 
    purposes above set forth shall be under conditions to be prescribed 
    by the Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States 
    on or before June 30, 1944, except in the case of loans on 
    irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in which 
    the period for repayment may run for not exceeding 20 years, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior . . . Provided further, 
    That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his 
    discretion and under

[[Page 6243]]

    such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to make advances 
    from this appropriation to old, disabled, or indigent Indian 
    allottees, for their support, to remain a charge and lien against 
    their land until paid: Provided further, That not to exceed $15,000 
    may be advanced to worthy Indian youths to enable them to take 
    educational courses . . . and advances so made shall be reimbursed 
    in not to exceed 8 years, under such rules and regulations as the 
    Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and requires additional duties of the Secretary 
    of the Interior. I call the attention of the Chair to the language 
    beginning at the end of line 18 and running through the entire 
    proviso; to the proviso beginning in line 5 on page 29; to the 
    proviso beginning on page 29, line 10; and to the proviso beginning 
    on page 29, line 17. Every one of these is subject to a point of 
    order, because each of them requires additional duties of the 
    Secretary of the Interior and is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        I make the point of order against the entire paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I do not care to be heard on it, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It seems to the Chair the proviso beginning on page 29, line 5; 
    the second proviso, beginning on line 10; and the third proviso, 
    beginning on line 14, are all subject to a point of order, being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order is made to 
    the entire paragraph, and, with these items included, the entire 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order.
        The point of order is therefore sustained.

Sec. 62.6 An appropriation for the giving of educational lectures in 
    national parks to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior in 
    his discretion is legislation.
    On May 17, 1937,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 4713, 4714, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Appropriations herein made for the national parks, national 
        monuments, and other reservations under the jurisdiction of the 
        National Park Service shall be available for the giving of 
        educational lectures therein and for the services of field 
        employees in cooperation with such nonprofit scientific and 
        historical societies engaged in educational work in the various 
        parks and monuments as the Secretary, in his discretion, may 
        designate.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on page 109, lines 18 to 25, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by law.

[[Page 6244]]

        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I do not care to be heard.

        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 62.7 An appropriation for the expenses of organizing Indian 
    chartered corporations or other tribal organizations was held to be 
    authorized by law; but a provision in the same paragraph that ``in 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, not to exceed $3 
    per diem in lieu of subsistence may be allowed'' to Indians 
    traveling on organization work was ruled out as legislation, 
    causing the entire paragraph to be stricken.

    On May 14, 1937,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 4592, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses of organizing Indian chartered corporations, or 
    other tribal organizations, in accordance with the provisions of 
    the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 986), including personal 
    services, purchase of equipment and supplies, not to exceed $3,000 
    for printing and binding, and other necessary expenses, $100,000 of 
    which not to exceed $25,000 may be used for personal services in 
    the District of Columbia: Provided, That in the discretion of the 
    Secretary of the Interior, not to exceed $3 per diem in lieu of 
    subsistence may be allowed to Indians actually traveling away from 
    their place of residence when assisting in organization work.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it contains 
    legislation and changes existing law, that the provision appearing 
    on page 16, from lines 16 to 20, is legislation not authorized by 
    law, and I make the point of order against the entire paragraph. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair thinks that the first part of the paragraph down to the 
    proviso in line 16 on page 16 is authorized under section 9 of the 
    statute approved June 18, 1934, and, therefore, is in order. The 
    Chair thinks, however, so far as the proviso, line 16 down to the 
    word ``work'' on line 20, is concerned, that it does not appear on 
    the face of this proviso that it necessarily is a saving, and 
    therefore does not come within the Holman rule and appears to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order as to the proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Lister Hill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    whole paragraph.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from New York insists on his 
    point of

[[Page 6245]]

    order to the entire paragraph, the entire paragraph will go out, 
    and the Chair so rules.

Bestowing New Responsibilities on Secretary

Sec. 62.8 Language in the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    reserving such part of the storage capacity of the Cascade 
    Reservoir for other projects ``as shall be determined by the 
    Secretary of the Interior'' was conceded to be legislation and held 
    not in order.

    On May 13, 1941,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4590), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 4009, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Boise project, Idaho, Payette division, $500,000: Provided, 
        That such part of the storage capacity of the Cascade 
        Reservoir, and the costs thereof, shall be reserved for other 
        irrigation or power developments in and adjacent to the Boise 
        project, as shall be determined by the Secretary of the 
        Interior.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 78, beginning in line 
    15, reading as follows:

            Provided, That such part of the storage capacity of the 
        Cascade Reservoir, and the cost thereof, shall be reserved for 
        other irrigation or power development in and adjacent to the 
        Boise project, as shall be determined by the Secretary of the 
        Interior--

        On the ground that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [Charles H.] Leavy [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, does the 
    gentleman make the point of order just against the proviso?
        Mr. Rich: Yes.
        Mr. Leavy: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Directions to Secretary; New Reporting Requirement

Sec. 62.9 A provision in an appropriation bill that the ``Secretary of 
    the Interior shall include in his annual report a full statement of 
    all expenditures made under authority of this paragraph'' was held 
    to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 14, 1939,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2733, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For investigating official matter under the control of the 
    Department of

[[Page 6246]]

    the Interior; for protecting timber on the public lands, and for 
    the more efficient execution of the law and rules relating to the 
    cutting thereof . . . and for traveling and other expenses of 
    persons employed hereunder, $548,000. . . . The Secretary of the 
    Interior shall include in his annual report a full statement of all 
    expenditures made under authority of this paragraph.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph that it is not authorized by law. There is no authority 
    in the law, as I understand it, for the maintenance of this 
    division. It went out on a point of order last year, and, as I 
    remember the situation, there has been no change in the law since. 
    I believe that is all that needs to be said on the subject at this 
    time. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair believes the last sentence in the paragraph as it now 
    stands, reading, ``The Secretary of the Interior shall include in 
    his annual report a full statement of all expenditures made under 
    authority of this paragraph,'' is clearly legislation and is 
    subject to a point of order. If the gentleman from New York insists 
    upon his point of order going against the entire section, the Chair 
    will necessarily be forced to sustain it. The Chair does sustain 
    the point of order.

Authorizing Advances Under Rules to be Promulgated

Sec. 62.10 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating money to be 
    advanced for certain purposes coupled with a direction that such 
    advances shall be reimbursable during a fixed period under rules 
    and regulations prescribed by an executive officer was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruit, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000 . . . Provided further, That not to exceed 
    $15,000 may be advanced to worthy Indian youths to enable them to 
    take educational courses, including courses in nursing home 
    economics, forestry, and other industrial subjects in colleges, 
    universities, or other institutions, and advances so made shall be 
    reimbursed in not to exceed 8 years, under such rules and 
    regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    it imposes discretionary

[[Page 6247]]

    duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. The language at the 
    bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided further'', line 22, 
    and the last proviso are entirely the same. They provide that the 
    Secretary of the Interior shall make rules and regulations and 
    there is no question but what it imposes additional duties upon the 
    Secretary of the Interior all the way through.
        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair would like to inquire . 
    . . of the gentleman with reference to the language appearing in 
    lines 7 and 8, page 27, reading as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And advances so made shall be reimbursed in not to exceed 8 
        years under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
        Interior may prescribe.

        Will the gentleman advise the Chair as to any provision of 
    existing law upon which this language is based?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is the exact 
    language that has been used for several years and the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma knows of no specific basis of law for it.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The

[[Page 6248]]

    Chair therefore sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from New York.

Historic Preservation; Limiting Legal Authority, Not Funds

Sec. 62.11 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 conceded and held to be a change in law and 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 20, 1939,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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: (16) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Johnson] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 63. Other Agencies and Departments

``No Funds Unless or Until Approved'' by

Sec. 63.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority, stating that no part of the funds shall 
    be used

[[Page 6249]]

    ``unless and until'' approved by the Director of the Bureau of the 
    Budget was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 22, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        . . . Lines 13 to 22, the proviso reading ``That no part of 
    funds available for expenditure by this agency shall be used, 
    directly or indirectly, to acquire a building for use as an 
    administrative office of the Tennessee Valley Authority unless and 
    until the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, following a study 
    of the advisability of the proposed acquisition, shall advise the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives and the Tennessee Valley Authority that the 
    acquisition has his approval. . . .''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    read by the gentleman is unquestionably legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and I therefore concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . It is clearly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.2 To a provision in an appropriation bill restricting the use 
    of certain appropriations therein, an amendment limiting such use 
    ``unless the Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically 
    approves'' projects to be constructed and submits explanatory 
    reports to designated committees of Congress was conceded and held 
    to impose additional duties upon an official.

    On Mar. 20, 1952,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7072), a point of order was raised against an amendment to the 
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 2613-15, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and equipment: For expenses of the Commission in 
    connection with the construction of plant and the acquisition of 
    equipment and other expenses incidental thereto necessary in 
    carrying out the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 
    including purchase of land and interests in land, $371,741,000: 
    Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used--
        (A) to start any new construction project for which an estimate 
    was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year;
        (B) to start any new construction project the currently 
    estimated cost of

[[Page 6250]]

    which exceeds by 35 percent the estimated cost included therefor in 
    such budget. . . .
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 8, 
        lines 10 and 11, after ``estimated cost of which exceeds,'' 
        strike out ``35 percent of the estimated cost included therefor 
        in such budget'' and insert ``the estimated cost included 
        therefor in such budget:
            ``(C) to continue any community facility construction 
        project whenever the currently estimated cost thereof exceeds 
        the estimated cost included therefor in such budget; unless the 
        Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically approves the 
        start of such construction project or its continuation and a 
        detailed explanation thereof is submitted forthwith by the 
        Director to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the 
        House of Representatives and the Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy; the limitations contained in this proviso shall not 
        apply to any construction project the total estimated cost of 
        which does not exceed $500,000: and, as used herein, the term 
        `construction project' includes the purchase, alteration, or 
        improvement of buildings, and the term ``budget'' includes the 
        detailed justification supporting the budget estimates: 
        Provided further, That whenever the current estimate to 
        complete any construction project (except community facilities) 
        exceeds by 15 percent the estimated cost included therefor in 
        such budget or the estimated cost of a construction project 
        covered by clause (A) of the foregoing proviso which has been 
        approved by the Director, the Commission shall forthwith submit 
        a detailed explanation thereof to the Director of the Bureau of 
        the Budget and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives and the Joint Committee on 
        Atomic Energy: Provided further, That the two foregoing 
        provisos shall have no application with respect to technical 
        and production facilities (1) if the Commission certifies to 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that immediate 
        construction or immediate continuation of construction is 
        necessary to the national defense and security, and (2) if the 
        Director agrees that such certification is justified.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it places extra duties on the Director 
    of the Bureau of the Budget and that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: For the sake of time, I will concede 
    the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Requiring Subjective Determinations by Bureau of Public Roads

Sec. 63.3 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for federal 
    highways, an amendment specifying that no funds ``shall be used for 
    any

[[Page 6251]]

    highway program . . . which requires either the unjustified or 
    harmful nonconforming use of . . . land'' was held to be 
    legislative in nature since it imposed additional duties on the 
    Director of the Bureau of Public Roads.

    On Oct. 4, 1966,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18119, a State, Justice, Commerce Departments, and 
related agencies appropriation bill. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 24975, 24976, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Federal-aid Highways (Trust Fund)

        For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
    Code, which are attributable to Federal-aid highways, to remain 
    available until expended, $3,968,400,000. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment:
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cleveland: On page 41, end of line 
        2, after the period, add the following: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated in this section shall be used for any highway 
        program or project which requires either the unjustified or 
        harmful non-conforming use of any land from a public park, 
        recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic 
        site.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire, but will reserve it at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. . . .
        This appropriation item entitled ``Federal-Aid highways (trust 
    funds)'' contains funds for the payment of contract authorizations, 
    many of which have already been entered into. . .
        . . . [I]t would call for additional duties on the part of the 
    Bureau of Public Roads to determine what is unjustified and what is 
    harmful.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York raises a point of order to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire on the ground that, in 
    effect, it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and also it 
    would impose additional duties on the Department. The gentleman 
    from New Hampshire opposes the point of order. He argues that the 
    amendment is in consonance with the precedents of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is constrained to find from the facts as related by 
    the gentleman from New York, the effect of the amendment would not 
    be a limitation, but would in effect be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The amendment does impose additional duties on 
    the Department in that a determination would have to be made as to 
    what is unjustified, harmful, or nonconforming.

        In a previous ruling in our precedents, in a matter where there 
    was only one qualifying word--a deter

[[Page 6252]]

    mination of the word ``incapacitated''--the ruling was that this 
    would impose additional duties.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Denying Funds ``Unless Subject to Audit by Comptroller General''

Sec. 63.4 An amendment to a legislative branch appropriation bill 
    denying the obligation or expenditure of certain funds contained 
    therein unless such funds were subject to audit by the Comptroller 
    General was ruled out of order as legislation where it appeared 
    that the amendment was intended by its proponents to extend and 
    strengthen the authority of the Comptroller General under law to 
    audit legislative accounts.

    On June 14, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 12935 
(legislative branch appropriations for fiscal 1979), proceedings 
occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 17650, 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, my amendment No. 2.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coughlin: On page 6, after line 
        23, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 102. (a) None of the funds appropriated by any 
        provision described in subsection (b) shall be expended or 
        obligated for any purpose specified in such provision unless 
        such funds so expended or obligated are subject to audit by the 
        Comptroller General of the United States.
            (b) For purposes of subsection (a), any provision in Title 
        I of this Act following the provision relating to 
        ``Compensation of Members'' and preceding the heading ``Joint 
        Items'' is a provision described in this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the operations of the Comptroller General under this amendment 
    would continue as under existing circumstances in that site at the 
    Capitol where the office is presently located. The authority would 
    provide an audit of Members' accounts and committee accounts. It 
    would provide that authority to be utilized by the GAO.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    does it extend in any way the present audit system that we have now 
    in the House?
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mrs. Heckler: Mr. Chairman, it extends the authority that now 
    exists in law but is not necessarily a change in existing law. It 
    affirms the authority of the GAO which presently exists in the 
    House; however, I do not believe that the GAO is able to examine 
    Members' accounts and this amendment clarifies that authority. 
    However, it does not

[[Page 6253]]

    mandate audits across the board of every Member at any particular 
    time. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment and make a point of 
    order against it on the grounds that it imposes additional duties 
    on the Comptroller General and, as such, is in violation of clause 
    2, rule XXI of the House. The additional duties implied by the 
    amendment might involve the Comptroller General insisting that time 
    and attendance reporting systems be set up in Members and committee 
    offices and may require setting up annual and sick leave systems 
    and involve examination of Members' personal diaries, perhaps even 
    their personal financial records. These are duties and procedures 
    clearly beyond the offices of the Comptroller General's present 
    audit authority. Under paragraph 842 of clause 2, rule XXI:

            An amendment may not impose additional duties, not required 
        by law, or make the appropriation contingent upon the 
        performance of such duties. . .then it assumes the character of 
        legislation and is subject to a point of order.

        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Coughlin] is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, let me say that the amendment 
    imposes no additional duties on the General Accounting Office. It 
    proposes that these accounts be subject to audit by the GAO.
        Title 31, section 67, of the United States Code annotated says 
    as follows:

            . . . the financial transactions of each executive, 
        legislative, and judicial agency, including but not limited to 
        the accounts of accountable officers, shall be audited by the 
        General Accounting Office in accordance with such principles 
        and procedures and under such rules and regulations as may be 
        prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. . . 
        .

        Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the General Accounting 
    Office already has the authority and the duty to audit the accounts 
    of the legislative branch, and this amendment in no way expands or 
    extends that authority. The General Accounting Office has taken a 
    position that it is interested in having an expression of the will 
    of the legislative branch as to whether it wishes the General 
    Accounting Office to carry out that function. This amendment would 
    be an expression of that will.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment would in no way expand the 
    authority of the General Accounting Office or impose additional 
    duties on the General Accounting Office; it would only make these 
    accounts subject to audit. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair certainly agrees that the language in the amendment 
    is ambiguous. The Chair takes into account, however, the debate, 
    and the debate as observed by the Chair indicates the amendment 
    certainly does extend the authority of the Comptroller General and 
    is subject to a point of order.

[[Page 6254]]

        The Chair does recognize that there are conflicting 
    interpretations of the amendment under discussion. However, the 
    Chair has a duty under the precedents to construe the rule against 
    legislation strictly where there is an ambiguity. The Chair feels 
    he must sustain the point of order based on the interpretations 
    given the amendment during the debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment in this instance was ruled 
out of order when it appeared that it was intended by its proponents to 
work a change in the law and to require audits, rather than simply 
state a condition precedent for obligation and expenditure of the 
funds. A subsequent amendment which denied the use of funds not subject 
to audit ``as provided by law'' was offered and adopted. In a ruling in 
1970,(5) now effectively overruled by the precedent above, a 
provision prohibiting the use of funds in an appropriation bill for 
programs which are not subject to audit by the Comptroller General had 
been held in order as a negative restriction on the availability of 
funds. The language objected to in the proceedings in 1970 was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 116 Cong. Rec. 18412, 18413, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        None of the funds herein appropriated for ``International 
    Financial Institutions'' shall be available to assist in the 
    financing of any project or activity the expenditures for which are 
    not subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United 
    States.

Denying Funds to College Not in Compliance With Existing Law

Sec. 63.5 To an appropriation bill providing funds for construction of 
    college housing, an amendment specifying that none of the funds may 
    be allocated to an institution unless it is in full compliance with 
    a law requiring the withholding of funds to students who are 
    convicted of engaging in campus disorders was held to be a 
    limitation (not requiring additional duties on the part of any 
    federal official) and in order.

    On June 24, 1969,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12307, an independent offices and Department of 
Housing and Urban Development appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 17085, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion 
        of this and related precedents, see Sec. 53, supra, 
        particularly the ``Note on Contrary Rulings,'' which follows 
        Sec. 53.6.

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

[[Page 6255]]

                              College Housing

        For payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
    Urban Development Act of 1968, $2,500,000: Provided, That the 
    limitation otherwise applicable to the total payments that may be 
    required in any fiscal year by all contracts entered into under 
    such section is increased by $5,500,000.
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Scherle: On page 35, at the end of 
        line 24, strike the period and insert the following: ``And 
        provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
        act for payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
        Urban Development Act of 1968, shall be used to formulate or 
        carry out any grant or loan to any institution of higher 
        education unless such institution shall be in full compliance 
        with section 504 of Public Law 90-575.''

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: I make a point of order on the ground that this 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Scherle: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in order because it 
    is in conformity with rule 21, clause 2, Jefferson's Manual in 
    pages 426-427, specifying that amendments to appropriation bills 
    are in order if they meet the qualifications of the ``Holman 
    Rule.''
        My amendment is germane, negative in nature, and shows 
    retrenchment on its face. It does not either impose any additional 
    or affirmative duties or amend existing law.
        Very simply, my amendment states that none of the funds 
    appropriated in this section will be given to institutions of 
    higher education if they do not comply with the present law, 
    section 504--Public Law 90-575--of the Higher Education Amendments 
    of 1968.
        In support of my amendment, I cite section 843 of the rules of 
    the House discussing the Holman rule under rule 21. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule and holds that the 
    amendment is a proper limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 504 of Public Law No. 90-575, 
referred to above, provided in part:

        (a) If an institution of higher education determines, after 
    affording notice and opportunity for hearing to an individual 
    attending, or employed by, such institution, that such individual 
    has been convicted by any court of record of any crime which was 
    committed after the date of enactment of this Act and which 
    involved the use of . . . force, disruption, or the seizure of 
    property under control of any institution of higher education to 
    prevent officials or students in such institution from engaging in 
    their duties or pursuing their studies, and that such crime was of 
    a serious nature and contributed to a substantial disruption of the 
    administration of the institution with respect to which such crime 
    was

[[Page 6256]]

    committed, then the institution which such individual attends, or 
    is employed by, shall deny for a period of two years any further 
    payment to, or for the direct benefit of, such individual under 
    [specified] programs. . . .
        (b) If an institution of higher education determines, after 
    affording notice and opportunity for hearing to an individual 
    attending, or employed by, such institution, that such individual 
    has willfully refused to obey a lawful regulation or order of such 
    institution after the date of enactment of this Act, and that such 
    refusal was of a serious nature and contributed to a substantial 
    disruption of the administration of such institution, then such 
    institution shall deny, for a period of two years, any further 
    payment to, or for the direct benefit of, such individual under 
    (specified) programs.

Export-Import Bank--Denial of Funding for Certain Countries

Sec. 63.6 To a supplemental appropriation bill including funds for the 
    Export-Import Bank, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    made available by the bill shall be used by the bank to guarantee 
    the payment of obligations incurred by Communist countries, or to 
    participate in extension of credit to any such country, was held in 
    order as a proper limitation merely defining noneligible recipients 
    of those funds.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18381. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    16, after line 3, add the following:
        ``Sec. 803. None of the funds made available because of the 
    provisions of this bill shall be used by the Export-Import Bank to 
    either guarantee the payment of any obligation hereafter incurred 
    by any Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) or any agency or 
    national thereof, or in any other way to participate in the 
    extension of credit to any such country, agency, or nation in 
    connection with the purchase of any product by such country, agency 
    or nation.''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it appears, 
    although I have not had an opportunity to examine a copy of the 
    amendment submitted by the gentleman from Illinois, that the 
    amendment is subject to the point of order that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and seemingly requires additional duties. 
    . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is taken exactly from 
    the language of an amendment which was part of an appropriation 
    bill in 1963. I am sure many of the Members present today will 
    recall the Christmas Eve session which did extend to that late date 
    because of this amendment. The amendment itself does not impose any 
    burdens, duties, or obligations on the President. It is simply an 
    act of re

[[Page 6257]]

    trenchment and withholding and denial of funds for specific 
    purposes. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Findley] is in the nature of a limitation on an 
    appropriation and does not, in the opinion of the Chair, impose 
    extra burdens or administrative duties upon the administration in a 
    way that would subject it to a point of order. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

General Services Administration--``Buy-American'' Requirements

Sec. 63.7 A section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for the purchase of foreign-made tools except 
    to the extent that the Administrator of the General Services 
    Administration determines that domestically produced tools are 
    unavailable for procurement, was held to impose additional duties 
    on that federal official and was ruled out as legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 22, 1972,(10) 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 provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 22097, 22098, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall be available for the procurement of or for the 
        payment of the salary of any person engaged in the procurement 
        of any hand or measuring tool(s) not produced in the United 
        States or its possessions except to the extent that the 
        Administrator of General Services or his designee shall 
        determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity 
        of hand or measuring tools produced in the United States or its 
        possessions cannot be procured as and when needed from sources 
        in the United States and its possessions or except in 
        accordance with procedures prescribed by section 6-104.4(b) of 
        Armed Services Procurement Regulation dated January 1, 1969, as 
        such regulation existed on June 15, 1970. This section shall be 
        applicable to all solicitations for bids opened after its 
        enactment.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I make a point of order against the language to be 
    found on page 31, beginning on line 25, section 505, and running to 
    page 32 to and including line 14, as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I specifically refer, Mr. Chairman, to the 
    language found on page 32 which directs ``that the Administrator of 
    General Services or his designee shall determine that a 
    satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of hand or measuring 
    tools

[[Page 6258]]

    produced in the United States'' and so on and so forth.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, this proviso 
    has been in the legislation for a great many years. At this date 
    and time it imposes no function on the GSA it is not already doing. 
    So we think it is a very regular part of the bill, and I think by 
    precedent it is entitled to remain.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The fact that the provision has been carried in prior 
    appropriation bills is not conclusive in connection with the point 
    of order that is raised at this time. The provision does add 
    additional requirements and duties. In the opinion of the Chair 
    this is legislation on an appropriation bill, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Steed did make the point that since 
this provision had been carried for several years, the Administrator of 
the General Services Administration was in fact already performing the 
``extra duties'' which were required by the amendment.
    The extra duties which may invalidate an amendment as being 
``legislation'' are duties not now required by law for the fiscal year 
in question. The fact that they may be presently in effect, as required 
for present and prior years in annual appropriation acts would not 
protect an amendment from a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

Denying Housing Funds--Availability Contingent on New Analysis of Need

Sec. 63.8 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    funds in the bill be used for expenses of preparing housing market 
    analyses which do not include a breakdown of the housing needs of 
    the various segments of the population was held to be legislation 
    imposing new duties to provide information, where no law was cited 
    authorizing the type of analysis required by the amendment.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
[H.R. 8583], a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 4267, 4268, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 65, line 11, after the 
        colon and

[[Page 6259]]

        following the words ``(12 U.S.C. 1701)'', insert the following: 
        ``That no part of any appropriation or fund in this act shall 
        be used for administrative expenses in connection with the 
        preparation of any housing market analyses which do not include 
        a breakdown of the housing needs of the various segments of the 
        population including those segments which are unable to obtain 
        adequate housing under established home-financing programs.''

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order that I did to the other amendment. It is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill and requires additional 
    duties and responsibilities of an administrative agency.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, in response to that, let me say this 
    is certainly a proper limitation upon an appropriation. Funds are 
    provided right now for the preparation of such housing market 
    analyses. All this would do would be to limit the funds to certain 
    types of housing market analyses and I submit, therefore, the 
    amendment is proper.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Up to the word ``analyses,'' in the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment is all right. Following that, the amendment is an 
    infringement upon the duties of an executive and imposes additional 
    duties. In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order should be 
    sustained and is sustained.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Denial of Funds for 
    U.S.-Soviet Joint Venture

Sec. 63.9 To a general appropriation bill, including funds for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an amendment 
    providing that no part of the funds therein shall be used for 
    expenses of a joint United States-Russian manned lunar landing was 
    held a proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and 
    in order.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8747, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 19258-60, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: 
    Page 37, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``No part of any appropriation made available to the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act shall be used for 
    expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried 
    out jointly by the United States and any Communist, Communist-
    controlled, or Communist-dominated country, or for expenses of any 
    aeronautical and space activities [as defined in sec. 103(1) of the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958]

[[Page 6260]]

    which are primarily designed to facilitate or prepare for 
    participation in such a joint manned lunar landing, except pursuant 
    to an agreement hereafter made by the President by and with the 
    advice and consent of the Senate as provided by section 205 of the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Washington a question. What is the reason for the 
    inclusion of language at the end of the amendment reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the 
        President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as 
        provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Act of 1958.

        The Chair, to make it clear why he is asking the question, has 
    examined section 205 of that act. That says:

                           international cooperation

            Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy 
        guidance of the President, may engage in a program of 
        international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, 
        and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, 
        pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate.

        The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need 
    to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some 
    way it changes existing law?
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I would say that it does not change 
    existing law but simply follows it. But, in order to clarify this 
    matter I ask unanimous consent to strike from the amendment the 
    words from ``except pursuant to an agreement'' to the end.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?
        Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That partially cures it, but it 
    does not cure it by any means. I read:

            Or for expenses of any aeronautical and space activities 
        (as defined in section 103(1) of the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Act of 1958) which are primarily designed to facilitate 
        or prepare for participation in such a joint manned lunar 
        landing.

        Somebody is going to have to spend a whole lot of time on this.
        You are placing a tremendous burden upon somebody to do what? 
    ``To primarily decide or prepare for participation in a joint moon 
    landing.''
        Mr. Chairman, there are four or five conditions contained in 
    this. It is extra duty. Somebody is going to have to make that 
    decision. It is purely legislation . . . and I said to my 
    distinguished friend from Washington a while ago, we will take it 
    to conference and I know the gentleman will give us the liberty of 
    throwing it out if we get in trouble and get too far into foreign 
    affairs. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and the Chair is of the 
    opinion that it is a proper limitation. Therefore, the point of 
    order is overruled.

[[Page 6261]]

Imposing Delay on Expenditure

Sec. 63.10 To a bill appropriating funds for the National Aeronautics 
    and Space Administration (which had authority by law to use 
    appropriations for capital expenditures providing that the 
    Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House was notified) an 
    amendment specifying that no funds therein appropriated could be 
    used for capital items until 14 days after the notification 
    required by law, was held to be a limitation upon the expenditure 
    of funds, not imposing additional duties and in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 12126, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. For another 
        precedent involving the issues raised by an attempt to regulate 
        the rate or timing of expenditures, see Sec. 80.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 4, 
    line 16, after ``expended'' insert: ``Provided, That no part of the 
    foregoing appropriation shall be available for other items of a 
    capital nature which exceed $250,000 until 14 days have elapsed 
    after notification as required by law to the Committee on Science 
    and Astronautics of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
    on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate.'' . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it changes 
    existing law and requires additional duties on the part of the 
    Space Agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to that portion of subsection (b) of 
    Public Law 86-45 approved June 15, 1959, with reference to 
    expenditures in excess of $250,000 and notice to the legislative 
    committees. In addition thereto, the amendment contains a period of 
    notice of 14 days. However, this does not impose a new duty, 
    because it is a limitation upon the expenditure of the funds within 
    a period of 14 days.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Denial of Research and Development Funds Under Certain Types of 
    Contracts

Sec. 63.11 An amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated 
    in the bill may be used to enter into research or development 
    contracts under which new inventions or patents, conceived in the 
    process of per

[[Page 6262]]

    forming the contract, do not become the property of the United 
    States was held to be a limitation merely describing contracts 
    which may not be funded and imposing only incidental additional 
    duties on the executive branch and therefore in order.

    On May 5, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11998, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 9624-27, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            An issue that might be addressed more directly today is 
        whether, under existing law, the Department of Defense is given 
        discretion with regard to entering into contracts of the type 
        described. The effect of provisions which affect the 
        discretionary authority of officials that is conferred by law 
        is discussed in Sec. 51, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Emergency Fund, Department of Defense

        For transfer by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of 
    the Bureau of the Budget, to any appropriation for military 
    functions under the Department of Defense available for research . 
    . . and evaluation, or procurement or production related thereto, 
    to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
    for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
    transferred, $150,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [Harris B.] McDowell [Jr., of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDowell: On page 29, after line 
        13, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated in this act 
        shall be available for making payments on any research or 
        development contract under which any invention, improvement, or 
        discovery conceived or first actually reduced to practice in 
        the course of performance of such contract or any subcontract 
        thereof, or under which any patent based on such invention, 
        improvement, or discovery, does not become the property of the 
        United States.''
            And renumber the following sections accordingly.

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state it. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: The point of order is that 
    this proposed amendment would imply additional duties beyond the 
    scope of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to reread the language of the 
    amendment and to refer to the precedents applicable, in the opinion 
    of the Chair, thereto. It is the opinion of this occupant of the 
    chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware is, 
    in fact, a limitation on the appropriations appropriated in this 
    act, and while it may be argued that the limitation imposed causes 
    or results in additional burdens on the executive branch, in the 
    opinion of this occupant of the chair, that is normal and 
    reasonable to

[[Page 6263]]

    expect in the carrying out of the limitation.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Setting Affirmative Policy

Sec. 63.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    the Patent Office for issuance of certain publications and 
    providing that ``such other papers when reproduced for sale to be 
    sold at such prices as determined by the Commissioner'' was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.

    On May 15, 1947,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 5383, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Patent Office

        Salaries and expenses: For necessary expenses, including 
    personal services in the District of Columbia and the salary of the 
    Commissioner at $10,000 per annum . . . production by 
    photolithographic process of copies of weekly issue of drawings of 
    patents and designs, reproduction of copies and drawings and 
    specifications of exhausted patents, designs, trade-marks, foreign 
    patent drawings, and other papers, such other papers when 
    reproduced for sale to be sold at such prices as determined by the 
    Commissioner; photo prints of pending application drawings; and 
    other contingent and miscellaneous expenses of the Patent Office: 
    Provided, That the headings of the drawings for patented cases may 
    be multigraphed in the Patent Office for the purpose of 
    photolithography; $8,000,000.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Church: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 53, lines 10 and 11, as follows:

            Such other papers when reproduced for sale to be sold at 
        such prices as determined by the Commissioner--

        That sentence is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    unauthorized by law. . . .
        I cannot, Mr. Chairman, withdraw my point of order. I insist on 
    my point of order.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: We concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office--Denial of Funds for Seizure of Mail

Sec. 63.13 An amendment to a Treasury and Post Office De

[[Page 6264]]

    partments appropriation bill, providing that no funds therein may 
    be used for the seizure of mail (in connection with income tax 
    investigations) without a search warrant authorized by law, was 
    held to be a limitation not imposing additional duties and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 6870, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: On 
    page 8, immediately before the period in line 11, insert the 
    following: ``: Provided, That no appropriation made by any 
    provision of this Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, may 
    be used for the seizure of mail without a search warrant authorized 
    by law in carrying out the activities of the United States in 
    connection with the seizure of property for collection of taxes due 
    to the United States.''
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order against the 
    amendment because it is not a limitation on appropriations. It 
    requires actions by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which can be 
    authorized only by legislation.
        The Chairman: The language is a limitation here. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order. The point of order is not sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: But see the proceedings of June 16, 1977 
(discussed in the Parliamentarian's Note following Sec. 77.1, infra), 
where a requirement for a search warrant ``based on probable cause as 
authorized by law'' was ruled out as legislation imposing new 
affirmative duties to make applications to courts, a procedure not 
uniformly required by the federal courts.

Treasury Department to Determine Rates of Exchange

Sec. 63.14 Language in an appropriation bill providing for purchase of 
    foreign currencies at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury 
    Department was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Aug. 7, 1957,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9131), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 13797, 13911, 13912, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Activities

            For expenses to carry out the provisions of section 1011(d) 
        of the

[[Page 6265]]

        United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, 
        as amended (22 U.S.C. 1442(d)), $3,525,000: Provided, That this 
        amount shall be used for purchase of foreign currencies from 
        the special account for the informational media guaranty 
        program, at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury 
        Department, and the amounts of any such purchases shall be 
        covered into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. . . .

        Mr. [Homer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained in lines 1 through 10, page 
    18, the point of order being that it is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill giving affirmative direction and, further, that 
    it imposes new duties on the Treasury Department. I think the 
    language obviously imposes a new duty on the Treasury Department 
    and also there is obviously a proviso which is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Yes, Mr. Chairman; but before referring 
    to the basic law I should like to point out that the language 
    presently contained at page 18 of the bill was submitted to the 
    committee by the Department of State, through Deputy Assistant 
    Secretary Wilkinson and Special Assistant to the Assistant 
    Secretary Bernard Katzen. The department drafted it.
        Section 1442, subdivision (d), of title 22 of the United States 
    Code is entitled ``Sale of Foreign Currencies--Special Account--
    Availability.'' This provides that--

            Foreign currencies available after June 30, 1955, from 
        conversions made pursuant to the obligation of informational 
        media guarantees may be sold, in accordance with Treasury 
        Department regulations, for dollars which shall be deposited in 
        the special account and shall be available for payments under 
        new guaranties. Such currencies shall be available as may be 
        provided for the Congress in appropriation acts, for use for 
        educational, scientific, and cultural purposes which are in the 
        national interest of the United States, and for such other 
        purposes of mutual interest as may be agreed to by the 
        governments of the United States and the country from which the 
        currencies derive.

        Now, the proviso beginning on line 5 of page 18 of the pending 
    bill states:

            Provided, That this amount shall be used for purchase of 
        foreign currencies from the special account for the 
        informational media guaranty program, at rates of exchange 
        determined by the Treasury Department, and the amounts of any 
        such purchases shall be covered into miscellaneous receipts of 
        the Treasury.

        The purpose of this language is to provide that the 
    appropriation of $3,525,000 referred to in lines 1 to 5 on that 
    page of the bill shall be used to purchase from the United States 
    Treasury Israeli pounds in that amount and with which this 
    appropriation is connected so that they will be covered into 
    miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.
        The Chairman: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman from New 
    York if the section of the code from which he read refers to 
    purchases as well as sales?
        Mr. Rooney: I assume from the language contained in that 
    section of the

[[Page 6266]]

    code that it refers to both purchases and sales. This proviso makes 
    it clear and certain that the money appropriated would not come 
    from the general fund.
        The Chairman: Then, the gentleman from New York states it as a 
    fact that the section of the code from which he read uses only the 
    word ``sale'' or ``sold'' rather than ``purchase''?

        Mr. Rooney: I must concede that only the ``sold'' is contained 
    in the section, Mr. Chairman.
        However, I should like to add that when this section of the 
    code refers to a sale it is certainly implied that it also means a 
    purchase. There cannot be a sale without a purchase.
        Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman from New York has not addressed himself to the language 
    ``at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury Department,'' 
    which language obviously gives the Treasury Department additional 
    duties which are not in the original act. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Budge] has made a point of order 
    against that portion of the bill appearing on lines 1 through 10 on 
    page 18 on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] has cited the 
    language contained in title 22, United States Code, section 
    1442(d), and that the reference to that section indicates that 
    authority and duty in connection with the sale of foreign 
    currencies is imposed, whereas the language in the bill imposes the 
    duty in connection with purchases of foreign currencies.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the language constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and sustains the point of 
    order.

Indian Affairs; Travel Expenses of Tribal Councils

Sec. 63.15 Appropriations for expenses of tribal councils for travel, 
    including supplies and equipment, $5 per day in lieu of 
    subsistence, and 5 cents per mile for use of automobiles (including 
    visits to Washington, D.C.) when authorized and approved by the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs, was held not authorized by law and 
    to include legislation.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. When the 
following amendment was offered, a point of order was raised against 
certain of its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2646, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 63, line 8, 
    insert:
        ``Expenses of tribal councils or committees thereof (tribal 
    funds): For traveling and other expenses of members of tribal 
    councils, business committees, or other tribal organizations, when 
    engaged on business of the tribes, including supplies and 
    equipment, not to exceed $5 per diem in lieu of subsistance,

[[Page 6267]]

    and not to exceed 5 cents per mile for use of personally owned 
    automobiles, and including visits to Washington, D.C., when duly 
    authorized or approved in advance by the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs, $50,000, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of 
    the particular tribe interested: Provided, That except for the 
    Navajo Tribe, not more than $5,000 shall be expended from the funds 
    of any one tribe or band of Indians for the purposes herein 
    specified.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law and 
    that it creates additional duties for the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs and, generally, that the entire matter is unauthorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is authorized 
    under the Snyder Act, and I call attention to title 25, section 13, 
    which clearly authorizes this expenditure. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The item to which attention has been called in the last 
    paragraph of section 13, title 25, United States Code, includes the 
    following language:

            And for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It does not seem to the Chair that this language is sufficient 
    to include the various items that are included in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the Chair therefore 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

Denying Salary to Postal Service Officer Who Undertakes Certain Actions

Sec. 63.16 Where an amendment to an appropriation bill denied the 
    availability of funds for payment of the salary of any officer of 
    the Postal Service who took certain actions with respect to 
    employees who communicated with Members of Congress concerning the 
    Postal Service, the Chair found that such provision did not impose 
    additional duties on federal officers, but ruled the amendment out 
    of order on other grounds.

    On June 28, 1971,(8) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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

[[Page 6268]]

        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: (9) At this point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        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

[[Page 6269]]

    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.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 64. Generally

    When points of order are made under the rule prohibiting 
legislation on appropriation bills, rulings thereon will frequently 
turn on whether the proposition in question is in fact one of 
legislation, or whether it is merely a permissible ``limitation'' on 
the funds sought to be appropriated. The basic theory of limitations is 
that, just as the House may decline to appropriate for a purpose 
authorized by law, it may by limitation prohibit the use of the money 
for part of the purpose while appropriating for the remainder of it. 
The limitation cannot change existing law, but may negatively restrict 
the use of funds for an authorized purpose or project. A limitation may 
furthermore serve the purpose of foreclosing possible interpretations 
of language in an appropriation bill that otherwise might be 
administratively construed to include matters other than those actually 
contemplated by the bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the statement of the Chair at 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 75th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Mar. 1, 1938, in the course of ruling on a point of 
        order against language contained in H.R. 9621, an Interior 
        Department appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A useful discussion and a list of tests to be applied in 
determining whether language in an appropriation bill or amendment 
thereto constitutes a permissible limitation can be found in a ruling 
made on Jan. 8, 1923.(11) The Chairman,(12) in 
the course of rul

[[Page 6270]]

ing on a point of order against provisions of a District of Columbia 
appropriation bill, set forth a series of tests for determining the 
validity of a purported limitation under the rules. The checklist is 
reproduced here for quick reference:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 64 Cong. Rec. 1422, 67th Cong. 4th Sess.
12. Frederick C. Hicks (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Does the limitation apply solely to the appropriation under 
consideration?
    2. Does it operate beyond the fiscal year for which the 
appropriation is made?
    3. Is the limitation accompanied or coupled with a phrase applying 
to official functions, and if so, does the phrase give affirmative 
directions in fact or in effect, although not in form?
    4. Is it accompanied by a phrase which might be construed to impose 
additional duties or permit an official to assume an intent to change 
existing law?
    5. Does the limitation curtail or extend, modify, or alter existing 
powers or duties, or terminate old or confer new ones? If it does, then 
it must be conceded that legislation is involved, for without 
legislation these results could not be accomplished.
    The statement of the Chair was as follows:

        The Chair is cognizant of confusion in the rulings in cases 
    somewhat akin to this one, and realizes that in considering 
    questions of limitations as in determining questions of germaneness 
    there is considerable latitude between what is clearly permissible 
    and what is as clearly repugnant to the rule. The Chair feels that 
    in traversing this twilight zone he is justified in leaning toward 
    the side of conservatism in regard to admission of legislation on 
    appropriation bills. In the last few years there has been a very 
    perceptible increase in the amount of legislative provisions 
    incorporated in bills reported by the Appropriations Committee. The 
    growth of this practice, in the opinion of the Chair, is unwise and 
    is not warranted by the rules or procedure of the House. It is 
    probably due to the fact that, as formerly many of the standing 
    committees had jurisdiction over both appropriations and 
    legislation, a clear distinction of these separate functions was 
    not made in the bills reported, which left the Appropriations 
    Committee in the position of finding that many of the items for 
    which it desired to appropriate were unauthorized. This made it 
    incumbent upon the Appropriations Committee, in order to carry on 
    its work, to devise these legislative limitations.
        Under our rules the Committee on Appropriations can consider 
    only questions of appropriations, the subjects of legislation and 
    authorization being confined to the jurisdiction of standing 
    committees constituted for that very purpose and equipped with 
    facilities to conduct investigations. Feeling that each committee 
    should be held strictly to the consideration of its own particular 
    work, the Chair is of the opinion that too much latitude has been 
    given in the employment of limitations, and that the practice of 
    resorting to

[[Page 6271]]

    this method of securing, in an indirect way, legislation on 
    appropriation bills has been abused, and extended beyond the 
    intention of the rule. . . .
        Since Congress has the right to appropriate, Congress has the 
    right to refuse to appropriate, even though the appropriation is 
    authorized, and this may be done in two ways: First, by not 
    appropriating for a certain purpose at all, and second, by denying 
    the use of a part of an appropriation for a certain purpose. This 
    is the principle on which the theory of limitations is grounded and 
    should always be kept in mind in construing a limitation.
        To use the illustration of the late James R. Mann, of honored 
    memory, Congress, having the right to appropriate for red-headed 
    men, may specifically deny the use of an appropriation for the 
    payment of red-headed men. Therefore, while it is not in order to 
    require the employment of red-headed men or even the payment of 
    red-headed men, it is in order to deny the use of an appropriation 
    for the payment of red-headed men, even though existing law permits 
    the employment and payment of red-headed men.
        But the misapplication and the difficulty in construing the 
    rule has occurred when a limitation is accompanied by something 
    additional in the nature of a further limitation or restriction.
        For example, there is no difficulty in the following provision: 
    ``No part of this appropriation may be expended in the payment of 
    red-headed men.''
        But take the following proposition: ``No part of this 
    appropriation may be used for the payment of any persons except 
    red-headed men.''
        In construing the last example it is necessary for the Chair to 
    look to the effect rather than to the form. Does the language 
    merely deny the use of the appropriation or does it go further and 
    require the employment of red-headed men? If existing law does not 
    authorize the employment of red-headed men, or expressly prohibits 
    the employment of red-headed men, the language clearly becomes not 
    a limitation but becomes legislation making an appropriation for an 
    unauthorized purpose and in addition proposes legislation 
    permitting the employment of red-headed men contrary to existing 
    law. But if the law authorizes the employment of red-headed men the 
    language merely becomes explanatory of the recipient of the 
    appropriation, and is in fact merely an appropriation for a certain 
    purpose. Therefore, as a test in determining the legality of such 
    language, the Chair may properly ask himself this question: ``Would 
    it be in order to make a direct appropriation for this purpose 
    instead of denying the use of this appropriation except for the 
    specified purpose? '' If the question could be answered in the 
    affirmative this particular class of limitations would be in order.
        Approaching the point of order now before us, in the 
    consideration of which the merits of the proposition are not under 
    review, the Chair will cite a number of precedents that bear on the 
    subject of limitations, quoting from Hinds' Precedents:
        ``No. 3931. Legislation may not be proposed under the form of a 
    limitation.
        ``No. 3976. The language of limitation prescribing the 
    conditions under which the appropriation may be used

[[Page 6272]]

    may not be such as, when fairly construed, would change existing 
    law.
        ``No. 3812. The enactment of positive law where none exists is 
    constructed as a ``provision changing existing law,'' such as is 
    forbidden in an appropriation bill.
        ``No. 3967. A limitation is negative in its nature and may not 
    include positive enactments establishing rules for executive 
    officers.
        ``No. 3854. A proposition to establish affirmative directions 
    for an executive officer constitutes legislation and is not in 
    order on a general appropriation bill. Also a ruling of Chairman 
    Towner, April 15, 1920.
        ``Chairman Crisp, March 11, 1916: Limitations must not impose 
    new duties upon an executive officer.
        ``No. 3984. Where a proposition might be construed by the 
    executive officer as a modification of a statute, it may not be 
    held as such a limitation of appropriation as is permissible on a 
    general appropriation bill.

        ``No. 3927. A limitation may be attached only to the money of 
    the appropriation under consideration and may not be made 
    applicable to moneys appropriated in other acts.
        ``No. 3957. The limitation must be upon the appropriation and 
    not an affirmative limitation of official functions.
        ``No. 3966. Limitations which directly, or indirectly, vest in 
    any executive officer any discretion, or impose any duty upon the 
    officer, directly or indirectly, in the expenditure of money, would 
    be obnoxious. But (No. 3968) the House may provide that no part of 
    an appropriation shall be used in a certain way even though 
    executive discretion be thereby negatively restricted.
        ``No. 3936. A provision proposing to construe existing law is 
    in itself a proposition of legislation and, therefore, not in order 
    on an appropriation bill as a limitation.
        ``No. 3936. The fact that a paragraph on an appropriation bill 
    would constitute legislation for only a year does not make it 
    admissible as a limitation.
        ``No. 3936. As an appropriation bill may deny an appropriation 
    for a purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit 
    the use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for 
    the remainder of it.
        ``No. 3929. A limitation must apply solely to the present 
    appropriation and may not be made as a permanent provision of law.
        ``No. 3942. While it is not in order to legislate as to 
    qualifications of the recipients of an appropriation, the House may 
    specify that no part of the appropriation shall go to recipients 
    lacking certain qualifications.''
        In section 3935 of Hinds' Precedents is a ruling by Speaker 
    Cannon, which has been referred to and which the Chair feels covers 
    the point under consideration. The language is clear and specific, 
    and in view of Mr. Cannon's approaching retirement from Congress 
    after a long and distinguished career, the Chair is glad to refer 
    to it in this instance:
        ``The merits of the proposition are not involved in the point 
    of order. What is the object of the motion and of the instruction? 
    If it does not change existing law, then it is not necessary. If it 
    does change existing law, then it is subject to the point of order. 
    Much has been said about limitation; and the doctrine of limitation 
    is sustained upon

[[Page 6273]]

    the proposition under the rule that, as Congress has the power to 
    withhold every appropriation, it may withhold the appropriation 
    upon limitation. Now, that is correct. But there is another rule, 
    another phase of that question. If the limitation, whether it be 
    affirmative or negative, operates to change the law or to enact new 
    law in effect, then it is subject to the rule that prohibits 
    legislation upon a general appropriation bill; and the Chair, in 
    view of the fact that the amendment would impose upon officials new 
    duties as to purchasing canal supplies, has no difficulty in 
    arriving at the conclusion that the instructions are subject to the 
    point of order for the reasons stated.''
        In viewing propositions of a legislative character the Chair 
    feels we should look to the substance and not to the form in which 
    it is presented. In the case before us what does the proviso 
    propose? Does it impose a simple restriction on the expenditure of 
    funds? No. Does it stipulate that the use of the funds is 
    conditional upon the possession by the recipients of certain 
    qualifications or distinctions? No. It goes much further, for by 
    the use of the words ``until'' and ``unless,'' in connection with 
    certain things to be done, it implies--yes, asserts--that these 
    activities must be undertaken before the appropriation becomes 
    available. This is a direction to officers and imposes new duties 
    upon them which is repugnant to our practice. By requiring the 
    court to perform functions which are not now required, it clearly 
    implies a change of law, otherwise it would be futile to suggest 
    it. This is legislation under the guise of a limitation which is 
    contrary to our procedure.
        As a general proposition the Chair feels that whenever a 
    limitation is accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' 
    ``until,'' ``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-
    called limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to its 
    ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the conservative 
    side. By doing so appropriation bills will be relieved of much of 
    the legislation which is being constantly grafted upon them and a 
    check given a practice which seems to the Chair both unwise and in 
    violation of the spirit, as well as the substance, of our rules. 
    Without endeavoring to lay down any hard and fast rule, the Chair 
    feels that the following tests may be helpful in deciding a 
    question of order directed against a limitation, first having 
    determined the powers granted or the duties imposed by existing 
    laws:
        Does the limitation apply solely to the appropriation under 
    consideration?
        Does it operate beyond the fiscal year for which the 
    appropriation is made?
        Is the limitation accompanied or coupled with a phrase applying 
    to official functions, and if so, does the phrase give affirmative 
    directions in fact or in effect, although not in form?
        Is it accompanied by a phrase which might be construed to 
    impose additional duties or permit an official to assume an intent 
    to change existing law?
        Does the limitation curtail or extend, modify, or alter 
    existing powers or duties, or terminate old or confer new ones? If 
    it does, then it must be conceded that legislation is involved, for 
    without legislation these results could not be accomplished.
        If the limitation will not fairly stand these tests then in my 
    opinion the point of order should be sustained.

[[Page 6274]]

        The following sections contain illustrations of limitations 
    deemed by the Chair to be permissible under the rule.
    The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
general appropriation bills, and the broad qualifications on the 
application of the rule, are discussed in more detail at the beginning 
of the chapter.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 1, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Rule

Sec. 64.1 An amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill for a certain purpose is in order, although the 
    availability of funds for that purpose is authorized by law.

    On June 22, 1973,(14) uring consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8825), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 20998, 20999, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: 
        Page 9, lines 2 and 3, strike out ``$2,194,000,000, to remain 
        available until expended.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,719,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
        That none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used 
        to further in any way the research, development or construction 
        of any reusable space transportation system or space shuttle or 
        facilities therefor.''
            And on page 10, lines 2 through 19, strike out all of 
        subparagraph (12) and redesignate the succeeding subparagraphs 
        accordingly.

        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Talcott: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is quick and 
    clean. This is more than just a reduction of funds. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill when it says:
        none of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used to 
        further in any way the research, development or construction of 
        any reusable space transportation system or space shuttle or 
        facilities therefor.

        This is completely changing the authorization by the Committee 
    on Science and Astronautics.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        It seems to the Chair that the provision in the gentlewoman's 
    amendment is pretty clearly a limitation on an appropriation. It 
    does not impose any affirmative obligation on the administration, 
    nor does it provide any legislative direction. It is simply a 
    limitation on the use of the funds to be appropriated.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec. 64.2 An amendment denying use of funds for purposes otherwise 
    authorized by law may be in order as a limitation.

[[Page 6275]]

    On May 19, 1964,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1965 (H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 11391, 11392, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 14, line 12, 
        after the figure ``$39,389,000'' strike the period, insert a 
        colon and the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act shall be used for any expenses 
        incident to the assembly or preparation of information for 
        transmission over Government-leased wires directly serving 
        privately-owned radio or television stations or newspapers of 
        general circulation, or for transmission over Government-leased 
        wires which are subject to direct interconnection with wires 
        leased by nongovernmental persons, firms or associations.''. . 
        .

        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: The law requires, in 
    subsection k of section 1622 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
    1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-27, as follows:

            To collect, tabulate, and disseminate statistics of 
        marketing agricultural products, including, but not restricted 
        to statistics on market supplies, storage stocks, quantity, 
        quality, and condition of such products in various positions in 
        the marketing channel, utilization of such products, and 
        shipments and unloads thereof.

        That statute is absolutely mandatory and requires the 
    Department to bring together that information. The gentleman's 
    amendment does not limit funds for the discharge of the duties 
    under that section. It attempts to deprive the Secretary of 
    authority conferred by law which was determined in an earlier 
    ruling (IV, 3846) to be legislation. Further, I respectfully submit 
    it will require additional duties of folks in the Department of 
    Agriculture, which is also legislation.
        May I point out again, Mr. Chairman, in the last part of it, it 
    says the information cannot be collected for the purpose of being 
    disseminated. I respectfully submit it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill calling for new duties and responsibilities on 
    the one hand, and limiting executive authority on the other. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chairman would call the attention of 
    the Committee to the fact that the existence of substantive law and 
    the provisions thereof are quite obviously not necessarily binding 
    on the Appropriations Committee. The Chair feels, therefore, that 
    where that committee seeks to appropriate funds and an amendment is 
    offered that seeks to deny the use of those funds even for 
    functions otherwise required by law, that that amendment is in the 
    nature of a limitation of appropriations and therefore overrules 
    the point of order.

Must Apply Only to Funds in Bill

Sec. 64.3 To qualify as a limitation, restrictive language in

[[Page 6276]]

    a general appropriation bill must apply solely to the funds carried 
    in the bill and not to all funds which might otherwise be available 
    for that purpose.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14582), a point of order was raised against the following provision of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 14456, 14457, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Federal Home Loan Bank Board

            Increases of $177,000 in the limitation on the amount 
        available for administrative expenses and of $351,000 in the 
        limitation on the amount available for nonadministrative 
        expenses: Provided, That none of the funds available for 
        administrative or nonadministrative expenses of the Federal 
        Home Loan Bank Board shall be used to finance the relocation of 
        all or any part of the Federal Home Loan Bank from Greensboro, 
        North Carolina, nor for the supervision, direction or operation 
        of any district bank for the fourth district other than at such 
        location;

        Mr. (John J.) Flynt (Jr., of Georgia): Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in the bill beginning after the 
    colon on line 25 of page 42, and which continues through line 6 on 
    page 43, which reads as follows:

            ``Provided--''
            And so forth, down through ``at such location.''

        I make the point of order on the ground that the language goes 
    beyond the scope of the time frame covered by this appropriation 
    bill, by the pending legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon) is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon: Mr. Chairman, under the government 
    corporation control law, we are entitled to enact an annual budget 
    involving the handling of corporate funds. That is what this goes 
    to, and it is a limit on those funds.
        It would appear to be clearly in order. So I trust, Mr. 
    Chairman, that the point of order will not be sustained.
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, I am reading from page 8455, United 
    States Code, under title 31.
        Paragraph 849 reads as follows:

            Sec. 849. Consideration of programs by Congress; enactment 
        of necessary legislation; effect of section on certain existing 
        authority of corporations.
            The Budget programs transmitted by the President to the 
        Congress shall be considered and legislation shall be enacted 
        making necessary appropriations as may be authorized by law, 
        making available for expenditure for operating and 
        administrative expenses such corporate funds or other financial 
        resources or limiting the use thereof as the Congress may 
        determine. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what the language of the bill 
    does. It limits the funds of the corporation, and it is

[[Page 6277]]

    my contention that the point of order is out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) makes a point of order 
    against the language in the bill on page 42, line 25 to page 43, 
    line 6.
        The proviso in this paragraph goes to all of the expense funds 
    that might be available to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. It 
    does not merely restrict the funds in this bill.

        The Chair finds the restriction is not limited to funds in the 
    bill and must be construed as legislation.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt).

Sec. 64.4 To qualify as a ``limitation,'' the restrictive language must 
    apply to the appropriations carried in the bill and not to all 
    funds which may have been provided under the authorizing 
    legislation or to the provisions of the authorization itself.

    On June 4, 1970,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17867), a point of order was raised against the 
following provision of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 18404, 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) No economic 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 items 
    of economic assistance to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the 
    Castro regime, or to North Vietnam.
        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order that the language on lines 13 through 17, 
    page 9, section 107(b) constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and therefore should be stricken.
        I should like to point out, also, there is comparable language, 
    but stronger language, already in the Foreign Assistance Act. I 
    refer to section 620(a)(3) with respect to the prohibition against 
    trade with Cuba, and section 620(n), the language with respect to 
    North Vietnam.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee believes now, as we have believed for many years, that 
    this was a limitation on expenditures. It says:

            No economic assistance--

        Referring first to U.S. dollars--
        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 items of economic assistance 
        to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the Castro regime, or to 
        North Vietnam.

        According to the committee's interpretation, this is a 
    limitation, and I ask for a ruling.

[[Page 6278]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The first two lines read:

            No economic assistance shall be furnished under the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961--

        It is entirely possible that there is a variety of programs 
    under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Therefore, this is 
    clearly a limitation upon the Act and not on the bill and comes 
    within the prohibition of rule XXI, clause 2, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 64.5 A limitation to be in order must relate specifically to the 
    appropriation to which it is offered and not contain language so 
    broad as to cover other appropriations.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 3446, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. 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. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.

Restricting Funds for Purpose Not Funded in Bill

Sec. 64.6 To a bill appropriating funds for defense procurement, an 
    amendment providing that none of the funds therein shall be 
    available for paying the cost of a conventional powerplant for a 
    designated ship was held to be a proper limitation and in order 
    even though it was apparent that there were no funds in the bill 
    for the ship in question.

    On Apr. 22, 1964,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10939, a Department of

[[Page 6279]]

Defense appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 8802, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: On 
    page 42, line 18, after line 18 insert a new section 540--and 
    renumber the following sections--to read as follows:
        ``None of the funds appropriated herein shall be available for 
    paying the cost of a conventional powerplant for CVA-67.''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there are no funds in this bill for an aircraft 
    carrier.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Yes, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear him.
        Mr. Hosmer: My point is, it is irrelevant whether or not there 
    are any funds in this bill. An amendment of this nature will lie 
    irrespective.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . Apparently the only basis for that point of order is that 
    there are no funds in the pending bill to accomplish that which is 
    sought to be accomplished by the amendment. As futile, therefore, 
    as the amendment might be, it is in fact a limitation of the funds 
    herein appropriated and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 64.7 To a section of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
    making appropriations for the Government Printing Office, an 
    amendment providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used 
    to pay the salary of any person who shall perform any service or 
    authorize any expenditure in connection with the printing and 
    binding of the Yearbook of Agriculture was held as a valid 
    limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 18, 1942,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6802. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 2681, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On 
    page 45, line 3, after ``1942'', insert ``Provided further, That no 
    part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any 
    person who shall perform any service or authorize any expenditure 
    in connection with the printing and binding of part 2 of the annual 
    report of the Secretary of Agriculture (known as the Year Book of 
    Agriculture) for 1942.''
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. There are no funds carried in 
    this bill for the purposes which are inhibited by the gentleman's 
    amendment. It would be nugatory and of no effect, and I can 
    conceive of no rule under which it might be in order.

[[Page 6280]]

        Mr. Dirksen: I think the amendment will speak for itself. I 
    think it is a limitation and would be germane and in order, 
    irrespective of whether any funds are carried, but the fact of the 
    matter is that the yearbook is not printed ordinarily until after 
    the first of the year. Consequently the personnel and salaries for 
    clerical work and mechanical work in the Government Printing Office 
    is done after the beginning of the fiscal year 1943. I therefore 
    regard it as a proper limitation and in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair thinks that the 
    limitation is a valid one, and, therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William R. Thom (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.8 To a section of a supplemental appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds appropriated therein shall be used in the branches of 
    the Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation was held germane and a proper limitation.

    On Apr. 15, 1948,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6226, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    On page 2, line 25, insert ``Provided further, That none of the 
    funds herein appropriated shall be used in the branches of the 
    Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    amendment is not germane and it is, therefore, not in order on this 
    bill; that it is legislation on an appropriation bill; that imposes 
    additional burdens and restrictions that are entirely out of place.
        This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill. 
    I submit that the amendment is out of order from practically every 
    standpoint.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment which has 
    limitations; it is negative; it is the type that has been ruled in 
    order on previous appropriation bills.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York has offered an amendment against which the gentleman from 
    Mississippi has made a point of order. The Chair is constrained to 
    rule that the amendment is germane and is in order and consequently 
    overrules the point of order.

Committee Report as Containing Limitations

Sec. 64.9 The Chair does not pass on the question as to wheth

[[Page 6281]]

    er ``limitations'' written in a committee report on an 
    appropriation bill but not written into the wording of the bill are 
    binding; that is a matter for the Committee of the Whole to 
    consider during its deliberation on the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5502, a bill making appropriations for the Departments 
of State, Justice, the Judiciary, and related agencies. The following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Wilson of California: I have a question 
    relative to the United States Information Agency as it affects the 
    report of the committee. As printed I notice there are several 
    limitations written into the report. For instance, not to exceed 
    $300,000 is provided for the ``presentation'' program; not to 
    exceed $200,000 is provided for exhibits for which $334,000 was 
    requested, and other limitations of that type.
        I am wondering if the fact that these limitations appear in the 
    report make them actual limitations in law. I notice they are not 
    mentioned in the bill itself, and I wonder if the committee regards 
    them as binding on the agency, because there are many serious 
    limitations, particularly in regard to exhibits, for example. I 
    would just like to hear the opinion of the chairman.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: I may say to the gentleman 
    from California that it is expected that they will be the law; and 
    that they are binding. The fact that they have not been inserted in 
    the bill is not important. They represent the considered judgment 
    of the committee and we expect the language of the report to be 
    followed.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper [Tenn.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own 
    understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems 
    to me rather unusual to consider matter written into a report of 
    the same binding effect on an administrator as though written into 
    the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.

Condition Subsequent--Obligation Terminated on Occurrence of Future 
    Event

Sec. 64.10 An amendment to an appropriation bill, terminating the use 
    of funds therein after the passage of

[[Page 6282]]

    certain legislation pending before the Congress, is a valid 
    limitation and in order.

    On May 19, 1964,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 11388, 11389, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 12, line 24, 
        after the word ``consumer'' change the colon to a comma and 
        insert the following: ``except that no part of the funds 
        appropriated herein may be obligated for this special study 
        subsequent to the enactment of legislation establishing a 
        National Commission on Food Marketing:''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: The language provides:

            Except that no part of the funds appropriated herein may be 
        obligated for this special study subsequent to the enactment of 
        legislation establishing a national commission.

        The point of order I make is that this is not a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill as such but is entirely dependent on a 
    contingency that may never occur. For that reason the point of 
    order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Yes. My amendment shows retrenchment on the face 
    of it, and in my opinion is within the rules.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois offers an amendment, which has been 
    fully reported, and provides that no part of the funds appropriated 
    in the pending section may be obligated for the special study 
    provided therein subsequent to the enactment of legislation 
    establishing a National Commission on Food Marketing, to which 
    amendment the gentleman from Mississippi made his point of order 
    that it was, in effect, legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    Chair, however, is of the opinion that this amendment constitutes a 
    limitation on the funds herein appropriated even though that 
    limitation may be conditioned upon a condition subsequent which may 
    never come into existence and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Obligation Triggered by Future Event

Sec. 64.11 To a bill appropriating funds for NASA [which had, under its 
    authorizing legislation, authority to use appropriations for 
    capital expenditures providing that the Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics of the House

[[Page 6283]]

    was notified of the proposed expenditure], an amendment specifying 
    that no funds therein appropriated could be used for capital items 
    until 14 days after the notification required by law, was held to 
    be a limitation upon the expenditure of funds and in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 12126, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Thomas: On page 4, line 16, after 
        ``expended'' insert: ``Provided, That no part of the foregoing 
        appropriation shall be available for other items of a capital 
        nature which exceed $250,000 until 14 days have elapsed after 
        notification as required by law to the Committee on Science and 
        Astronautics of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
        on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it changes existing law and requires 
    additional duties on the part of the Space Agency. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] has offered an amendment 
    which has been reported. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    has made a point of order that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair calls attention to that portion of subsection (b) of 
    Public Law 86-45 approved June 15, 1959, with reference to 
    expenditures in excess of $250,000 and notice to the legislative 
    committees. In addition thereto, the amendment contains a period of 
    notice of 14 days. However, this does not impose a new duty, 
    because it is a limitation upon the expenditure of the funds within 
    a period of 14 days.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Exception From Limitation Carried in Same Bill

Sec. 64.12 Where an appropriation bill carried a provision limiting 
    certain administrative expenses in various accounts therein, a 
    paragraph subsequently reached in the reading was held in order 
    where it carried a provision excepting an authorized appropriation 
    project from those limitations.

    On May 17, 1937,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6284]]

ering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 16. 81 Cong. Rec. 4685, 4686, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See 83 Cong. Rec. 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 2, 1938, 
        for a similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Exceptions From Limitations

Sec. 64.13 To an amendment prohibiting the expenditure of any 
    government funds during fiscal 1971 for American ground forces in 
    Cambodia, offered to a legislative provision in a general 
    appropriation bill prescribing an overall limitation on budget 
    outlays for that fiscal year, an amendment excepting from such 
    prohibition those expenditures which protect the lives of American 
    troops re

[[Page 6285]]

    maining within South Vietnam was held in order as a germane 
    exception to the prohibition merely descriptive of a Presidential 
    duty as Commander in Chief to protect U.S. troops, and as not 
    adding legislation to the provision permitted to remain in the 
    bill.

    On May 7, 1970,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17399, a supplemental appropriation bill. A point of 
order against an amendment to an amendment was overruled as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 14569-71, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    Title V

                 Limitation on Fiscal Year 1971 Budget Outlays

            Sec. 501. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        of the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1971, shall not exceed $200,771,000,000: Provided, That 
        whenever action, or inaction, by the Congress on requests for 
        appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the 
        President's recommendations reflected in the Budget for 1971 
        (H. Doc. 91-240, part 1), the Director of the Bureau of the 
        Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his 
        estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on budget 
        outlays, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
        correspondingly adjusted: Provided further, That the Director 
        of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and 
        to the Congress his estimate of the effect on budget outlays of 
        other actions by the Congress (whether initiated by the 
        President or the Congress) and the limitation set forth herein 
        shall be correspondingly adjusted, and reports, so far as 
        practicable, shall indicate whether such other actions were 
        initiated by the President or by the Congress.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boland: On page 53 on line 25 
        after the amount [$200,771,000,000], insert the following: ``, 
        of which expenditures none shall be available for use for 
        American ground combat forces in Cambodia.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Boland: In front of the period insert the following: 
        ``except those which protect the lives of American troops 
        remaining within South Vietnam.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        I make a point of order on the ground that the amendment 
    requires particular and special duties. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair has examined the 
    proposed amendment to

[[Page 6286]]

    the amendment. In the opinion of the Chair the proposed amendment 
    to the amendment constitutes an exception to the limitation that 
    was offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, does not 
    constitute additional legislation, and is germane. Therefore the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During ensuing debate, Mr. Findley stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I would hope that no Member of this body would 
    wish to leave the impression, by supporting any amendment today, 
    that subsequent to July 1 he would wish the President of the United 
    States as Commander in Chief to fail to do what he feels is 
    necessary to protect the lives of American troops remaining in 
    South Vietnam.
        That is why I propose this amendment.

Sec. 64.14 An exception to a valid limitation in a general 
    appropriation bill is in order, providing the exception does not 
    add language legislative in effect. Thus, an amendment inserting 
    ``Except as required by the Constitution'' in provisions in a 
    general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to 
    force a school district to take action involving the busing of 
    students, was held in order as providing an exception from valid 
    limitations in the bill.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1970 (H.R. 15931), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan: On page 60, strike out 
        line 19 and all that follows through line 25, and substitute in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``Sec. 408. Except as required by the Constitution no part 
        of the funds contained in the Act may be used to force any 
        school district to take any actions involving the busing of 
        students, the abolishment of any school or the assignment of 
        any student attending any elementary or secondary school to a 
        particular school against the choice of his or her parent or 
        parents.''

        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
    amendments on sections 408 and 409 be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to section 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan: On page 61, strike out 
        line 1 and all that follows through line 6 and substitute in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``Sec. 409. Except as required by the Constitution no part 
        of the funds

[[Page 6287]]

        contained in this Act shall be used to force any school 
        district to take any actions involving the busing of students, 
        the abolishment of any school or the assignment of students to 
        a particular school as a condition precedent to obtaining 
        Federal funds otherwise available to any State, school district 
        or school.''

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Cohelan) that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendments.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the language 
    puts additional duties upon the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare to make a determination of the constitutionality of the 
    provisions.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Cohelan) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, obviously all that my amendments 
    will do is to restore the language of the original bill.
        Prior to my presenting these amendments I checked with the 
    parliamentarian. It is my understanding that they are perfectly 
    proper amendments. I ask that they be considered so.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Cohelan) has offered 
    amendments en bloc to insert the provision ``Except as required by 
    the Constitution'' at the beginning of sections 408 and 409 of the 
    bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) has raised a point of order 
    against the amendments on the ground that they constitute 
    legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2, rule 
    XXI.
        The precedents of the House establish that it is in order in a 
    general appropriation bill to include, along with a valid 
    limitation, an exception therefrom. On April 27, 1950, a provision 
    limiting the use of an appropriation and specifying certain 
    exceptions to the limitation was held in order--Chairman Cooper, 
    Tennessee, 81st Congress, Record, page 5910.
        For the reason stated the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 64.15 An exception from a valid limitation may be included in an 
    amendment to an appropriation bill so long as it does not contain 
    provisions which are legislative in effect; in an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds for food stamp assistance for 
    households that need such assistance solely because a member 
    therein is a member of a striking union, language stating that such 
    limitation shall not apply to a household eligible for general 
    assistance directly payable by a local government was held to 
    constitute a valid exception not imposing additional duties on 
    federal administrators.

[[Page 6288]]

    On June 29, 1972,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15690), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 23378, 23379, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan: On page 43, 
        line 9, delete the period after the figure ``$2,341,146,000'' 
        and insert the following: ``Provided that no part of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act shall be used during the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973 to make food stamps available to a 
        household where the necessity and eligibility of such household 
        for assistance stems solely from the unemployment of a member 
        of such household who is a member of an employee unit which has 
        voluntarily terminated employment due to a labor dispute or 
        controversy, except that such limitation shall not apply to a 
        household eligible for general assistance directly payable by 
        such household's local union of government.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and, for all practical purposes, it is a 
    perfecting amendment and identical to the one we have already voted 
    on. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Michigan: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        In the first place, it is not legislation on an appropriation 
    bill because it only further limits the thrust of the 
    appropriation, and establishes a further standard, that standard to 
    be applied for the eligibility, to be determined by the State and 
    local agencies, and under various appropriations to the food stamp 
    program, eligibility standards which are determined by these State 
    and local agencies.
        Second, it is not the same amendment as the Michel amendment 
    because it is not an absolute prohibition on food stamps to 
    strikers, so called. It says that eligibility for food stamps shall 
    be based upon eligibility for general assistance, not the food 
    stamp program itself.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, in view of the statement made by the 
    gentleman from Michigan, and having seen the amendment and having 
    read it and understood it, I state that it calls for new duties to 
    determine new regulations for eligibility, therefore it is 
    definitely legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has carefully read the amendment.
        In the first place, it is not identical to the amendment 
    previously offered, nor is it subject to the interpretation that it 
    would simply do exactly the same thing as the amendment previously 
    offered and rejected. It is clearly distinguishable in its 
    provisions.
        As to the second question, that of its being rendered out of 
    order because it supposedly requires affirmative actions on the 
    part of an administrator, the Chair believes that the latter part 
    of

[[Page 6289]]

    the amendment--to which the gentleman from Mississippi has 
    referred--simply provides an exception to the application of the 
    limitation imposed by the first part of the amendment. It does not 
    impose additional duties. The Chair holds that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Brown), is in order and 
    overrules the point of order.

Prohibiting Funds for Salaries for Carrying out Certain Programs

Sec. 64.16 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    negative in character and which prohibits the use of funds therein 
    for salaries of persons carrying out certain programs which extend 
    in duration beyond that fiscal year is in order as a limitation on 
    the funds in that bill.

    On June 15, 1973,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 8619), the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 19836, 19837, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 3 after line 12, 
        insert the following: ``: Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be used during the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1974, to formulate or carry out any single 
        1974 crop year price support program (other than for sugar and 
        wool) under which the total amount of payments to any person or 
        State government would be more than $20,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Findley for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Conte: None of the funds provided by 
        this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of personnel who 
        formulate or carry out:
            (1) programs for the 1974 crop year under which the 
        aggregate payments for the wheat, feed grains and upland cotton 
        programs for price support, set-aside, diversion and resource 
        adjustment to one person exceed $20,000, or
            (2) a program effective after December 31, 1973 which 
        sanctions the sale or lease of cotton acreage allotments.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman reserves a point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, the Commodity Credit Corporation of 
    the Department of Agriculture has some $3 or $4 billion; it has 
    certain obligations and authority under its charter, and that money 
    they now have is not in this bill.

[[Page 6290]]

        This amendment, if passed, would in no way affect the 
    Corporation. It has 3 or 4 billions of dollars which in turn it 
    already had with obligations under the charter under which it is 
    formulated.

        The amendment at this point would not reach funds already 
    available with existing authority and under a charter.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi make a point 
    of order against the substitute?
        Mr. Whitten: Yes, I will make the point of order at this point, 
    that if it be held that this goes to the action of a corporation 
    that presently has $3 to $4 billion, that presently has a charter 
    which directs it to carry out what is prohibited by this provision; 
    that if this amendment attempts to reach that corporation which has 
    a corporation charter, it is legislation on an appropriations bill 
    and, therefore, subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Findley: Yes. . . .
        The amendment which I have offered as a substitute to the Conte 
    amendment is a limitation of salaries of personnel. Personnel, of 
    course, includes the Secretary of Agriculture, all of his 
    lieutenants right down to the CCC level. Even if, as the gentleman 
    argues, the limitation could not apply to the salaries of CCC 
    personnel, which I do not concede, nevertheless this amendment 
    would be effective in establishing the limitation it seeks to 
    effect, because it would go to the salary of the Secretary. All of 
    the authority that is in the draft bill now before the Committee on 
    Agriculture dealing with continuing farm legislation goes to the 
    Secretary as a person.
        This is a limitation on the expenditure of funds, a limitation 
    that goes to the expenditure of salaries, and therefore entirely 
    within the rules of the House as being germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has offered an 
    amendment, for which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) has 
    offered a substitute.
        The gentleman from Mississippi has raised a point of order 
    against the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments and has carefully read 
    the text of the proposed substitute. The Chair notes that the 
    substitute would restrict funds provided by this act, providing 
    that none of such funds should be used to pay salaries of personnel 
    to carry out certain programs. As such, insofar as it applies to 
    the funds provided in this act, the substitute would be a 
    limitation on the appropriation bill and would not be legislation, 
    and is therefore in order.
        The Chair would point out that nothing in such substitute could 
    act officially or affirmatively to inhibit payment of funds that 
    are not provided in this act. As the Chair reads the proposed 
    substitute, there is no language which would affect, limit, or 
    inhibit funds other than those provided in this act.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Limiting Funds ``In Any Fiscal Year''

Sec. 64.17 Where a limitation seeks to provide that ``funds

[[Page 6291]]

    appropriated by this Act'' shall not be used ``in any fiscal year'' 
    for a certain purpose, the addition of the phrase ``in any fiscal 
    year'' has no effect, because the measure can apply only to the 
    fiscal year for which funds are being appropriated; thus the phrase 
    does not destroy the character of the limitation.

    On May 26, 1965,(6) during consideration of an 
Agriculture Department appropriation bill (H.R. 8370), it was held that 
an amendment, specifying that no part of the funds therein shall be 
used ``in any fiscal year'' for farm program payments aggregating more 
than $50,000 to any person or corporation, was a proper limitation. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 11660-62, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 506. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of the 
    Department for research and service work authorized by the Acts of 
    August 14, 1946, July 28, 1954, and September 6, 1958 (7 U.S.C. 
    427, 1621-1629; 42 U.S.C. 1891-1893), shall be available for 
    contracting in accordance with said Acts.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: Page 37, after line 2, 
        insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 507. No part of any funds appropriated by this Act 
        may, in any fiscal year, be used, directly or indirectly, to 
        make payments to any person, partnership, or corporation in an 
        aggregate amount in excess of $50,000 in connection with any 
        price-support program or combination of programs for price 
        support or stabilization, irrespective of whether such payments 
        are on account of loans, purchases, or subsidies or are 
        otherwise authorized.''. . .

        [A point of order was made, as follows:]
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: This amendment would 
    require the keeping of books, it would require substantive 
    additional duties on many people because many producers produce 
    many different crops. This would be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Dingell] offered an amendment to page 37, line 2, which is a new 
    section. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To which amendment the gentleman from Mississippi makes the 
    point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that since the amendment is 
    directed to funds appropriated by the pending act, the phrase ``in 
    any fiscal year'' is not applicable, nor in fact is it necessary. 
    But the Chair is further of the opinion that this is an express 
    limitation on the funds appropriated by the pending bill, and holds 
    that the amendment is in order, and overrules the point of order.

[[Page 6292]]

When Amendment May Be Offered

Sec. 64.18 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a new 
    section limiting the use of all appropriations in the bill may be 
    offered after sufficiently diverse parts of the bill have been read 
    and is not required to come at the end of the bill.

    On June 28, 1952,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8370, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8503, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Page 37, 
    after line 2 insert a new section as follows:
        ``Sec.--. (a) No part of any appropriation made by this act for 
    any purpose shall be used for the payment of personal services in 
    excess of an amount equal to 85 percent of the amount requested for 
    personal services for such purpose in budget estimates heretofore 
    submitted to the Congress for the fiscal year 1953; and the total 
    amount of each appropriation, any part of which is available for 
    the payment of personal services for any purpose, is hereby reduced 
    by an amount equal to 15 percent of the amount requested in such 
    budget estimates for personal services for such purpose less an 
    amount representing the reduction, if any, between the amount 
    requested for personal services in the budget estimates and the 
    amount appropriated herein for such services.
        ``(b) This section shall not apply to--
        ``(1) not to exceed 25 percent of all vacancies;
        ``(2) positions filled from within the Mutual Security Agency 
    and related Government functions provided for in this act;
        ``(3) offices or positions required by law to be filled by 
    appointment of the President by and with the advice and consent of 
    the Senate;
    Provided further, That subsection (1) of paragraph (b) shall 
    operate to accomplish the provisions of paragraph (a), and the said 
    85 percent shall not be exceeded at any time during fiscal year 
    1953; and Provided further, each agency shall impound and deposit 
    in the general fund of the Treasury as soon as practicable, but not 
    less frequently than quarterly an amount equivalent to the savings 
    resulting from the vacant positions which are prohibited from being 
    filled by this section, based on the salaries of the prior 
    incumbents of the positions.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. The amendment applies to the act 
    and should be placed at the end of the act, rather than at the end 
    of the chapter which we are now considering. I wonder if the 
    gentleman will not withdraw the amendment at this time, and offer 
    it at the conclusion of the act.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

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

[[Page 6293]]

        The language contained in this amendment might well appear at 
    any part of the act. It is not of such a nature that it must come 
    at the conclusion of the measure now under consideration. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Legislation Permitted by Special Rule

Sec. 64.19 The House, by resolution, has given the Committee on 
    Appropriations authority to incorporate in any appropriation 
    measure legislative recommendations emanating from the 
    investigation authorized to be conducted by that committee in that 
    resolution, as, for example, a prohibition of expenditures in other 
    acts for salary or compensation to certain persons found by the 
    committee to be subversive, notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 17, 1943,(10) H.R. 2714, an urgent deficiency 
appropriation, was being considered in the Committee of the Whole. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 4558, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John H.) Kerr (of North Carolina): On 
    page 36, after line 23, insert as a new section the following:
        ``Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation, allocation, or fund 
    (1) which is made available under or pursuant to this act, or (2) 
    which is now, or which is hereafter made, available under or 
    pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
    instrumentality of the United States, shall be used to pay any part 
    of the salary, or other compensation for the personal services, of 
    Goodwin B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., and Robert Morss Lovett: 
    Provided, That this section shall not operate to deprive any such 
    person of payment for leaves of absence or salary, or of any refund 
    or reimbursement, which have accrued prior to the date of the 
    enactment of this act.''
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: I make a point of order against the language 
    in line 3 of the amendment just offered, as follows:

            Which is now, or which is hereafter made, available under 
        or pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States--

        And so forth. This amendment seeks to limit an appropriation in 
    some other appropriation bill. It goes beyond this bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    is made in order by House Resolution 105, authorizing the 
    investigation, providing--as shown on page 2 of the re

[[Page 6294]]

    port, House Report No. 448--as follows:

            Any legislation approved by the committee as a result of 
        this resolution may be incorporated in any general or special 
        appropriation measure emanating from such committee or may be 
        offered as a committee amendment to any such measure 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.

        Under that provision, the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: May I say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that would 
    be true if the amendment offered were limited to this 
    appropriation, but the amendment offered extends to appropriations 
    not made by this bill.
        The Chairman: The language appears to be rather plain and 
    specific to the Chair, ``any legislation approved by the Committee 
    as a result of this resolution may be incorporated in any general 
    or special appropriation measure.''
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

    Note: The text of House Resolution 105 was as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 734, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting through 
    a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman of such 
    committee for the purposes of this resolution, is authorized and 
    directed to examine into any and all allegations or charges that 
    certain persons in the employ of the several executive departments 
    and other executive agencies are unfit to continue in such 
    employment by reason of their present association or membership or 
    past association or membership in or with organizations whose aims 
    or purposes are or have been subversive to the Government of the 
    United States. Such examination shall be pursued with the view of 
    obtaining all available evidence bearing upon each particular case 
    and reporting to the House the conclusions of the committee with 
    respect to each such case in the light of the factual evidence 
    obtained. Any legislation approved by the committee as a result of 
    this resolution may be incorporated in any general or special 
    appropriation measure emanating from such committee or may be 
    offered as a committee amendment to any such measure 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.
        For the purposes of this resolution, such committee or any 
    subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses, 
    and the production of such books or papers or documents or vouchers 
    by subpena or otherwise, and to take such testimony and records as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person 
    designated by him, and shall be served by such person or persons as 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee may designate. The 
    chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any member thereof, 
    may administer oaths to witnesses.

Restriction on Transfer of Funds to Activities Funded in Paragraph

Sec. 64.20 A provision in a paragraph of a general appro

[[Page 6295]]

    priation bill prohibiting the transfer of funds therein to any 
    other account or activity unless specifically authorized was held 
    to be a proper limitation on the use of funds in the paragraph.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 27289, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the points of 
    order made against the language are conceded down to line 7, page 
    23, but the language of that ``Provided further,'' is a simple 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and is not subject to a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair agrees with the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The various points of order that are conceded are sustained, 
    and that language is stricken. The language:
        Provided further, That none of the funds available under this 
        heading shall be available for transfer to any other account 
        nor for the funding of any activities other than those 
        specifically authorized under this heading.

        Which is a proper limitation and appears beginning in line 7, 
    page 23, through line 10, remains in the bill, since the point of 
    order has not been made against the entire paragraph.

Permanent Legislation; Use of ``Hereafter''

Sec. 64.21 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,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill (H.R. 10630), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 1300, 1305, 1306, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (16) 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 ap

[[Page 6296]]

    propriations. Therefore, the amendment contains legislation; and 
    the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Administrative Policy by Negative Restriction on Use of Funds

Sec. 64.22 While a limitation may not involve a permanent change of 
    existing law, the allegation that it may result in a change of 
    administrative policy would not itself render it subject to a point 
    of order if only a negative limitation on use of funds.

    On May 11, 1960,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117), a point of order was raised against the following 
section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, section 408 provides that 
    none of the funds appropriated by H.R. 12117, making appropriations 
    for the Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration, 
    shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
    Department--except the Secretary--who serves as a member of the 
    Board of Directors of CCC, or as an officer of CCC, in addition to 
    other regular duties with the Department.
        This reverses a decision made by the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the Congress in 1949, when the CCC Charter Act was 
    amended to strike out a similar restriction which had been enacted 
    in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and the mere fact it is put 
    in the form of a limitation on the use of funds appropriated by the 
    bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, volume 7, of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it

[[Page 6297]]

        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would also have to 
    recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers of the 
    Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protection of 
    the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government money. On 
    the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at additional 
    expense to the Government.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten: Mr. Chairman, the section clearly 
    provides a limitation on the use of funds that are appropriated in 
    this bill. It does not change the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    charter. It does not change any basic law. It just simply limits 
    what the money in this bill can be used for. It has been my 
    experience and observation during the years here that the Chair has 
    many times said that it is a negative limitation on the use of 
    money and that it is clearly in order, and on that I rest the 
    committee's position.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown] makes a point of order 
    against the language in section 408 of the bill on the ground that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There are other recent rulings in which the 
Chair has chosen to rely on 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694 rather than 
on Sec. 1691 in permitting limitations on use of funds. See 118 Cong. 
Rec. 30749, 30750, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1972; 120 Cong. Rec. 
20601, 20602, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1974; 120 Cong. Rec. 34716, 
93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1974. The two rulings noted above, found at 
7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1691 and 1694, are discussed in more 
detail in Sec. 5s1, supra.

Burden of Proof as to Whether Language ``Changes Existing Law''

Sec. 64.23 The Chair strictly interprets the provisions of

[[Page 6298]]

    Rule XXI clause 2 prohibiting amendments to general appropriation 
    bills which change existing law; and if a proposed limitation on 
    the use of funds goes beyond the traditionally permissible objects 
    of a limitation, as for example restricting discretion in the 
    timing of expenditure of funds rather than restricting their use 
    for a specific object or purpose, the Chair is constrained to rule 
    that the amendment is legislation failing a convincing argument by 
    the proponent showing that the amendment does not change existing 
    law.

    On July 28, 1980,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
and independent agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 7631), an amendment 
was offered and ruled upon as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 19924, 19925, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia): Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: Page 45, after line 23, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 413. No more than an amount equal to 20 percent of the 
        total funds appropriated under this Act for any agency for any 
        fiscal year and apportioned to such agency pursuant to section 
        3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C. 
        665) may be obligated during the last two months of such fiscal 
        year. . . .

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Indiana 
    (Mr. Myers) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered an amendment to limit 
    the appropriations to a specific time; but I respectfully suggest 
    that the fact the gentleman has added the words, ``No more than'' 
    is still not, in fact, a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are limiting here, not 
    directing, but limiting the authority to the last 2 months how much 
    may be spent takes away the discretionary authority of the 
    Executive which might be needed in this case. It clearly is more 
    than an administrative detail when you limit and you take away the 
    right of the Executive to use the funds prudently, to take 
    advantage of saving money for the Executive, which we all should be 
    interested in, and I certainly am, too; but Mr. Chairman, rule 843 
    provides that you cannot take away that discretionary authority of 
    the Executive.
        This attempt in this amendment does take that discretionary 
    authority to save money, to wisely allocate money prudently and it 
    takes away, I think, authority that we rightfully should keep with 
    the Executive, that you can accumulate funds and spend them in the 
    last quarter if it is to the advantage of the taxpayer and the 
    Executive. . . .

[[Page 6299]]

        Mr. Harris: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me first address the last 
    point, probably because it is the weakest that the gentleman has 
    made with respect to his point of order.
        With respect to the discretion that we are in any way limiting 
    the President, we cannot limit the discretion which we have not 
    given the President directly through legislation. There is no 
    discretion with regard to legislation that we have overtly 
    legislated and given to the President.
        Mr. Chairman, section 665(c)(3) of title 31 of the United 
    States Code, which states the following:

            Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed as may be deemed appropriate by the officers 
        designated in subsection (d) of this section to make 
        apportionments and reapportionments.

        Clearly grants agency budget officers the discretionary 
    authority to apportion the funds in a manner they deem appropriate. 
    My amendment would not interfere with this authority to apportion 
    funds. On the contrary, my amendment reaffirms this section of the 
    United States Code, as Deschler's Procedures, in the U.S. House of 
    Representatives, chapter 26, section 1.8, states:

            The provision of the rule forbidding in any general 
        appropriation bill a ``provision changing existing law'' is 
        construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists, or a 
        proposition for repeal of existing law. Existing law may be 
        repeated verbatim in an appropriation bill, but the slightest 
        change of the text causes it to be ruled out.

        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, 
    specifically restates by reference the existing law, which in no 
    way gives discretion as to spending, but gives discretion as to 
    apportionment.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the budget execution cycle 
    has many steps. Whereas the Chair's earlier ruling related to the 
    executive branch authority to apportion, my amendment addresses the 
    obligation rate of funds appropriated under the fact. As OMB 
    circular No. A-34 (July 15, 1976) titled ``Budget Execution'' 
    explains:

            Apportionment is a distribution made by OMB.
            Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts 
        awarded, services received, and similar transactions.

        Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes some additional duties, but 
    only a very minimal additional duty upon the executive branch.
        Deschler's chapter 26, section 11.1 says:

            The application of any limitation on an appropriation bill 
        places some minimal extra duties on Federal officials, who, if 
        nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds 
        falls within that prohibited by the limitation. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . In the first instance, the Chair would 
    observe that it is not the duty of the Chair or the authority of 
    the Chair to rule on the wisdom or the legislative effect of 
    amendments.
        Second, the Chair will observe that the gentleman from 
    Virginia, in the way in which his amendment has been drafted, 
    satisfies the requirements of the Apportionment Act, which was the 
    subject of a prior ruling of the Chair in connection with another 
    piece of legislation.

[[Page 6300]]

        The Chair agrees with the basic characterization made by the 
    gentleman from Indiana that the precedents of the House relating to 
    limitations on general appropriation bills stand for the 
    proposition that a limitation to be in order must apply to a 
    specific purpose, or object, or amount of appropriation. The 
    doctrine of limitations on a general appropriation bill has emerged 
    over the years from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the 
    Whole, and is not stated in clause 2, rule XXI itself as an 
    exception from the prohibition against inclusion of provisions 
    which ``change existing law.'' Thus the Chair must be guided by the 
    most persuasive body of precedent made known to him in determining 
    whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris) ``changes existing law.'' Under the precedents in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 26, section 1.12, the proponent of an 
    amendment has the burden of proving that the amendment does not 
    change existing law.
        The Chair feels that the basic question addressed by the point 
    of order is as follows: Does the absence in the precedents of the 
    House of any ruling holding in order an amendment which attempts to 
    restrict not the purpose or object or amount of appropriation, but 
    to limit the timing of the availability of funds within the period 
    otherwise covered by the bill, require the Chair to conclude that 
    such an amendment is not within the permissible class of amendments 
    held in order as limitations? The precedents require the Chair to 
    strictly interpret clause 2, rule XXI, and where language is 
    susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is incumbent upon 
    proponent of the language to show that it is not in violation of 
    the rule (Deschler's chapter 25, section 6.3).

        In essence, the Chair is reluctant, based upon arguments 
    submitted to him, to expand the doctrine of limitations on general 
    appropriation bills to permit negative restrictions on the use of 
    funds which go beyond the amount, purpose, or object of an 
    appropriation, and the Chair therefore and accordingly sustains the 
    point of order.

Limiting Commingled Funds

Sec. 64.24 As long as a limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill restricts the expenditure of federal funds 
    carried in the bill without changing existing law, the limitation 
    is in order, even if those federal funds are under the program in 
    question commingled with nonfederal funds which would have to be 
    accounted for separately in carrying out the limitation.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(1) the Chair ruled that an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill denying the use of funds therein to pay 
for an abortion, or administrative expenses in connection with any 
federal employees' health benefits plan which provides any benefits or 
coverage for abortions after the

[[Page 6301]]

last day of contracts currently in force, did not constitute 
legislation, since the amendment did not directly interfere with 
executive discretion (in contracting to establish such plans). (It is 
permissible by limitation to negatively deny the availability of funds 
although discretionary authority may be indirectly curtailed and 
contracts may be left unsatisfied.) The proceedings are discussed in 
Sec. 74.5, infra. See Sec. 51, supra, for discussion of provisions 
affecting the discretionary authority of officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 22171, 22172, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitation Resulting in Unsatisfied Contracts

Sec. 64.25 An appropriation may be withheld from a designated object by 
    a negative limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill, although contracts may be left unsatisfied 
    thereby.

    On July 10, 1975,(2) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of Interstate Highway System 
funds in the bill by any state which permits the Interstate System to 
be used by vehicles in excess of certain sizes and weights but not 
interfering with contractual obligations entered into prior to 
enactment was held in order as a negative limitation on the use of 
funds in the bill which did not impose new duties on federal officials 
(who were already under an obligation to determine vehicle weights and 
widths in each state) and which did not directly change an allocation 
formula in existing law. The proceedings are discussed in detail in 
Sec. 69.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 22006, 22007, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitation Interfering With Discretion

Sec. 64.26 A negative restriction on the availability of funds in a 
    general appropriation bill may be a proper limitation, although it 
    indirectly interferes with an executive official's discretionary 
    authority by denying the use of funds, as long as it does not 
    directly amend existing law and is merely descriptive of functions 
    and findings already required to be undertaken by existing law.

    On June 24, 1976,(3) it was held that, where existing 
law prohibited the implementation by any court, department, or agency 
of a plan to transport students to a school other than the school 
nearest or next nearest their homes

[[Page 6302]]

which offers the appropriate grade level and type of education for each 
student (thus requiring determinations of school proximity and 
curriculum to be made by federal officials), a paragraph in a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for the 
transportation of students to a school other than the school nearest 
their homes and offering the courses of study pursued by such students 
was in order as a negative limitation on the use of funds in that bill 
which did not directly amend existing law and which did not impose new 
determinations on federal officials which they were not already 
required by law to make. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 20408-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 208. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
        used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of 
        any student to a school other than the school which is nearest 
        the student's home, and which offers the courses of study 
        pursued by such student, in order to comply with title VI of 
        the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . .

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the language set forth in section 208 of this bill 
    constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, in clear 
    violation of rule XXI, section 2. . . .
        Under existing law, that is, section 215(a) of the Equal 
    Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (title II of P.L. 93-380, 
    enacted August 21, 1974), the transportation of students as part of 
    a school desegregation plan or effort under mandate of Federal 
    authorities is permitted or authorized, but only within prescribed 
    distances from a student's home.
        Section 215(a) prescribes that:

            No court, department, or agency of the United States shall, 
        pursuant to Section 214, order the implementation of a plan 
        that would require the transportation of any student to a 
        school other than the school closest or next closest to his 
        place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level 
        and type of education for such student.

        Mr. Chairman, this is the standard of existing law, governing 
    the ordering of transportation of a student for purposes of school 
    desegregation, that is, not beyond the school closest or next 
    closest to his place of residence. . . .
        On its face, section 208, the so-called Byrd amendment, changes 
    existing law (section 215(a) cited above) in the following 
    particulars:
        First: Whereas existing law permits the transportation of a 
    student to the closest or ``next closest'' school, section 208 
    restricts such transportation to the ``nearest'' school, only, 
    thereby changing existing law;
        Secondly: Whereas existing law is silent on the point, section 
    208 forbids student transportation ``directly or indirectly'' 
    beyond the ``closest'' school, thereby creating new law on that 
    point;
        Third: Whereas existing law only forbids HEW's implementation 
    of a school desegregation plan requiring transportation beyond the 
    ``next closest'' school, section 208 forbids transportation be

[[Page 6303]]

    yond the ``closest'' school, plan or no plan, thereby changing 
    existing law; and
        Fourth: Whereas existing law prohibits transportation to a 
    school other than one ``which provides the appropriate grade level 
    and type of education for such student'', section 208 of this 
    appropriation bill changes existing law by restricting such 
    transportation to a school ``which offers the courses of study 
    pursued by such student'', only. While section 208 would be in 
    order if it merely repeated, verbatim, the provisions of existing 
    law (that is, section 215(a) described above), it clearly differs 
    from, goes beyond, and changes section 215(a) in the several ways 
    that I have indicated.
        That, Mr. Chairman, is a fatal defect, for subsection 842 of 
    rule XXI declares existing law may be repeated verbatim in an 
    appropriation bill (IV Hinds' precedents, 3814, 3815) but the 
    slightest change of the text causes it to be ruled out (IV Hinds' 
    precedents 3817; Cannon's precedents 1391, 1394; Cong. Record, June 
    4, 1970, p. 18405). . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, very 
    simply, and very clearly, and the legal minds will understand the 
    terminology, this provision is in the form of a limitation, period. 
    It is strictly limited to the funds appropriated in this bill. The 
    clear intent here is to impose what is known as a negative 
    prohibition--a negative prohibition--of the use of the funds 
    contained in this bill. It would not under any circumstances impose 
    any additional duties or any additional burdens on the executive 
    branch other than those already required in the enforcement of 
    existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) May the Chair inquire of the 
    chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with respect to whether 
    or not the terms of section 208 would require additional 
    determinations by the administrator. The Chair would ask the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania for his response as to whether the 
    standard of an appropriate grade level and type of education for 
    such students, which is stipulated in the Equal Educational 
    Opportunity Act of 1974, is a different standard from that set 
    forth in section 208 of the bill pending before us--that is, 
    courses of study pursued by such student.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question that the Chair is attempting to arrive at 
    basically is whether or not the requirement of a determination with 
    respect to courses of study pursued by such student would in any 
    substantial way differ from the requirement in the statute of a 
    determination of the appropriate grade level and type of education 
    offered by the schools.
        Mr. Flood: No, Mr. Chairman, the direct answer is this does not 
    require different standards. It is merely an expression in a 
    different way. It is not a requirement of any different standards. 
    It is an expression in a different way.
        The Chairman: The Chair thanks the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 
    The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) makes the point of order 
    against section 208 of the present bill and supports his point of 
    order with a well documented brief and very persuasive verbal 
    argument on the subject.

[[Page 6304]]

        Basically, three questions seem to be involved. The first 
    question is whether or not section 208 repeals or changes existing 
    law.
        It seems to the Chair that that question is answered 
    satisfactorily by the chairman of the subcommittee when he declares 
    that it does not directly amend existing law, but rather imposes a 
    negative restriction only with respect to moneys contained in this 
    present appropriation bill and that it is written as a limitation 
    upon funds in this bill.
        The second question occurs, of course, as to whether or not it 
    imposes additional duties upon a Federal official.
        That divides itself into two basic subquestions in the opinion 
    of the Chair.
        The first is whether the requirement in section 208 referring 
    only to the school nearest the student's residence requires an 
    additional duty over and above that required under the Equal 
    Education Opportunity Act of 1974. That law proscribes a court or 
    department or agency from ordering the transportation of students 
    to schools other than those either closest or next closest to their 
    homes. The Chair believes that no additional duties would be 
    imposed upon the Administrator by section 208 of the bill since the 
    Administrator already is required under existing law to make 
    determinations to ascertain the existence and location of the 
    comparable schools nearest and next nearest to the students' homes. 
    Therefore the Chair feels that the determination of the existence 
    of the school nearest the student's home would not be an additional 
    burden in that the law already compels the Administrator to make 
    that finding.
        The second subquestion involved is that of whether or not an 
    additional burden would be imposed by reason of the reference under 
    section 208 to ``the courses of study pursued by such student'' in 
    the schools involved. And the Chair, relying primarily upon the 
    information provided in response to its inquiry by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania and relying upon his own impression as well 
    believes that ``the courses of study pursued by such student'' are 
    essentially the same tests as that required in the Equal Education 
    Opportunity Act, the appropriate grade level and type of education.
        Now only one other question was addressed, it seems to the 
    Chair, and that was the question bearing upon a fairly well 
    established rule to the effect that existing law may be repeated 
    verbatim in an appropriation bill but the slightest change of the 
    text causes it to be ruled out. The Chair does not believe that 
    section 208 purports to be a statement of existing law. For each of 
    these reasons, and based upon the precedent cited by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania and recognizing that the committee could have 
    refused to appropriate any funds for implementation of 
    transportation plans, the Chair believes that section 208 is 
    properly in order as a limitation on an appropriation bill and 
    overrules the point of order.

Prohibiting Use of Funds to Enforce Particular Internal Revenue Service 
    Ruling

Sec. 64.27 An amendment to a general appropriation bill

[[Page 6305]]

    prohibiting the use of funds therein to carry out any ruling of the 
    Internal Revenue Service which rules that taxpayers are not 
    entitled to certain charitable deductions was held in order as a 
    limitation, since the amendment was merely descriptive of an 
    existing ruling already promulgated by that agency and did not 
    require new determinations as to the applicability of the 
    limitation to other categories of taxpayers.

    On July 16, 1979,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4393 (Treasury Department, Postal 
Service, and general government appropriation bill), a point of order 
against an amendment was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 18808-10, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of 
        California]: Page 39, after line 18, add the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 613. None of the funds available under this Act may be 
        used to carry out any revenue ruling of the Internal Revenue 
        Service which rules that a taxpayer is not entitled to a 
        charitable deduction for general purpose contributions which 
        are used for educational purposes by a religious organization 
        which is an exempt organization as described in section 
        170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I want to insist 
    upon my point of order.
        Regardless of the merit of the subject matter here, this 
    obviously is not a limitation on an appropriation. It is evident by 
    the author's own statement that many things will be involved if 
    this amendment is adopted, that would be forced upon the agency, 
    that are not otherwise involved. It is in direct violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, because it does create legislative action.
        This is obviously a matter that only the legislative committee 
    can cope with, and so because it is a violation of that rule I 
    insist that the point of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: . . . I can assure the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Steed) that I checked out this amendment with the Parliamentarian's 
    Office, and I was told that the amendment was in order as a 
    limitation on an appropriations bill. There is no additional burden 
    imposed on Federal executive offices. IRS officials already perform 
    the simple ministerial requirement of analyzing our tax returns. 
    The amendment is negative in nature. It shows retrenchment on its 
    face. It is germane. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the 
    gentleman, if he desires, I will read some relevant excerpts from 
    Cannon's Precedents which demonstrate that the amendment is in 
    order. . . .
        [I]n section 1515:

            An amendment prohibiting payment of fees to officials under 
        certain contingencies was held to retrench expenditures and to 
        come within the exception to the rule against admis

[[Page 6306]]

        sion of legislation on appropriation bills. . . .

        Section 1491:

            If the obvious effect of an amendment is to reduce 
        expenditures, it is not necessary that it provide for such 
        reduction in definite terms and amount in order to come within 
        the exception.

        Section 1493, and I will conclude with this one--

            A cessation of Government activities was held to involve a 
        retrenchment of expenditures. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment obviously adds a burden to the IRS to establish a 
    different standard from that which would be applicable under 
    existing law. If it did not, the amendment would be of no effect. 
    What is attempted to be done here is to provide a different rule of 
    law and impose that on the IRS by what is called a retrenchment in 
    an appropriations bill. If this may be done in the name of 
    retrenchment of expenditures, then any law of this Nation may be 
    changed. Funds may not be permitted to go to any agency which makes 
    a determination of an administrative sort unless that determination 
    is different from that which the law would permit to apply under 
    the circumstances. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. The Chair is of the opinion that retrenchment 
    precedents under the Holman rule, do not apply in this situation 
    since no certain reduction in funds is involved. The Chair is of 
    the opinion that there are no precedents directly in point and the 
    Chair is not aware that the gentleman has sought the advice of the 
    Chair's advisers on this particular amendment but on a somewhat 
    similar amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that what is involved in the 
    amendment is a particular ruling which applied to a single case and 
    that, therefore, no new determination has to be made by the IRS. It 
    does not require the IRS to make new rulings or determinations. The 
    amendment does not describe a situation where the IRS must look at 
    every religious contribution to determine if it applies. The 
    amendment is somewhat analogous to that in Deschler's [Procedure], 
    chapter 25, section 10.16, which was held in order.
        Therefore, the Chair thinks the amendment is in order, and the 
    point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A different result might now be required 
under clause 5(b) of the present Rule XXI, which provides: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846b, 99th Cong. (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure 
    shall be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to 
    report tax and tariff measures, nor shall an amendment in the House 
    or proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure be in 
    order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
    reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of 
    order on a tax or tariff measure in any such bill, joint 
    resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any time.

[[Page 6307]]

    In a ruling under this provision on Sept. 12, 1984,(8) a 
Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
funds in that or any other act by the Internal Revenue Service to 
impose or assess any tax due under a designated provision of the 
Internal Revenue Code was held to be a tax measure within the meaning 
of Rule XXI clause 5(b), as it had the effect of repealing a tax by 
rendering it uncollectable through the use of all funds available to 
the collecting agency. Of course, the amendment in question in the 1984 
ruling was not a proper limitation. The extent to which any and all 
proper limitations on Internal Revenue Service funds are to be 
construed as tax or tariff measures under Rule XXI clause 5(b) is a 
matter to be spelled out in subsequent rulings. For example, on Aug. 1, 
1986, during consideration of H.R. 5294 (Treasury Department and Postal 
Service appropriation bill for fiscal 1987), it was held that a 
proposed limitation on the use of funds may violate Rule XXI clause 
5(b) where it is shown that the imposition of the restriction on 
Internal Revenue Service funding for the fiscal year would effectively 
and inevitably preclude the IRS from collecting revenues otherwise due 
and owing by law, or require collection of revenue not legally due or 
owing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5798, Treasury Department and Postal Service 
        appropriations for fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restricting Use of Funds--to Carry Out Particular Regulation

Sec. 64.28 It is in order on a general appropriation bill to deny the 
    use of funds to carry out an existing regulation, and the fact that 
    the regulation for which funds are denied may have been promulgated 
    pursuant to court order and pursuant to constitutional provisions 
    is an argument on the merits of the amendment and does not render 
    it legislative in nature.

    On Aug. 19, 1980,(9) the Chair held that an amendment to 
a general appropriation bill denying the use of funds therein for the 
Internal Revenue Service to carry out certain published tax procedures 
did not impose new duties or determinations on the executive branch and 
did not constitute leg

[[Page 6308]]

islation. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 21981, 21983, 21984, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of 
        California]: Page 8, after line 22, insert the following new 
        sections:
            Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated by this title may 
        be used to carry out the proposed revenue procedure 4830-01-M 
        of the Internal Revenue Service entitled ``Proposed Revenue 
        Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools'' (44 F.R. 9451 through 
        9455, February 13, 1979, F.R. Document 79-4801), or the 
        proposed revenue procedure 4830-01 of the Internal Revenue 
        Service entitled ``Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-
        Exempt Schools'' (43 F.R. 37296 through 37298, August 22, 1978, 
        F.R. Document 78-23515); or parts thereof. . . .

        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I join in 
    a reservation of a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I think what we are doing is that we are 
    attempting again to legislate on an appropriation bill. It is clear 
    that the proponents of this type of amendment on previous occasions 
    were saying that the IRS has attempted to legislate and to go 
    beyond the scope that the Congress wanted to go and that they were 
    waiting for a court to review the jurisdiction of the IRS to make 
    certain that they would not be doing acts which this Congress has 
    the responsibility to perform.
        Now we find that the courts have responded, and they responded 
    specifically not only to the proposed regulations but to the 
    constitutional obligations that we not fund schools that involved 
    themselves in racial discrimination; and certainly no Member of the 
    House, including the proponents of this amendment, would support 
    that. But they have specifically given guidelines. They have 
    directed what the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue would have 
    to do, and the Commissioner would indeed be guilty of contempt if 
    he did not follow those court directions.
        It would seem to me that that is one argument as to why my 
    point of order should be sustained; but my second argument would be 
    that certainly it would not be equal protection under the law if 
    what the proponent of this amendment is really saying that if, 
    indeed, a teaching institution found itself losing its tax 
    exemption in Mississippi because of the Green case and then right 
    across the Mississippi River we found a different standard that had 
    been enacted by the IRS, I do not believe that this is what our 
    constitutional fathers really thought was equal protection under 
    the law. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: . . . I refer again to Deschler's Procedure, 
    chapter 25, section 10.16:

            Sec. 10.16 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill 
        containing funds for expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, 
        an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds in the bill for 
        financing revenue rulings, letters, or advice not made 
        available to the general public was held in order as a negative 
        limitation which did not affirmatively impose new duties on 
        that agency. 120 Cong. Rec. 21029, 21030, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 25, 1974 [H.R. 15544].

        Under section 10.18:

            Sec. 10.18 While language in a general appropriation bill 
        may not by its terms directly curtail a discretionary authority 
        conferred by law, the Committee on Appropriations may, by re

[[Page 6309]]

        fusing to recommend funds for all or part of an authorized 
        executive function, thereby effect a change in policy to the 
        extent of its denial of availability of funds. 120 Cong. Rec. 
        34716, 34717, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974 [H.R. 16901], 
        where a section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
        use of any funds therein by the Environmental Protection 
        Agency--

        As a case example--
        ``to administer any program to tax, limit or otherwise regulate 
        parking facilities'' was held in order as a negative limitation 
        on the use of funds in the bill.

        Also, I think section 10.19 supports my amendment:

            Sec. 10.19 It is in order on a general appropriation bill 
        to provide that no part, or only a specified amount, of an 
        appropriation shall be used in a certain way, even though 
        executive discretion be thereby negatively restricted. 118 
        Cong. Rec. 30749, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1972 [H.R. 
        16593]--

        They gave as an example:
        where an amendment to a defense 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. . . .

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the word 
    ``charitable'' is used in its common law sense in the Internal 
    Revenue Code. . . .
        In the case of education, the . . . public policy of 
    nondiscrimination in both public and private schools [is well 
    established, being] derived from the 14th amendment to the 
    Constitution and its application in the case of Brown versus Board 
    of Education, subsequent judicial decisions and certain provisions 
    of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, schools which follow 
    discriminatory admission policies fail to qualify as charitable 
    and, therefore, are not tax exempt.
        Under the amendment proposed by the gentleman from California, 
    Mr. Chairman, new duties are imposed upon the Internal Revenue 
    Service. Obviously, we are then legislating upon an appropriations 
    bill. . . .
        Obviously, once again we are referring back to the previous law 
    of 1978, while in the interim period we have now had new Federal 
    judicial determinations relative to 501(C).
        As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) made a very salient 
    point, is the fact that you cannot have Internal Revenue in the 
    posture where they must apply one set of rules and regulations to 
    the State of Mississippi and another set of rules and regulations 
    to the other 49 States.
        Obviously, the amendment proposed by the gentleman would create 
    confusion and also would impose new duties and regulations upon the 
    Internal Revenue Service not previously imposed upon them, either 
    by the law or their own regulations. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) . . . [T]he Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In a similar instance on July 16, 1979, an amendment to this 
    general appropriations bill last year prohibiting the use of funds 
    therein to carry out any ruling of the Internal Revenue Service, 
    which rules that taxpayers are

[[Page 6310]]

    not entitled to certain charitable deductions, was held in order as 
    a limitation, since the amendment was merely descriptive of an 
    existing ruling already promulgated by that agency and did not 
    require a new determination as to the applicability of the 
    limitation to other categories of taxpayers.
        In essence, the wording of this amendment is similar to the 
    wording of the amendment which was found in order. The Chair does 
    not see any new duties in any way imposed by the amendment.
        With reference to the court order issue, the language of the 
    amendment does not in any way speak to the question of court orders 
    or address the viability of court orders with regard to the 
    agency's actions.
        Lastly, with regard to the equal protection clause argument, 
    although those may be constitutional arguments which go to the 
    substance of the amendment, they do not go to the merits of the 
    parliamentary argument.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

--For Changing an Existing Regulation

Sec. 64.29 While an agency may have authority to promulgate new 
    regulations which would change existing regulations, it is in order 
    in a general appropriation bill to deny the use of funds therein 
    for agency proceedings relating to changes in regulations.

    The ruling of the Chair on June 27, 1984,(11) was that 
language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds 
therein to eliminate an existing legal requirement for sureties on 
customs bonds was in order as a valid limitation merely denying funds 
to change existing law and regulations. The point of order was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 513 on page 38.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 513. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
        the Department of Treasury may be used for the purpose of 
        eliminating any existing requirement for sureties on customs 
        bonds. . . .

        [This provision] violates rule XXI, clause 2. The section 
    prohibits the use of funds for the continuation of customs 
    rulemaking with respect to existing requirements for sureties on 
    customs bonds.
        The Customs Service has broad administrative authority to 
    establish guidelines for posting bonds for the payment of customs 
    duties.
        The rulemaking process is now underway to determine whether 
    existing requirements for sureties on customs bonds should be 
    modified or replaced altogether.
        Section 513 goes beyond the limitations of funds which are the 
    subject of this appropriation and constitutes an effort to change 
    existing law under the guise of a limitation. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 6311]]

        The Chair would rule that in fact this section does constitute 
    a proper limitation consistent with the existing law and overrules 
    the gentleman's point of order.

New Duties Required to Invalidate Limitation

Sec. 64.30 While all limitations on funds on appropriation bills 
    require federal officials to construe the language of that law in 
    administering those funds, that duty of statutory construction, 
    absent a further imposition of an affirmative direction not 
    required by law, does not destroy the validity of the limitation.

    On June 27, 1974,(13) an amendment restricting the use 
of funds in an appropriation bill for abortions or abortion referral 
services, abortifacient drugs or devices, and the promotion or 
encouragement of abortion, was held to be a negative limitation on 
funds in the bill imposing no new duties on federal officials other 
than to construe the language of the limitation in administering the 
funds. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 73.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 65. Imposing ``Incidental'' Duties

Duties Already Required by Law

Sec. 65.1 The fact that a limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill will impose certain incidental burdens on 
    executive officials will not destroy the character of the 
    limitation so long as those duties--such as statistical comparisons 
    and findings of residence and employment status--are already 
    mandated by law.

    On Aug. 25, 1976,(14) the Chair held that, where 
existing law authorizing public works employment programs required a 
federal official to consider the severity and duration of unemployment 
in project areas and to make grants to local governments to be 
administered for the direct benefit and employment of unemployed 
residents of the affected community, language in a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein where less than 
a certain percentage of the prospec

[[Page 6312]]

tive employees had resided in the area and had been unemployed for a 
stated length of time was in order as a limitation which did not impose 
upon federal officials any substantially new duties not already 
required by existing law. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 27737-39, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 52, 
        supra, for general discussion of provisions imposing new duties 
        on executive officials. And see Sec. 73.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses necessary to carry out title I of the Public 
        Works Employment Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-369), 
        $2,000,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000,000 may be 
        used for necessary administrative expenses, including expenses 
        for program evaluation by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided 
        further, None of the funds appropriated under this Chapter 
        shall be available for any project where less than ten percent 
        of the personnel to be employed on the project have currently 
        resided for at least thirty days in the area used in 
        determining project eligibility under Section 108(e) of Public 
        Law 94-369 and have been currently unemployed for at least 
        thirty days.

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language included in the proviso which 
    begins on page 2, line 11, and includes line 17, page 2. . . .
        Quite obviously, Mr. Chairman, this language is legislation, in 
    that it imposes requirements not present in the authorizing 
    legislation and not present in existing law. It imposes duties or 
    determinations upon the administrator who would be required to 
    investigate, quite obviously, all of the personnel to be employed 
    on various projects and to make determinations as to where they 
    reside and how long they have there resided and, in addition, to 
    make determinations as to which of them have been currently 
    unemployed for at least 30 days.
        Now, that does indeed impose a new burden and a new 
    determination and a new duty upon the Administrator.
        Citing Deschler's Procedures in the U.S. House of 
    Representatives, chapter 26, section 11, I quote the following:

            When an amendment, while curtailing certain uses of funds 
        carried in the bill, explicitly places new duties on officers 
        of the government or implicitly requires them to make 
        investigation, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
        determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it 
        assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
        of order.

        It should not be necessary for me to recite any lengthy number 
    of precedents since they abound. May I offer only two. In the 1st 
    session of the 91st Congress, on July 31, 1969, the Chair ruled 
    that an amendment to an education appropriation bill including the 
    words, ``in order to overcome racial imbalance,'' would be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill because it would impose 
    additional duties and determinations on school officials.
        On another occasion, during the second session of the 89th 
    Congress, on October 4, 1966, it was held by the Chair that a 
    general appropriation bill providing funds for Federal highways 
    constituted legislation if it included a provision specifying that 
    ``No funds shall be used for any highway . . . which requires 
    either unjustified or harmful nonconforming use of land.''
        In both of those cases, as well as in numerous other cases, it 
    has been uni

[[Page 6313]]

    formly held by the Chair that any provision in an appropriation 
    bill which imposes additional determinations and requirements upon 
    an administrator to make investigations or compile evidence or make 
    judgments and determinations not otherwise required by law is 
    legislation and, therefore, is subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, [the 
    proviso] is a limitation on funds in the bill, and it is restricted 
    only to funds in the bill. It is consistent with but does not 
    change existing law. The application of the limitation requires 
    only information which it is the intention of the Department of 
    Commerce to obtain under the rules and regulations required by 
    existing law.
        . . . Public Law 94-369, the Public Works Employment Act of 
    1976, provides in section 107--and I will read only part of the 
    section--as follows:

            The Secretary shall consider among other factors (1) the 
        severity and duration of unemployment in proposed project 
        areas, (2) the income levels and extent of underemployment in 
        proposed project areas. . . .

        Then section 108(e) of the act . . . [requires] the Department 
    of Commerce to issue rules and regulations and also [requires] that 
    any grant made to a local government based upon the unemployment 
    rate of a community or neighborhood within its jurisdiction . . . 
    be for a project of direct benefit to, or provide employment for, 
    unemployed persons who are residents of that community or 
    neighborhood.
        The law was enacted on July 22, 1976. The Department of 
    Commerce on August 23, 1976, in accordance with the act, released 
    the required regulations; and I have copies of them here. . . .
        The official guidelines provide [in part]:

            The applicant's intent to hire the unemployed of a specific 
        area must be considered. . . .

        [And]

            The project must definitely benefit or provide employment 
        for unemployed persons within that neighborhood or community. . 
        . .

        Mr. Chairman, the limitation does not require any significant 
    new duty, but is based on information and findings provided for in 
    the authorization or anticipated in the regulations issued under 
    the authorization. Such limitations have been found in order. . . .
        I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the burden 
    of certification . . . would rest on the contractors. It is the 
    contractors who will certify that they will obtain information from 
    applicants on their residence and employment. . . .
        Mr. Wright: . . . I want to say two basic things which I think 
    are pertinent to this question.
        The first is that it is wholly inappropriate to rely upon so-
    called official guidelines promulgated by an administrative agency 
    to support a contention that language in an appropriation bill does 
    not place obligations upon the administrator which are not required 
    by law. The question is whether it imposes additional obligations 
    upon that administrator which are not required by existing law.
        If this Congress ever should reach the point of declaring that 
    some administrative guideline published in the

[[Page 6314]]

    Federal Register and lying there for 30 days constitutes law, then 
    we shall have abrogated our most basic responsibilities. . . .
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Cederberg) quoted from a 
    portion of section 107 of the act in an effort to demonstrate that 
    the act itself requires these same determinations and findings that 
    the language in the appropriation bill would require. There is a 
    very significant difference between what the act requires and what 
    this proviso included in the appropriation bill would require.
        I call the attention of the chairman to the very language which 
    was cited by the gentleman from Michigan:

            The Secretary shall consider among other factors (1) the 
        severity and duration of unemployment in proposed project 
        areas, (2) the income levels and extent of underemployment in 
        proposed project areas, and (3) the extent to which proposed 
        projects will contribute to the reduction of unemployment.

        In other words, the requirements imposed by the law upon the 
    Secretary are very easily satisfied by statistical data available 
    through the Bureau of Labor Statistics with respect to unemployment 
    in specific areas geographically denominated within the country.
        Beyond that, however, the language which was proposed as an 
    exclusion in the appropriation bill would go much further than ask 
    the administrator to determine statistics with respect to general 
    areas. . . .
        It would expand the requirement of the determination from a 
    determination with respect to statistics applying to geographical 
    areas, to make this determination include individual employees 
    proposed to be employed on the project. And that is an enormous 
    expansion. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question, of course, is whether or not this limitation, or 
    so-called limitation, imposes substantial new duties on an official 
    of the executive branch. That question has been the subject of more 
    points of order on appropriation bills than perhaps any other, or 
    at least as many as any other. It is very difficult to make that 
    determination in circumstances like the present one, because, for 
    instance, as the gentleman from Michigan cited in Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 10.7:

            It is not in order in an appropriation bill to insert by 
        way of amendment a proposition which places additional duties 
        on an executive officer; but the mere requirement that the 
        executive officer be the recipient of information is not 
        considered as imposing upon him any additional burdens and is 
        in order. . . .

        The Chair is also aware of the rulings involving certain 
    limitations on appropriations for food stamps. Those amendments 
    involved the issue of whether or not the household's need for food 
    stamps was a result of the fact that a breadwinner within the 
    household was unemployed because he was engaged in a concerted work 
    stoppage in a strike and imposed certain incidental duties on the 
    executive branch to make the necessary determinations. In those 
    cases the language was held to be a valid limitation upon the 
    appropriation.
        In regard to the language now before the chairman for decision, 
    the Sec

[[Page 6315]]

    retary is required in the administration of the bill to make a 
    determination that not less than 10 percent of the personnel to be 
    employed on the project have been currently for at least 30 days in 
    the area, and have been currently unemployed for at least 30 days.
        The Chair notes that the basic law does impose rather 
    substantial requirements in the sense that it requires, first, that 
    the Secretary consider among other matters the three factors listed 
    in section 107 that were mentioned by the gentleman from Texas as 
    statistical factors. The Chair agrees they are statistical factors. 
    He notes as well, though, that the gentleman from Michigan has 
    brought up the provisions of section 108(e) which go somewhat 
    further than that, and they require that any grant made to a local 
    government based upon the unemployment rate of a community or 
    neighborhood within its jurisdiction must be for a project of 
    direct benefit to, or provide employment for, unemployed persons 
    who are residents of that community or neighborhood.
        So the law already imposes some substantial duties and 
    determinations similar to those which would be required by the 
    proposed limitation in this proviso. The Chair therefore would hold 
    that the particular proviso under consideration is one that does 
    impose a valid limitation upon the use of an appropriation and that 
    the duties imposed upon the Administrator are purely incidental and 
    do not impose any substantial new duties on the administrator. 
    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 66. Exceptions From Limitations

Proviso Construing Terms as ``Exception''

Sec. 66.1 Where a limitation in an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    prohibited certain payments to persons in ``excess of . . . $500,'' 
    a further provision stating that such limitation would not be 
    ``construed to deprive any share renter of payments'' to which he 
    might be otherwise entitled was held to be in order as an exception 
    to a limitation.

    On Mar. 24, 1944,(16) during consideration of the 
Department of Agriculture appropriation bill for 1945 (H.R. 4443), the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 3095, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rees of Kansas: On page 62, line 
        5, after the colon following the word ``inclusive'', insert the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no payment or payments 
        hereunder to any one person or corporation shall be in excess 
        of the total sum of $500: And provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not be construed to deprive any share renter 
        of payments not exceeding the amount to which he would 
        otherwise be entitled.''

[[Page 6316]]

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because of the inclusion of 
    the second proviso therein, which, in my judgment, constitutes 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill. It is in effect a 
    construction of the preceding proviso, and which legislatively 
    provides that the preceding proviso in the case of tenants shall 
    not be taken at its face value but that a different rule shall be 
    applicable to them. Because that provision is included, I think the 
    entire amendment is subject to a point of order because of its 
    being legislative in character. . . .
        . . . [I]t is my opinion, having heard the amendment read, 
    although I have not had the opportunity to examine it carefully, 
    that the second proviso does not constitute merely an exception to 
    the limitation made in the first proviso, but it is legislative in 
    character and constitutes a legislative construction of the 
    language contained in the first proviso and is, therefore, clearly 
    in itself legislation. I know no reason why the gentleman from 
    Kansas should not offer or be permitted to offer the first proviso. 
    But I think the second proviso which reads, ``And provided further, 
    That this limitation shall not be construed to deprive any share 
    renter of payments not exceeding the amount to which he would 
    otherwise be entitled,'' is clearly a legislative construction of 
    the preceding proviso and, therefore, in itself constitutes 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard further?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Excepting Project From Dollar Limit Otherwise Applicable

Sec. 66.2 A provision in the general appropriation bill, 1951, 
    providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used for 
    beginning construction of any building costing in excess of 
    $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may be constructed at 
    Purdue University at a cost of not to exceed $29,000, was held to 
    be a valid exception from a proper limitation and in order inasmuch 
    as the authorization for such projects contained no ceiling on such 
    expenditures and the exception was not construed as separate 
    construction authority.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786. A point of order

[[Page 6317]]

against a provision in the bill was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing in lines 15 to 17 on 
    page 157, reading ``Except that a poultry breeding house may be 
    constructed at Purdue University,'' on the ground that it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
    Chairman, I wish to call attention to the fact that under the 
    Research and Marketing Act, section 7-A, 7 United States Code 
    427(h), the Department of Agriculture is authorized to construct 
    agricultural buildings without limitation on the amounts. This 
    committee has put restrictions heretofore on these amounts, fixing 
    the individual amount at $15,000 per unit. We carry that provision 
    with the exception that in this instance we let them go above it.
        It traces back to the legislative authorization in the Research 
    and Marketing Act under which they have authority to build such 
    houses without any limitation.
        In effect this is a limitation.
        The authorization reads as follows:

            The money appropriated in pursuance of this title shall 
        also be available for the purchase or rental of land and the 
        construction and acquisition of buildings necessary for 
        conducting research provided for in this title.

        In effect this is a limitation fixing the amount they may spend 
    for this purpose.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the provisions of 
    existing law cited by the gentleman from Mississippi and invites 
    attention to the fact that the first part of this paragraph appears 
    clearly to be a limitation and the latter part of the paragraph 
    appears to be an exception to the limitation for a purpose 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Duties Involved in Applying Limitation Already Required by Law

Sec. 66.3 It is in order as an exception from a limitation in a general 
    appropriation bill to include language precisely descriptive of 
    authority provided in law so long as the exception only requires 
    determinations already required by law and does not impose new 
    duties on federal officials.

    On Aug. 3, 1978,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12931), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 24249, 24250, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Page 11, 
        strike out the period on line 17 and insert in

[[Page 6318]]

        lieu thereof ``, except that funds appropriated or made 
        available pursuant to this Act for assistance under part I of 
        the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (other than funds for the 
        Economic Support Fund or peacekeeping operations) may be 
        provided to any country named in this section (except the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam) in accordance with the 
        requirements of section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I do make a 
    point of order against the Harkin amendment. . . .
        The gentleman's amendment clearly would place substantial 
    additional new duties on officers of the Government. Mr. Chairman, 
    in chapter 26, section 11.1, of ``Deschler's Procedures,'' the 
    following is stated:

            But when an amendment, while curtailing certain uses of 
        funds carried in the bill, explicitly places new duties on 
        officers of the government or implicitly requires them to make 
        investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and 
        determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it 
        assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
        of order.

        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment intends that aid should 
    be provided to certain countries if such assistance will directly 
    benefit the needy people in such countries. Several legislative 
    provisions currently exist that presently provide for such 
    determinations, but these provisions do not apply to all the funds 
    appropriated in this bill.
        In addition, the gentleman's amendment would require officials 
    to make judgments and determinations that they are not required to 
    make at the present time. We presently have no AID programs or AID 
    missions in any of these countries. In two of the countries we do 
    not have diplomatic relations, Vietnam and Cambodia. In one country 
    we have no U.S. Government representative, and that country is 
    Uganda. The gentleman's amendment would not only allow direct 
    assistance to flow to these countries, which is not now possible, 
    but also would require some U.S. Government official to determine 
    if the assistance is reaching the needy. This would require a U.S. 
    Government official to travel to these countries to make an onsite 
    inspection since there are no AID missions in any of these 
    countries and no U.S. Government representation present in three of 
    the countries. The gentleman's amendment definitely places 
    substantial additional duties on U.S. Government officials.
        Also current law prohibits any direct assistance to Vietnam, 
    Laos, Cambodia, Uganda, Mozambique, or Angola. The gentleman's 
    amendment would allow direct assistance to flow to these countries 
    if the assistance would benefit the needy people. This in effect 
    changes the existing law. The amendment is legislative in nature 
    and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, by the fact that I have included 
    section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, by that very 
    inclusion those four countries so named and listed are then put in 
    the category of being gross violators of human rights, and because 
    of the inclusion, then, of section 116, which I have laid out in my 
    amendment, there are no new duties imposed in my amendment--only 
    the requirements of existing law. . . .

[[Page 6319]]

        Mr. Long of Maryland: I would simply say that we do not have 
    missions in these countries, and the duties that would be required, 
    to find out whether needy people would get the money, would require 
    us to send people there. That clearly imposes duties on the 
    Government which are not implied in the current legislation.
        The Chairman:(1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        According to the amendment, the only funds that the amendment 
    refers to are funds provided for in the bill, and the only 
    exception would be to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; but funds 
    are to be provided in accordance with the requirements of law and 
    the law cited is, on its face, applicable to the countries covered 
    by the amendment; so the Chair does not see that there are any new 
    duties imposed on anyone by the amendment. Therefore, the Chair 
    respectfully overrules the point of order.

Statement of Purpose Should Not Accompany

Sec. Sec. 66.4 A limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill, or an exception therefrom, may not be 
    accompanied by language stating a motive or purpose in carrying out 
    the limition or exception.

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 860. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
        be available for the pay of a prevailing rate employee, as 
        defined in paragraph (A) of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, 
        United States Code, at a rate that is greater than 104 percent 
        of the rate of pay payable to an employee in the second step of 
        the grade of the regular, supervisory, or special wage 
        schedule, in which the prevailing rate employee is serving: 
        Provided, That to assure that this limitation does not (1) 
        reduce the rate of pay of a prevailing rate employee, 
        continuously employed after September 30, 1978, as set forth 
        hereafter, below the rate of pay for that employee in effect on 
        September 30, 1978, or (2) prevent such employee from receiving 
        the first 5.5 percent increase in rate of pay as the result of 
        any adjustments in pay pursuant to section 5343 of title 5, 
        United States Code, that become effective on or after October 
        1, 1978, the pay of a prevailing rate employee who was employed 
        before October 1, 1978, shall not be reduced by this limitation 
        (1) below that to which the employee was entitled based on his 
        or her rate of pay on September 30, 1978, or (2) after a pay 
        adjustment pursuant to section 5343 effective during fiscal 
        year 1979, below 105.5 percent of that to which the employee 
        would be entitled based on his or her rate of pay on September 
        30, 1978, if the employee--
            (A) continues to be employed after October 1, 1978, without 
        a break in service of one work day or more; and
            (B) is not demoted or reassigned for personal cause, or at 
        his or her request.

[[Page 6320]]

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

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

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

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Additional Duties and Determinations Not Required by Existing Law

Sec. 66.5 To a proviso in a general appropriation bill denying the use 
    of funds to pay price differentials on contracts made for the 
    purpose of relieving economic dislocations, an amendment exempting 
    from that prohibition contracts determined by the Secretary of the 
    Army pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be 
    inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
    considerations was ruled out as legislation imposing new duties on 
    the Secretary, absent any showing of existing provisions of law 
    requiring such a determination to be made.

    On Sept. 16, 1980,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8105), a point of order against an amendment was sustained as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 25606, 25607, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . No funds herein appropriated shall be used for the 
    payment of a price differential on contracts hereafter made for the 
    purpose of relieving economic dislocations: Provided further,

[[Page 6321]]

    That none of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used 
    except that, so far as practicable, all contracts shall be awarded 
    on a formally advertised competitive bid basis to the lowest 
    responsible bidder.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: 
        Page 41, line 23, strike out ``Provided further,'' and all that 
        follows through ``economic dislocations:'' on page 42, line 1, 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``Provided further, That no funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for the payment of a price 
        differential on contracts hereafter made for the purpose of 
        relieving economic dislocations other than contracts made by 
        the Defense Logistics Agency and such other contracts of the 
        Department of Defense as may be determined by the Secretary of 
        Defense pursuant to existing law and regulations as not to be 
        inappropriate therefor by reason of national security 
        considerations:''. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill, and therefore in violation of clause 2 of rule
    XXI.

        I respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 11.2 which states:

            It is not in order to make the availability of funds in a 
        general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive 
        determination by an executive official which he is not 
        otherwise required by law to make.

        I also respectfully direct the attention of the Chair to 
    section 843 of the House Manual, which states in part:

            The fact that a limitation on the use of funds may . . . 
        impose certain incidental burdens on executive officials does 
        not destroy the character of the limitation as long as it does 
        not directly amend existing law and is descriptive of functions 
        and findings already required to be undertaken under existing 
        law. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the payment of price 
    differentials on contracts except--and I quote:

            As may be determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant 
        to existing laws and regulations as not to be inappropriate 
        therefor by reason of national security considerations.

        The exception makes the availability of funds for payment of 
    price differentials contingent on a substantive determination by 
    the Secretary of Defense which is not now required under the 
    current law. Although the determination is limited ``pursuant to 
    existing laws and regulations,'' there is no existing law at the 
    present time, and if this amendment is enacted, it will constitute 
    the existing law and require this new determination. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would appear to call for a determination by the 
    Secretary of Defense as to appropriateness by reason of national 
    security considerations. Unless the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) can cite to the Chair those provisions of existing law 
    requiring such determinations with respect to defense contracts, 
    the Chair must conclude that the amendment would impose new duties 
    upon the Secretary and would constitute legislation.

[[Page 6322]]

Responsibilities Already Required in Broad Terms

Sec. 66.6 An exception from a limitation on the use of funds in a 
    general appropriation bill, stating that the limitation does not 
    prohibit use of funds for designated federal activities which were 
    already required by law in more general terms, was held in order as 
    not containing new legislation.

    In proceedings on June 27, 1979,(6) an amendment denying 
the use of funds for state plan monitoring visits by the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration where the workplace has been inspected 
by a state agency within six months, but also providing that the 
limitation would not preclude the federal official from conducting a 
monitoring visit at the time of the state inspection, to investigate 
complaints about state procedures, or as part of a special study 
program, or to investigate a catastrophe, was held not to require new 
determinations by federal officials, where existing law directed state 
agencies to inform federal officials of all their activities under 
state plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17033-35, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Beverly B.] Byron [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        (The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:)

               Occupational Safety and Health Administration

                             salaries and expenses

            For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration, $181,520,000: Provided, That none of the 
        funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
        expended for the assessment of civil penalties issued for first 
        instance violations of any standard, rule, or regulation 
        promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 (other than serious, willful, or repeated violations under 
        section 17 of the Act) resulting from the inspection of any 
        establishment or workplace subject to the Act, unless such 
        establishment or workplace is cited, on the basis of such 
        inspection, for 10 or more violations: . . . Provided further, 
        That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall 
        be obligated or expended for the proposal or assessment of any 
        civil penalties for the violation or alleged violation by an 
        employer of 10 or fewer employees of any standard, rule, 
        regulation, or order promulgated under the Occupational Safety 
        and Health Act of 1970 (other than serious, willful or repeated 
        violations and violations which pose imminent danger under 
        section 13 of the Act) if, prior to the inspection which gives 
        rise to the alleged violation, the employer cited has (1) 
        voluntarily requested consultation under a program operated 
        pursuant to section 7(c)(1) or section 18 of the Occupational 
        Safety and Health Act of 1970 or from a private consultative 
        source approved by the Administration and (2) had the 
        consultant examine the condition cited and (3) made or is in 
        the process of making a reasonable good faith effort to 
        eliminate the hazard created

[[Page 6323]]

        by the condition cited as such, which was identified by the 
        aforementioned consultant, unless changing circumstances or 
        workplace conditions render inapplicable the advice obtained 
        from such consultants.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Byron: Page 10, line 20, after 
        the period, insert the following: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated under this paragraph may be obligated or expended 
        for any state plan monitoring visit by the Secretary of Labor 
        under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970, of any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, 
        or other area, workplace or environment where such a workplace 
        or environment has been inspected by an employee of a State 
        acting pursuant to section 18 of such Act within the 6 months 
        preceding such inspection, provided that this limitation does 
        not prohibit the Secretary of Labor from conducting such 
        monitoring visit at the time and place of an inspection by an 
        employer of a State acting pursuant to section 18 of such Act, 
        or in order to investigate a complaint about state program 
        administration, a discrimination complaint under section 11(c) 
        of such Act, or as part of a special study monitoring program, 
        or to investigate a fatality or catastrophe.''. . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . I make the point of 
    order that this amendment constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriations bill in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, in that it 
    imposes additional duties upon the executive to the extent that 
    OSHA would be required to determine whether or not an employer had 
    been inspected by a third inspector within the previous 6 months. 
    The law does not now require OSHA to do this. This would clearly 
    pose additional duties and goes beyond the simple limitation.
        As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the language 
    of the authorization funded under this section of the 
    appropriations bill the chairman will determine the extent to which 
    the States participate as enforcers of the Federal OSHA 
    regulations. This now would have a Federal official presumably 
    trying to monitor the activities of State inspectors who are not, 
    in fact, OSHA inspectors. This is a very unusual result because we 
    do not now impose that duty in any way upon the OSHA inspectors. . 
    . .
        Mrs. Byron: . . . It is my understanding that the State has the 
    opportunity when they are investigating, they are then monitored by 
    the Federal. This would then notify the Federal of where a State 
    inspection was taken care of; therefore, the Federal would be 
    following along after the State inspection. It would, therefore, 
    not be new legislation in an appropriations bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair has read the statute 
    entitled 29 and would like to propound an inquiry to the gentleman 
    from Michigan, on part of his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The statute in subparagraph (f) states that the Secretary, 
    meaning the Secretary of Labor--
        shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the State agency 
        and its own inspections, make a continuing evaluation of the 
        matter in which each State having a plan approved under this 
        section is carrying out such plan.

        Does that pertain to how frequently the plan must be reviewed?
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the amendment attempts to 
    uti

[[Page 6324]]

    lize that language by talking about an attempt not to interfere 
    with the power of the Secretary to conduct monitoring visits, but 
    the fact is that the Secretary is required to determine, in order 
    to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction to conduct a 
    safety inspection, whether a State inspection had been conducted 
    within the previous 6 months. The amendment does not even define 
    what State inspection might be. It is not clear from reading the 
    amendment without further explanation, whether that means an 
    inspection is confined to OSHA or some overlapping State 
    regulation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        It appears that the interpretation that is being given by the 
    gentleman from Michigan in his point of order is a personal 
    interpretation and does not appear to be in the statutes.
        The amendment of the gentlewoman states ``no funds appropriated 
    under this paragraph,'' and it appears to be a limitation on the 
    expenditures of funds under certain conditions suggesting 
    evaluations already imposed in broad terms upon Federal officials 
    by existing law, and, therefore, does not provide any additional 
    responsibilities that are not presently contained in existing 
    statutes.
        The Chair therefore rules against the point of order.

Exception to Limitation Not Adding Legislation

Sec. 66.7 An exception from a limitation or from a legislative 
    amendment retrenching expenditures which does not add legislation 
    to a general appropriation bill is in order.

    On July 30, 1980,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7591), a point of order against an amendment was not 
sustained, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 20503, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [of Virginia]: Strike [out the] 
        period and add: ``, except that this limitation shall not apply 
        to emergency or disaster programs of the Farmers Home 
        Administration and the Agricultural Stabilization and 
        Conservation Service and programs for the control of infectious 
        or contagious diseases of humans and animals carried out by the 
        Food and Drug Administration and the Animal and Plant Health 
        Inspection Service.''.

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order 
    on that amendment. . . .
        I feel the amendment is clearly legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and does in fact do violence to my amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, section 
    9.7 [states]:

            An exception to a valid limitation in a general 
        appropriation bill is in order, providing the exception does 
        not add language legislative in effect.

[[Page 6325]]

        I do not consider that this adds legislative language to the 
    amendment. It is an exception to the limiting provision as offered. 
    I respectfully submit that it is in order and should be considered.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An exception to a limitation or a retrenchment which does not 
    add legislation is clearly in order under the precedents, and the 
    point of order is not sustained.

Sec. 66.8 An exception to a limitation on the use of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill is in order if it does not impose new duties or 
    determinations on the executive branch.

    On July 13, 1979,(10) it was held that, to an amendment 
retrenching expenditures in a general appropriation bill by reducing 
amounts therein and prohibiting their availability to particular 
recipients, an amendment lessening the amount of the reduction and also 
providing an exception from the limitation may be in order as a 
perfection of the retrenchment if funds contained in the bill remain 
reduced thereby. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 4.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 18456, 18457, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 66.9 To an amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting 
    the use of funds therein to enforce any embargo on the export of 
    agricultural commodities, an amendment excepting from that 
    prohibition any subsequently imposed Presidential embargo based 
    solely upon a determination that the export would be detrimental to 
    U.S. foreign policy or national security was held in order as a 
    valid exception from a limitation which did not impose new duties 
    but which merely repeated responsibilities already required by law.

    On July 23, 1980,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7584 (Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriation bill), the following 
amendment was held in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 19295, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman [of Missouri] 
        to the amendment offered by Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: 
        (12)

[[Page 6326]]

        After the word ``commodity'' in the last line insert: ``unless 
        on or subsequent to October 1, 1980, the President imposes a 
        restriction on the export of any such commodity solely on the 
        basis that such export would prove detrimental to the foreign 
        policy or national security of the United States''. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Andrews amendment provided: ``None of the funds appropriated by 
        this Act may be used to carry out or enforce any restriction on 
        the export of any agricultural commodity.'' See 126 Cong. Rec. 
        19087, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that it exceeds the 
    limitation and imposes additional duties upon the President of the 
    United States. . . .
        Mr. Coleman: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not well 
    taken because my amendment does not establish any new additional 
    duties. It simply says that if the President of the United States 
    subsequent to October 1, 1980, imposes an embargo then none of 
    these funds shall be used to fund that embargo. It imposes 
    absolutely no new duties. It simply states that if the President on 
    his own takes some action, that none of these funds shall be used 
    to support that action. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Coleman) on the grounds that it imposes an additional duty, and 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. Ordinarily, such 
    Presidential determination language on an appropriation bill would 
    constitute legislation, but the amendment only repeats verbatim the 
    determination authority contained in the section of existing law 
    (section 4(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979) which has 
    been called to the Chair's attention.
        Therefore, the amendment does not constitute new legislation in 
    any way discernible to the Chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ensuing debate on the Coleman amendment by 
Mr. Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, and Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New 
York, suggested that section 7 of the Export Administration Act, 
relating to domestic short supply of agricultural products, imposed a 
different standard from section 4(c) relied upon by the Chair and that 
the use of the term ``solely'' therefore infringed upon the Secretary's 
discretionary authority under section 7. A reading of subsection 7(g) 
suggests that the same standard is applied in permitting the President 
and Secretary of Agriculture to issue export licenses of agricultural 
commodities not in short supply, but that under subsection 7(a), with 
regard to agricultural commodities which are in short domestic supply, 
the President may curtail export of such commodities regardless of 
whether such policy is in the best security or foreign policy interest 
of the United States.

Effect of Limitation Where Funds for Agency Are Eliminated From Bill

Sec. 66.10 A paragraph of a general appropriation bill deny

[[Page 6327]]

    ing use of funds therein for antitrust actions against units of 
    local government, but providing that the limitation did not apply 
    to private antitrust actions, where the appropriation for the FTC 
    (which had brought such actions) had been stricken on a point of 
    order, was held in order as a proper limitation not directly 
    changing existing law, since the provision was confined to the 
    funds in the bill and affected federal court jurisdiction only 
    insofar as it was a simple denial of the use of funds in the bill.

    On May 31, 1984,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 5172), a point of order was overruled 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec.----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 610. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available by this Act may be obligated or expended to issue, 
        implement, administer, conduct or enforce any antitrust action 
        against a municipality or other unit of local government, 
        except that this limitation shall not apply to private 
        antitrust actions. . . .

        Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against section 610, which would be lines 23 to 25 
    on page 56, and lines 1 to 3 on page 57 as being legislation on an 
    appropriations bill under clause 2 of rule XXI.
        I would note to the Chair two points. First, the wording of 
    section 610 would apply to all funds under the act. That would 
    include funds for the Federal judiciary and the operations of 
    Federal courts. If, in fact, the language of section 610 were to 
    apply to the Federal courts, it would limit Federal jurisdiction in 
    cases involving antitrust suits against municipalities. If, in 
    fact, it would limit Federal jurisdiction in that way, it seems to 
    me, Mr. Chairman, that what it is is direct legislation both in 
    terms of the basic law and in terms of the laws under which the 
    courts operate.
        Second, I would point out to the Chair that if, in fact, it 
    does not apply to the Federal judiciary, under a ruling in 1959 of 
    the Chair, indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 26, section 
    A, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1.5, there the Chair held that where 
    there was a provision that was previously stricken on a point of 
    order that limiting language to that provision was itself 
    legislating.
        And previously this afternoon the Chair has stricken on a point 
    of order all authorizing language respecting the FTC, which agency 
    would have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
        So, Mr. Chairman, in either case it seems to me that this 
    section 610 is in fact legislation on an appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. [Martin O.] Sabo [of Minnesota]: . . . Section 610 of this 
    bill is simply a limitation on the expenditure

[[Page 6328]]

    of Federal funds. It does not provide for any new power. It is 
    simply a limitation on the expenditure of funds, which clearly is 
    well within the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as we 
    look at section 610, the last clause reads: ``except that this 
    limitation shall not apply to private antitrust actions.'' So the 
    word, ``limitation,'' refers to the entire limitation in section 
    610 and does not affect the right to bring an action or the right 
    to enforce a judgment.
        It is my judgment, therefore, that the language of the bill 
    allows private parties to bring actions under antitrust laws. It 
    also allows the enforcement of outstanding judgments in favor of 
    private parties, and as there is no limitation on the judicial 
    powers, we do not reach the question of courts being affected by 
    this limitation, as was stated in one of the arguments propounded 
    on this point of order.

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) makes a point of order 
    against section 610 on the ground that it constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and would limit the power of the courts.
        It is the Chair's opinion that the fact that the powers of the 
    courts might be limited by the restrictions on the funds or that 
    the FTC appropriation has been stricken on a point of order, does 
    not in itself constitute legislation, and that the section is 
    indeed only a limitation on expenditure of funds on the bill and as 
    such is proper in this section.
        Mr. Porter: Mr. Chairman, does the Chair's ruling indicate, 
    therefore, that the language in section 610 does not affect Federal 
    court jurisdiction over the type of suits described in that 
    section, not including private suits?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, 
    the point of order was in two parts. The Chair has ruled on the 
    first part. I await with some interest the ruling of the Chair on 
    the second part.
        The Chairman: The Chair had felt that he ruled on both parts. 
    The Chair feels that it is not . . . for the Chair to rule on the 
    effect of the negative limitation on the jurisdiction of the 
    courts. That is a matter for the House and the courts to determine. 
    From a parliamentary standpoint, the limitation is a valid 
    limitation and falls within the rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Even if FTC funds, no longer in the bill, 
were the only possible moneys affected, the provision would have been 
an appropriate denial of use of funds in the bill. But the federal 
courts were also funded by the bill. The authority of the courts to 
preside over such actions despite the limitation was a legal issue not 
for the Chair to decide.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 67. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Change in Administrative Policy

Sec. 67.1 While a limitation may not involve a change of exist

[[Page 6329]]

    ing law, it may properly effect a change of administrative policy 
    and still be in order (7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694). For 
    example, language in an appropriation bill providing that none of 
    the funds therein shall be used to pay any employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture who serves as a member of the Board of 
    Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be a limitation and in order.

    On May 11, 1960,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12117, a bill making appropriations for the Department 
of Agriculture. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, section 408 provides. . . .
        This reverses a decision made by the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the Congress in 1949, when the CCC Charter Act was 
    amended to strike out a similar restriction which had been enacted 
    in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and the mere fact it is put 
    in the form of a limitation on the use of funds appropriated by the 
    bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, volume 7, of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it 
        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would

[[Page 6330]]

    also have to recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers 
    of the Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protection of 
    the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government money. On 
    the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at additional 
    expense to the Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown] makes a point of order 
    against the language in section 408 of the bill on the ground that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Restriction Effective on Future Enactment of Legislation

Sec. 67.2 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, including an item for a study of the price spread 
    between farmers and consumer, an amendment providing that no part 
    of these funds may be obligated after enactment of legislation 
    establishing a National Commission on Food Marketing, was held a 
    proper limitation and in order.

    On May 19, 1964,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 11388, 11389, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Economic Research Service

                           Salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
    conducting economic research and service relating to agricultural 
    production, marketing, and distribution, as authorized by the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), and other 
    laws, including economics of marketing; analyses relating to farm 
    prices, income and population, and demand for farm products, use of 
    resources in agriculture, adjustments, costs and returns in 
    farming, and farm finance; and for analyses of supply and demand 
    for farm products in foreign countries and their effect on 
    prospects for United States exports, progress in economic 
    development and its relation to sales of farm products, assembly 
    and analysis of agricultural trade statistics and

[[Page 6331]]

    analysis of international financial and monetary programs and 
    policies as they affect the competitive position of United States 
    farm products; $9,476,000: Provided, That not less than $350,000 of 
    the funds contained in this appropriation shall be available to 
    continue to gather statistics and conduct a special study on the 
    price spread between the farmer and consumer: Provided further, 
    That this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant 
    to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
    (5 U.S.C. 574), and not to exceed $75,000 shall be available for 
    employment under section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
    55a): Provided further, That not less than $145,000 of the funds 
    contained in this appropriation shall be available for analysis of 
    statistics and related facts on foreign production and full and 
    complete information on methods used by other countries to move 
    farm commodities in world trade on a competitive basis.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 12, line 24, 
        after the word ``consumer'' change the colon to a comma and 
        insert the following: ``except that no part of the funds 
        appropriated herein may be obligated for this special study 
        subsequent to the enactment of legislation establishing a 
        National Commission on Food Marketing:''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Mississippi insist on his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Whitten: I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: . . . The point of order I make is that this is 
    not a limitation on an appropriation bill as such but is entirely 
    dependent on a contingency that may never occur. For that reason 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . The Chair . . . is of the opinion that this amendment 
    constitutes a limitation on the funds herein appropriated even 
    though that limitation may be conditioned upon a condition 
    subsequent which may never come into existence and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4004 for an 
example of a condition subsequent held in order.

Recipients With Income in Excess of Certain Limit

Sec. 67.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that none of 
    the funds for the soil conservation program shall be paid to any 
    person having a net income in excess of $10,000 in the previous 
    calendar year was held to be a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

[[Page 6332]]

    On May 1, 1952,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7314, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 98 Cong. Rec. 4733, 4734, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 31, line 13, after the figure $2,500 insert ``and none of the 
    funds shall be paid to any person having a net income in excess of 
    $10,000 in the previous calendar year.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It would require a determination that one's 
    income was or was not beyond $10,000. It is my recollection that a 
    man's income and the amount of his income is not subject to finding 
    out on the part of the Government and I do not believe we could 
    determine it if it were in the legislation. . . .

        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply a limitation 
    as to the persons receiving it. Any person whose total income in 
    the previous calendar year is more than $10,000 will not receive 
    this money. It is a limitation on the payment of money. There is no 
    additional duty placed. After consulting with the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] I believe he agrees with me that this is not a 
    further duty and is within the legislation.
        The point of order should not be upheld because it is simply a 
    limitation on the payment of money. There are limitations on the 
    payment of money in other bills and this is simply limiting the 
    payment of money.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this goes 
    beyond a limitation and brings in an entirely new principle that is 
    not included in the basic act. It is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and, I might add, it is class legislation of 
    the worst kind.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has studied the amendment and that part of the bill 
    to which it refers and finds that it is a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of money in this bill to any person having an income in 
    excess of a given figure. It is definitely a limitation and under 
    the circumstances the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent is supported by the ruling 
carried in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1669 where a limitation on 
payments to persons receiving pay from another source in excess of a 
certain amount was held in order.

Rural Electrification, Limiting Funds to Areas of Low Population

Sec. 67.4 An amendment to the Rural Electrification appropriation 
    providing in part that none of the money appropriated shall be used 
    to finance the construction and operation of generating

[[Page 6333]]

    plants, electric transmission and distribution lines in any city, 
    village, or borough having a population in excess of 1,500 
    inhabitants was held to be a proper limitation on an appropriation 
    bill and in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1944,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4443, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 3105-07, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. Sec. 9 and 22, 
        supra, for discussion of the burden of proof on the issue of 
        whether a provision is authorized by existing law, and the 
        effect of a failure to cite the law relied upon as 
        authorization for provisions in appropriation bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Page 
    78, line 5, add the following: ``Provided, That the moneys 
    appropriated or otherwise authorized under this caption (`Rural 
    Electrification Administration') and expended or loaned under the 
    authority conferred by section 4 of the act approved May 20, 1936, 
    shall be used only to finance the construction and operation of 
    generating plants, electric transmission and distribution lines, or 
    systems, for the furnishing of electric energy to persons in rural 
    areas who are not now receiving central station service: Provided 
    further, That none of the moneys appropriated or otherwise 
    authorized under this caption (`Rural Electrification 
    Administration') shall be used to finance the construction and 
    operation of generating plants, electric transmission and 
    distribution lines, or systems in any area of the United States 
    included within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough 
    having a population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants.''
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that, rather 
    than being a limitation on the appropriation, this is a change in 
    the substantive law that authorized the Rural Electrification 
    Administration; and I call the attention of the Chair to a ruling 
    that was handed down on April 19, 1943, when substantially the same 
    amendment was offered, the only difference being that the word 
    ``exclusively'' has now been changed to ``only.'' I submit those 
    words have exactly the same meaning and that the ruling applied at 
    that time would be applicable at this time. . . .
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the proposed amendment 
    merely reaffirms existing law. It does not change existing law. It 
    does not change existing law or the substantive law that created 
    the Rural Electrification Administration or that governs its 
    organization and I submit that the proposals are limiting to the 
    appropriation in that the sole purpose and object of the proposals 
    are to prevent the use of this particular money outside the 
    provisions of existing law. That is, that they cannot use the 
    particular money involved in the appropriation in line 5, page 78, 
    to buy out electrical systems

[[Page 6334]]

    in towns in excess of a population of 1,500.
        Mr. Chairman, to support my contention that this is existing 
    law I want to say that the language of the first proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 4 of the R. E. A. Act approved May 20, 1936, 
    section 4 of which reads as follows:

            Sec. 4. The Administrator is authorized and empowered, from 
        the sums hereinbefore authorized, to make loans to persons, 
        corporations, States, Territories, and subdivisions and 
        agencies thereof, municipalities, peoples, utility districts 
        and cooperatives, nonprofit, or limited-dividend associations 
        organized under the laws of any State or Territory of the 
        United States, for the purpose of financing the construction 
        and operation of generating plants, electric transmission and 
        distribution lines or systems for the furnishing of electric 
        energy to persons in rural areas who are not receiving central 
        station service.

        That language is the language that is in the act of May 20, 
    1936, substantially word for word.
        The Chairman: If the Chair may interrupt the gentleman, if it 
    is existing law what is the necessity for it being in the 
    amendment?
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, the Chair anticipates the point of my 
    discussion in justifying the amendment. The reason is that so far 
    as appropriations are concerned, they have issued opinions down 
    there by a circuitous route and have managed to go ahead and buy 
    electrical systems in towns with a population in excess of 1,500. 
    They have done it in connection with other appropriations. So I 
    want to pick up this particular $20,000,000 and say that this 
    $20,000,000 shall not be expended in that illegal fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, the language of the second proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 13 of the R. E. A. Act approved May 20, 1936. 
    Section 13 reads as follows:

            Sec. 13. As used in this act the term ``rural area'' shall 
        be deemed to mean any area of the United States not included 
        within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough having a 
        population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants, and such term shall 
        be deemed to include the farm and nonfarm population thereof.

        Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I served on the committee 
    which created the R.E.A. and I was a member of the subcommittee 
    that created it. I have a thorough familiarity with the act and 
    with the amendments that have been made to the act since its 
    original creation. I know what was in the mind of the committee 
    when this organization was created. But in spite of that, they are 
    spending this money to buy electrical plants in towns with a 
    population as high as 10,000 people. I want to limit the use of 
    this appropriation so that they cannot buy out existing facilities 
    in cities having populations of ten or twenty thousand.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order is not 
    substantiated by the facts in this case. First, this is a 
    limitation and, second, the language used has been lifted verbatim 
    from the substantive act creating this organization. . . .
        Mr. Poage: I understood the gentleman to say that the amendment 
    was lifted word for word from the existing law. I have not seen the 
    amendment, Mr. Chairman, in writing, I have only heard it read, but 
    I understood from the reading of the amendment that the

[[Page 6335]]

    word ``only'' is in the amendment. The amendment states, as I 
    understand it, that this money shall be used only for these 
    purposes. When you refer to the existing law the word ``only'' is 
    not in existing law. I wonder if the gentleman will tell us whether 
    the word ``only'' has been inserted in the proposed amendment? . . 
    .
        The Chairman: Does the word ``only'' appear in the statute, in 
    response to the question asked by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Poage]?
        Mr. Boren: The word ``only'' does not appear in the 
    statute.That is in the second proviso. Neither do the words ``shall 
    not be used for other purposes'' but I make the contention that is 
    the thing that makes it limiting. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Would the gentleman's 
    amendment expand the basic law and authorize expenditures for 
    anything not authorized in the basic law?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It is solely limiting.
        Mr. Case: In the use of the word ``only,'' does that word 
    ``only'' limit the appropriation to expenditures for only a 
    particular purpose?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It does not preclude any of the 
    purposes in the substantive law.
        Mr. Case: I wonder if the gentleman would explain this. My 
    understanding of a limitation is that it restricts the 
    appropriation to a portion of the original purposes. You cannot 
    expand an appropriation but you can restrict it. If the use of the 
    word ``only'' limits to only a certain part of the basic 
    appropriation, then it is a restriction and a limitation.
        Mr. Boren: My amendment does not in any iota expand or take in 
    any new purposes. It limits the practice that is going on.
        The reason I answered the gentleman as I did is, I am 
    unwilling, in my own judgment, to hold that the other practices 
    outside of this limitation are justified by law, but it does limit 
    them in some of the practices they are carrying on that they are 
    claiming come under the law. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: As I understand the 
    gentleman's interpretation of the word ``only,'' it is synonymous 
    to saying at that point in his amendment that ``this money shall be 
    used for no other purposes than.''

        Mr. Boren: Exactly.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Reference has been made to similar amendments that have been 
    heretofore presented. It has also been stated that the language of 
    the amendment offered is identical with an amendment presented on 
    April 19, 1943, but an examination of the amendment offered at that 
    time will show that the language was considerably and materially 
    different than the language of the proposed amendment. Aside from 
    that, the Chair is more anxious to be correct than perhaps 
    consistent.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I do not want it to be understood that 
    I said that the wording of these amendments were identical.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not so state that the gentleman or 
    any other Member said that. That was brought to the attention of 
    the Chair a few minutes ago. As the Chair stated, he is more 
    interested in being correct than consistent.
        Inasmuch as it is conceded that the language of the first 
    proviso is the lan

[[Page 6336]]

    guage of the substantive law except for the word ``only,'' the 
    first proviso is a limitation, and in view of the fact the second 
    proviso is also a limitation, the point of order is overruled.

Rural Electrification, Construction

Sec. 67.5 To a paragraph of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
    bill making appropriations for the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, an amendment providing that ``during the period of 
    the war . . . no part of [the appropriation] shall be expended for 
    administrative services which have to do with the construction of 
    any facilities for the production . . . of electric power in any 
    area now receiving central station service'' was held germane and a 
    proper limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 2446, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles I.] Faddis [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 88, line 18, after the period at the end of the line, insert a 
    comma and the following: ``Provided, That during the period of the 
    war in which the United States is now engaged, no part of this 
    money shall be expended for administrative services which have to 
    do with the construction of any facilities for the production or 
    transmission of electric power in any area now receiving central 
    station service.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman . . . .
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the duties 
    of the Rural Electrification Administration are already prescribed 
    in existing law. This amendment attempts to change that, which 
    makes it purely legislation on an appropriation bill. Besides, as I 
    pointed out a moment ago, this expense account has nothing whatever 
    to do with the disposition of the money borrowed by the rural 
    electrification cooperatives from the R. F. C. or through the R. F. 
    C. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, may I offer 
    an observation in connection with argument? The limitation which 
    the gentleman seeks to impose upon the administrative expenses 
    cannot be germane to this paragraph of the bill, which has nothing 
    to do with administrative expenses but merely with the item of 
    loans. The item of administrative expenses has already been passed. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order [that 
    the amendment] is not germane. The Chair feels that the present 
    amendment as distinguished from the former

[[Page 6337]]

    amendment, being limited to the amount proposed to be appropriated 
    for the Rural Electrification Administration, and being a 
    limitation only upon the expenditure of those funds, is in order; 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

Sec. 67.6 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, an amendment specifying 
    that ``none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used 
    during the period ending June 30, 1971 to . . . carry out any 1971 
    crop-year program under which the total amount of payments to a 
    person . . . would [exceed] $20,000'' was held in order as a 
    limitation.

    On June 9, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17923, a Department of Agriculture general 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
    formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1301-
    1393) . . . and laws pertaining to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, $152,690,000: . . . Provided further, That no part of 
    the funds appropriated or made available under this Act shall be 
    used (1) to influence the vote in any referendum. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations'', strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program would be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of mak

[[Page 6338]]

    ing payments, to make loans under the Corporation Control Act, and 
    it was provided that nothing in that act should let the Congress 
    prevent the corporation from discharging its functions. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer or any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Countries Trading With North Vietnam

Sec. 67.7 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no funds appropriated therein ``shall be used to . . . administer 
    programs for the sale of agricultural commodities'' to any nation 
    which sells, or permits ships or aircraft under its registry to 
    transport, materials to North Vietnam, ``so long as North Vietnam 
    is governed by a Communist regime,'' was held a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 8969, 8970, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 36, line 1:

                       ``Commodity Credit Corporation

                  ``Reimbursement for net realized losses

        ``To partially reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
    net realized losses sustained but not previously reimbursed, 
    pursuant to the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 113a-
    12), $3,500,000,000.''
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 36, on line 6 
        strike the period, insert a colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or administer programs

[[Page 6339]]

        for the sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to titles I 
        or IV of Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to 
        any nation which sells or furnishes or which permits ships or 
        aircraft under its registry to transport to North Vietnam any 
        equipment, materials or commodities, so long as North Vietnam 
        is governed by a Communist regime.''. . .

        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it imposes new duties, new 
    responsibilities, and determinations beyond the ability of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, who administers this program, to 
    determine. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amendment is in 
    order for precisely the same reason as the amendment just ruled 
    upon [that it seeks to impose an express limitation on the funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill]. It does provide a limitation on 
    funds under certain conditions, and therefore certainly is 
    completely within the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair would state that it is satisfied that established 
    precedents in accord with the pending question justifies its 
    holding the language of the proposed amendment as a limitation on 
    the appropriation, and therefore overrules the point of order.

No Funds for Purpose Prohibited by State Law

Sec. 67.8 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment providing 
    that ``no appropriation . . . in this act shall be used for the 
    purchase or application of chemical pesticides'' where such action 
    ``would be prohibited by State law'' was held to be germane to the 
    paragraph to which offered and in order as a limitation on the use 
    of the funds therein.

    On May 26, 1969,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a general appropriation bill providing funds 
for the Department of Agriculture, with a specific allocation of funds 
for animal disease and pest control. The Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and animal disease and pest control: For operations and 
    measures, not otherwise provided for, to control and eradicate 
    pests and plant and animal diseases and for carrying out as

[[Page 6340]]

    signed inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities, as 
    authorized by law, including expenses pursuant to the Act of 
    February 28, 1947, as amended (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), $89,-493,000. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger: On page 5, line 5, 
        change the semicolon to a colon and add the following: 
        ``Provided, That no appropriation contained in this act shall 
        be used for the purchase or application of chemical pesticides, 
        except for small quantities for testing purposes, within or 
        substantially affecting States in circumstances in which the 
        purchase or application of such pesticides would be prohibited 
        by State law or regulation, for any citizen or instrumentality 
        of State or local government.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: . . . The amendment I am offering is designed 
    merely to prohibit the use of chemical pesticides by the Federal 
    Government in any State where those pesticides could not be legally 
    used, under State law or regulation.
        DDT and similar chemical pesticides have been extensively 
    criticized in recent years, and the intensity of this criticism has 
    been considerably increased in the past few months; many scientists 
    have suggested that these chemicals should be banned outright.
        Responding to this attack, Arizona and Michigan have banned the 
    use of these chemicals, and several other States are considering 
    similar bans; in addition, many States have the authority to 
    prohibit by regulation or executive action the use of chemicals 
    which are found to be harmful.
        I do not feel that the Congress should be guilty of imposing 
    its own judgment in this area by permitting the use of these 
    chemicals in cases where the responsible State authorities have 
    concluded that they should be prohibited. My amendment would 
    subject the Department of Agriculture to no greater restrictions 
    than now operate upon citizens and State agencies in those States, 
    and in States where similar bans may be imposed in the future. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, upon reading the amendment, I notice 
    it goes further than I thought it did. In the first place, I do not 
    know of any provision in this bill for the purchase of chemical 
    pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment is 
    not germane and goes far beyond the legislation before us. . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Ottinger) provides that no appropriation contained in 
    this act shall be used for the purchase or application of chemical 
    pesticides.
        The amendment notes certain exceptions within or substantially 
    affecting

[[Page 6341]]

    States in circumstances in which the purchase or application of 
    such pesticides would be prohibited by State law or regulation, or 
    any citizen or instrumentality of State or local government.
        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A possible argument in support of the point 
of order might have been the imposition on federal officials of a duty 
to become conversant with a variety of state laws and regulations. 
Whether such duty would be considered as a new or additional one not 
contemplated in existing law, or whether federal officials might 
already have such a duty in law, would then be an issue. A related 
question would be whether implied duties incidental to an apparent 
limitation on the use of funds are as objectionable as language which 
expressly imposes duties of a more extensive nature. For further 
discussion of the imposition of duties on officials as grounds for 
ruling language out of order, see Sec. Sec. 52 and 53, supra.

Dissemination of Market Information

Sec. 67.9 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, including 
    funds for the Agricultural Marketing Service, an amendment 
    providing that no part of these funds may be used for dissemination 
    of market information over government-owned or leased wires serving 
    privately owned newspapers, radio, or television was held to be a 
    proper limitation although those functions were required by law to 
    be performed.

    On May 19, 1964,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 11391, 11392, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Agricultural Marketing Service

                             Marketing Services

        For expenses necessary to carry on services related to 
    agricultural marketing and distribution as authorized by the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other 
    laws, including the administration of marketing regulatory acts 
    connected therewith and for administration and coordination of 
    payments to States; and this appropriation shall be available for 
    field employment pursuant to

[[Page 6342]]

    section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (5 U.S.C. 574), and not 
    to exceed $25,000 shall be available for employment at rates not to 
    exceed $75 per diem under section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 
    (5 U.S.C. 55a), in carrying out section 201(a) to 201 (d), 
    inclusive, of title II of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
    (7 U.S.C. 1291) and section 203(j) of the Agricultural Marketing 
    Act of 1946; $39,389,000.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 14, line 12, 
        after the figure ``$39,389,000'' strike the period, insert a 
        colon and the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act shall be used for any expenses 
        incident to the assembly or preparation of information for 
        transmission over Government-leased wires directly serving 
        privately-owned radio or television stations or newspapers of 
        general circulation, or for transmission over Government-leased 
        wires which are subject to direct interconnection with wires 
        leased by nongovernmental persons, firms or associations.''. . 
        .

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: The law requires, in 
    subsection k of section 1622 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
    1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-27, as follows:

            To collect, tabulate, and disseminate statistics of 
        marketing agricultural products, including, but not restricted 
        to statistics on market supplies, storage stocks, quantity, 
        quality, and condition of such products in various positions in 
        the marketing channel, utilization of such products, and 
        shipments and unloads thereof.

        That statute is absolutely mandatory and requires the 
    Department to bring together that information. The gentleman's 
    amendment does not limit funds for the discharge of the duties 
    under that section. It attempts to deprive the Secretary of 
    authority conferred by law which was determined in an earlier 
    ruling (IV, 3846) to be legislation. Further, I respectfully submit 
    it will require additional duties of folks in the Department of 
    Agriculture, which is also legislation.

        May I point out again, Mr. Chairman, in the last part of it, it 
    says the information cannot be collected for the purpose of being 
    disseminated. I respectfully submit it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill calling for new duties and responsibilities on 
    the one hand, and limiting executive authority on the other.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard briefly on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, here again I believe it is very 
    clear on the face of this amendment that it amounts to 
    retrenchment. Contrary to placing new burdens on department 
    employees it would actually relieve them of the responsibilities 
    which they assumed last April 1 in connection with the Weather 
    Bureau services and which they assumed August 1 in connection with 
    the establishment of the new Market News Service.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois offers an amendment 
    addressed to page 14, line 12, which adds a proviso to the section 
    preceding that line as follows:

[[Page 6343]]

            Provided, That no part of the funds appropriated by this 
        Act shall be used for any expenses incident to the assembly or 
        preparation of information for transmission over Government-
        leased wires directly serving privately owned radio or 
        television stations or newspapers of general circulation, or 
        for transmission over Government-leased wires which are subject 
        to direct interconnection with wires leased by nongovernmental 
        persons, firms, or associations.

        To this amendment the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    makes the point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and points out that the functions sought in this amendment as 
    a limitation of the appropriation are functions that are required 
    by other substantive law.
        The Chairman would call the attention of the Committee to the 
    fact that the existence of substantive law and the provisions 
    thereof are quite obviously not necessarily binding on the 
    Appropriations Committee. The Chair feels, therefore, that where 
    that committee seeks to appropriate funds and an amendment is 
    offered that seeks to deny the use of those funds even for 
    functions otherwise required by law, that that amendment is in the 
    nature of a limitation of appropriations and therefore overrules 
    the point of order.

Technical Assistance to Foreign Countries

Sec. 67.10 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds in the bill shall be used for technical assistance for 
    agricultural production of commodities exported by certain 
    countries was held to be a proper limitation and therefore in 
    order.

    On July 11, 1955,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 10240, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 10, line 15, change the period to a semicolon and add the 
    following: ``Nor shall any of these funds be used for technical or 
    other assistance for agricultural production of commodities 
    exported by such country.''
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    It would impose additional duties, and it is not within the scope 
    of the bill being considered.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair does not agree with the 
    gentleman. The Chair firmly feels that this is a limitation within 
    the rules. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibiting Funds for Certain Type of Crop Insurance Program

Sec. 67.11 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Federal 
    Crop Insurance Cor

[[Page 6344]]

    poration, and limiting the amount of premium income derived from 
    the fund which may be used for operating expenses, an amendment 
    providing instead that ``no funds (herein) shall be used to 
    formulate . . . a federal crop insurance program . . . that does 
    not meet its . . . operating expenses from premium income'' was 
    held to be a proper limitation restricting the availability of 
    funds and in order as not constituting an affirmative direction.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

        Not to exceed $4,150,000 of administrative and operating 
    expenses may be paid from premium income: Provided, That in the 
    event the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund is insufficient 
    to meet indemnity payments and other charges against such Fund, not 
    to exceed $500,000 may be borrowed from the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
    prescribe, but repayment of such amount shall include interest at a 
    rate not less than the cost of money to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation for a comparable period.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 35, strike all 
        language on lines 11 and 12, and insert the following:
            ``No fund appropriated by the Act shall be used to 
        formulate or administer a Federal crop insurance program for 
        the current fiscal year that does not meet its administrative 
        and operating expenses from premium income: Provided,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        May I say that the gentleman from Illinois gave the matter 
    away, in my opinion, when he said that the purpose of his amendment 
    was to set premium rates that the Government would charge. I think 
    that shows clearly what is involved. This amendment provides that 
    no funds shall be used to administer this program under certain 
    conditions. The program now in existence is based on contracts to 
    which the Government is a party. For us in this bill to try to 
    prohibit the handling of existing contracts on the part of the 
    Government would clearly be legislation. It not only would be 
    legislation but it would interfere with meeting obligations under 
    existing contracts and commitments on the part of the Government. . 
    . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered 
    is clearly a limitation of funds, requiring that

[[Page 6345]]

    no funds be appropriated for the administration or formulation of 
    programs. Therefore, on the basis of that it seems to me that the 
    amendment is in order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observation, the 
    amendment has to do with setting premiums and is quite clearly an 
    affirmative action.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is 
    truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this 
    language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here 
    sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the 
    pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Agricultural Conservation

Sec. 67.12 To a bill appropriating funds for agricultural conservation, 
    a provision that no part of the appropriation for soil building and 
    soil and water conserving practices shall be used to make small 
    payment increases (though authorized by law) was held to be a 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On May 18, 1959,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7175, a Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit 
Administration appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 8328, 8329, 8331, 8332, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Agricultural Conservation Program

        For necessary expenses to carry into effect the program 
    authorized in sections 7 to 16, 16(a), and 17 of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. . . . Provided further, 
    That none of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay the 
    salaries or expenses of any regional information employees or any 
    State information employees, but this shall not preclude the 
    answering of inquiries or supplying of information at the county 
    level to individual farmers: . . . Provided further, That no part 
    of any funds available to the Department, or any bureau, office, 
    corporation, or other agency constituting a part of such 
    Department, shall be used in the current fiscal year for the 
    payment of salary or travel expenses of any person who has been 
    convicted of violating the Act entitled ``An Act to prevent 
    pernicious political activities'', approved August 2, 1939, as 
    amended, or who has been found in accordance with the provisions of 
    title 18, United States Code, section 1913, to have violated or 
    attempted to violate such section which prohibits the use of 
    Federal appropriations for the payment of personal services or 
    other expenses designed to influence in any manner a Member of 
    Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or appropriation by 
    Congress except upon request of any Member or through the proper 
    official channels. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6346]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: On page 14, 
        line 18, strike out the period in line 18, insert a colon and 
        add ``Provided further, That no part of any funds appropriated 
        herein for soil building and soil and water conserving 
        practices, under the Act of February 29, 1936, as amended, 
        shall be used to make small payment increases as provided in 
        section 8(e) of that Act.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: . . . [T]he purpose of this amendment 
    and the real effect of this amendment would be to increase the 
    payments under the agricultural conservation program for actual 
    conservation practices without any increase in the appropriation 
    for that purpose.
        I did not realize that this was the situation until I was 
    advised by the chairman of our State ASC committee in Wisconsin of 
    problems that they have encountered under section 8(e) in the 1938 
    act, which provides these so-called small payments. Under the law 
    enacted in 1938 payments made to farmers under the ACP program are 
    increased by specific percentage amounts if the payments are less 
    than $200. This is known as the small payments increase provision. 
    All of these increases are in small amounts. Under the formula 
    provided by law they run from $8 to $14 a farm, depending upon the 
    size of the payment which the farmer otherwise would earn as a 
    result of his practices.
        In the aggregate, however, they represent a sizeable portion of 
    the funds paid by the Federal Government for conservation 
    practices. In 1957, for example, the latest year for which I have 
    data, small payment increases cost the Federal Government 
    $10,743,000.
        Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the amendment being not only what 
    I consider meritorious to improve our soil conservation program and 
    make available more money for actual soil conservation practices is 
    in order as a limitation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Whitten: . . . The gentleman's amendment is tied to the 
    money which this bill would appropriate to pay for contracts 
    entered into last year. I would respectfully submit here that to 
    tie strings to the money that is authorized under the basic act for 
    this additional contribution under small payments on contracts 
    which the Government owes, certainly should not lie here. That is a 
    matter having to do with legislation. If the law needs to be 
    changed, I am certain the gentleman could ably offer his 
    recommendations to the legislative committee on agriculture where 
    this matter should go.
        Here in this bill, and we fought over this many times, Mr. 
    Chairman, in the conservation program, the ACP program, you do two 
    things. You announce next year's program and you provide funds for 
    the payment of existing contracts which have been entered into 
    under the previous year's announced program.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin has offered an amendment which has 
    been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from Mississippi has made 
    a point of

[[Page 6347]]

    order against the amendment on the ground that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair would point out 
    that the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, is a 
    proviso to the language contained in the bill providing that no 
    part of any funds appropriated herein--and then states the 
    limitation of purpose for which the funds appropriated in this bill 
    shall not be used. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to hold that 
    this constitutes a limitation on the use of the funds and, 
    therefore, would be in order. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Soil Conservation Service

Sec. 67.13 An amendment to the Department of Agriculture chapter, 
    general appropriation bill, 1951, providing, inter alia, that ``not 
    to exceed 5 percent of the allocation for the agricultural 
    conservation program for any county may be allocated to the Soil 
    Conservation Service'' for services of its technicians in carrying 
    out the agricultural conservation program, was held to be a 
    limitation negatively restricting the availability of funds and 
    therefore in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 5930, 5931, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 191, line 17, after the colon insert: ``Provided further, 
    That not to exceed 5 percent of the allocation for the agricultural 
    conservation program for any county may be allocated to the Soil 
    Conservation Service for services of its technicians in formulating 
    and carrying out the agricultural conservation program, and the 
    funds so allocated shall not be utilized by the Soil Conservation 
    Service for any purpose other than technical and other assistance 
    in such county.'' . . .
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    same objection to this amendment as I heretofore raised, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. Whitten: I would just like to say that we made an effort to 
    modify the amendment to strike out the language which we believe 
    caused the Chair to hold earlier that it was subject to a point of 
    order. We have tried to bring it within the limits of a limitation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Is this amendment offered in 
    an effort to eliminate duplication?
        Mr. Whitten: It is an effort to try to coordinate these 
    activities. I believe it holds high promise to give us a start on 
    the point which the gentleman raised previously.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and is of the opinion that 
    it con

[[Page 6348]]

    stitutes a limitation on an appropriation bill and is in conformity 
    with the rules of the House.
        The point of order, therefore, is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Earlier during consideration of the same 
bill, language in the bill which had given an affirmative direction 
that the county agricultural conservation committee in any county with 
the approval of the state committee may allot not to exceed five per 
centum of its allocation for the agricultural conservation program to 
the Soil Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
carrying out the program, was held to be legislation and not in order. 
See Sec. 39.11, supra.

Printing of Yearbook of Agriculture

Sec. 67.14 To a section of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
    making appropriations for the Government Printing Office, an 
    amendment providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used 
    to pay the salary of any person who shall perform any service or 
    authorize any expenditure in connection with the printing and 
    binding of the Yearbook of Agriculture was held as a valid 
    limitation and in order, although there were no funds in the bill 
    designated for that purpose.

    On Mar. 18, 1942,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6802. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 2681, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On 
    page 45, line 3, after ``1942'', insert ``Provided further, That no 
    part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any 
    person who shall perform any service or authorize any expenditure 
    in connection with the printing and binding of part 2 of the annual 
    report of the Secretary of Agriculture (known as the Year Book of 
    Agriculture) for 1942.''
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. There are no funds carried in 
    this bill for the purposes which are inhibited by the gentleman's 
    amendment. It would be nugatory and of no effect, and I can 
    conceive of no rule under which it might be in order.
        Mr. Dirksen: I think the amendment will speak for itself. I 
    think it is a limitation and would be germane and in order, 
    irrespective of whether any funds are carried, but the fact of the 
    matter is that the yearbook is not printed ordinarily until after 
    the first of the year. Consequently the personnel and salaries for 
    clerical work and mechanical work in the Government Printing Office 
    is done after the beginning of the fiscal year 1943. I

[[Page 6349]]

    therefore regard it as a proper limitation and in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair thinks that the 
    limitation is a valid one, and, therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William R. Thom (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Publishing Certain Types of Parity Ratios

Sec. 67.15 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, including 
    funds for a statistical reporting service, an amendment denying use 
    of these funds for publishing any ``parity'' ratio other than that 
    which is defined in section 301 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
    was held a limitation and in order as not affirmatively restricting 
    executive discretion.

    On May 19, 1964,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 11389, 11390, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Statistical Reporting Service

                           Salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Statistical Reporting Service in 
    conducting statistical reporting and service work, including crop 
    and livestock estimates, statistical coordination and improvements, 
    and marketing surveys, as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing 
    Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, $11,431,000: 
    Provided, That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be 
    available for any expense incident to publishing estimates of apple 
    production for other than the commercial crop.
        Mr. [Ancher) Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nelsen: Page 13, line 20, add the 
        following: Provided further, That no part of the funds herein 
        appropriated shall be available for any expense incident to 
        preparing or publishing either an `adjusted parity ratio' or 
        any other parity ratios except the parity ratio defined in 
        section 301 (a) (B) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 
        as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: I would point out that here again it is 
    legislating on an appropriation bill. I would point particularly to 
    the fact that the law requires the Secretary to make this 
    determination. Also there are a number of statutes which have to do 
    with that. I further point out that the precedents support my 
    contention that this is a limitation on the discretion of an 
    executive exercised under existing law. This has

[[Page 6350]]

    been held on past occasions as legislating on an appropriation 
    bill.
        I say here where the law definitely says that the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, a cabinet officer, is authorized to make this 
    determination or issues in his name, which is the same, such orders 
    or regulations, you prevent him from carrying out duties that are 
    imposed upon him by law. While it is under the guise of the use of 
    funds, the effect is to neutralize and deprive the executive 
    department of the power and authority granted under the law. . . .
        Mr. Nelsen: I would like to point out that under the Holman 
    rule you can legislate on an appropriation bill if you show 
    retrenchment.
        I would like to refer to the language which appears on page 13 
    to which my amendment has been offered. There the committee itself 
    states:

            That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be 
        available for any expense incident to possible estimates of 
        apple production for other than the commercial crop.

        In effect the committee is legislating in this field through 
    that very language. If my amendment is out of order, so is the 
    language in this section.
        I would like to point out further that I see no restriction on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture by virtue of my amendment. He can 
    publish all that he wants, as far as money that is being 
    appropriated in the various programs is concerned, but the parity 
    concept is established by law and it should be followed until the 
    Congress of the United States makes a change.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi to the language cited by the gentleman from Minnesota 
    appearing on page 13, lines 17 through 20.
        The Chair is of the opinion that while the question is always 
    present as to whether the form of an amendment is in fact a 
    limitation or whether it is legislation in the guise of a 
    limitation, the Chair is of the opinion that this amendment 
    specifically limits the expenditure of the appropriated funds for 
    any purpose other than that provided by existing law and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Salary of Employees Performing Certain Tasks

Sec. 67.16 To a bill appropriating funds for the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment providing that none of the funds therein 
    shall be used to pay the salary of any employee who performs duties 
    incidental to supporting the price of cotton at a level specified 
    was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On June 6, 1963,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 10411, 10412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 33, 
    after line 12, insert the following:

[[Page 6351]]

        ``Sec. 607. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to 
    pay the salary of any officer or employee who negotiates agreements 
    or contracts or in any other way, directly or indirectly, performs 
    duties or functions incidental to supporting the price of Upland 
    Middling Inch cotton at a level in excess of 30 cents a pound.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but I will reserve the point 
    of order at this time. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, the legislative history of the 
    agricultural act of 1958 applied to cotton as well as to feed 
    grains and very clearly indicated a gradual but steady stepdown in 
    the level of price supports for cotton.
        Secretary Freeman when taking office immediately raised the 
    level of price supports in direct contradiction of the intent of 
    the legislative act of 1958. He continued the price supports at 
    this excessive level. The purpose of my amendment is simply to 
    withhold funds for payment to any officers or employees of the 
    department who would be entering into contracts or agreements 
    providing for this unrealistic price support of more than 30 cents 
    per pound for upland Middling inch cotton.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment on the basis of 
    that argument. One of the reasons we had the supplemental 
    appropriation bill for the Commodity Credit Corporation earlier 
    this year was because the price supports for cotton had been set at 
    an unrealistic level. I would also like to mention to those who may 
    not have been in the Chamber earlier today that I had made a 
    unanimous consent request to return to the language on page 17 of 
    this bill. That request was objected to so my point of order was 
    not disposed of by the Chair. I had wished at that time to point 
    out that we are being asked today to legislate a new type cotton 
    subsidy program in the appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] press his point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the 
    basis that the prohibition that would be set up here would require 
    new duties to be performed in determining who negotiates, whether 
    their actions constitute negotiations, or whether their actions in 
    any of these particulars are in such a manner as to have their 
    salaries not paid, particularly in view of other laws which require 
    that employees of the Federal Government be paid certain specified 
    sums.
        Mr. Chairman, it does call for new duties and there is no 
    limitation in its entirety.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment which provides for the insertion of a new section, which 
    amendment provides in words that none of the funds provided in the 
    pending bill shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
    employee who does certain things.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that constitutes within the rules 
    of the House a limitation on the funds being appropriated and is a 
    proper form of limita

[[Page 6352]]

    tion. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Prohibitions on Salaries of Employees Imposing Certain Demands on 
    Farmers

Sec. 67.17 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation 
    bill providing that none of the funds appropriated in such bill 
    shall be paid out for the salary, per diem allowance, or expenses 
    of any person who personally or by letter demands that a farmer 
    join the triple A program as a condition of draft deferment or for 
    the granting of a priority certificate for any rationed article or 
    commodity was held a proper limitation merely descriptive of a 
    certain type of official activity.

    On Mar. 23, 1944,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4443. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 2999, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: On 
    page 65, line 18, after the end of the bracket, strike out the 
    period and insert ``Provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated in this bill shall be paid out for the salary, per 
    diem allowance or expenses of any person who personally or by 
    letter demands that a farmer join the triple A program as a 
    condition of draft deferment or for the granting of a priority 
    certificate for any rationed article or commodity.''. . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    first to raise the question of whether or not the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana is in order. I conceive that the 
    amendment requires the performance of additional duties on the part 
    of employees of the Department, in that, if I understand the 
    amendment correctly, it would require in the case of all of the 
    thousands of employees, administrative investigation and 
    determination to be made as to whether any of those employees had 
    written a letter or a postal card or done anything in violation of 
    the requirement of the gentleman's amendment before the salary 
    check of such employee could be issued for the month for which he 
    was being compensated. . . .

        It certainly seems to me, while it is in the form of a 
    limitation so as to be in order under the Holman rule, the effect 
    of this is to require performance of additional duties on the part 
    of the employees of the Department. For that reason it is 
    legislative in character and should not be considered in order. . . 
    .
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: I submit that the argument of the 
    gentleman does not point out anything except that this is a 
    limitation. It does not require any duty on the part of any of the 
    A.A.A. officials. It simply prohibits payment when this thing has 
    been done. It simply acts as a safeguard so that the A.A.A. 
    officials who want to enforce this act, who do not want these 
    things to be done, could withhold payment when it has been done.

[[Page 6353]]

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: I yield.
        Mr. Tarver: How are those authorized to pay the salaries of 
    these employees to ascertain whether these employees have written a 
    letter or a postal card as prohibited in the gentleman's amendment? 
    Will it not be necessary to make an investigation in each case 
    every month?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: No; of course it would not. If this 
    amendment is adopted it will stop this practice. These people will 
    not do it.
        Mr. Tarver: The gentleman is just figuring on everybody being 
    good because he tells them to be?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: Well, that is true. If your argument is 
    sound, any limitation will require the same thing.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    proviso offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness] in the 
    opinion of the Chair is a limitation and the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibition on Salary to Employees Who Make Certain Loans

Sec. 67.18 A section of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    providing in part that no part of any appropriation in this act or 
    authorized hereby to be expended shall be used to pay compensation 
    or expenses of any officer or employee engaged in making loans 
    under the provisions of section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and 
    Construction Act of 1932 was held a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3597, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. No part of any appropriation contained in this act or 
    authorized hereby to be expended shall be used to pay the 
    compensation or expenses of any officer or employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture, or any bureau, office, agency, or 
    service of the Department, or any corporation, institution, or 
    association supervised thereby, who engages in, or directs, or 
    authorizes any other officer or employee of the Department, or any 
    such bureau, office, agency, service, corporation, institution, or 
    association to engage in, the making of loans under the provisions 
    of section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 
    1932 (12 U.S.C. 1148), as amended, or the making of loans or 
    advances in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in 
    food production financing bulletins F-1 or F-2 of the Farm Credit 
    Administration operating under the Food Production Administration, 
    Production Loan Branch.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the section just read on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

[[Page 6354]]

        This section has for its apparent purpose a prohibition of 
    further loans by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation. 
    There is no provision in this bill making an appropriation for this 
    corporation. So the limitation on its face is against officials of 
    the Department of Agriculture who might exercise supervisory 
    functions over it and its activities.
        The Regional Agricultural Credit Corporations were created in 
    1932 under the Hoover administration. There were originally 12 
    corporations, 1 in each Federal land bank district. Later 
    legislation was passed which authorized the consolidation of the 
    Regional Agricultural Credit Corporations and the return of capital 
    not needed to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to be held as 
    a revolving fund subject to the Governor of the Farm Credit 
    Administration.
        In the meantime, and on March 27, 1933, an Executive order was 
    issued which transferred the jurisdiction and control of the 
    regional agricultural credit corporations from the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation, under whose jurisdiction they had originally 
    been set up, to the Farm Credit Administration, and in that order 
    the functions which were transferred were defined as follows:

            The functions of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and 
        its board of directors relating to the appointment of officers 
        and agents to manage regional agricultural credit corporations 
        formed under section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and 
        Construction Act of 1932; relating to the establishment of 
        rules and regulations for such management and relating to the 
        approval of loans and advances made by such corporations and of 
        the terms and conditions thereof.

        Under that Executive order and under the law it is the duty and 
    the function of the Farm Credit Administration to make rules and 
    regulations to supervise the operations of the regional 
    agricultural credit corporations and to approve loans made by them. 
    I think it is generally recognized under the rules of the House 
    that any language purporting to be a limitation which either 
    imposes new duties upon a Government agency or prohibits it from 
    performing the duties which have been assigned to it is not a 
    limitation but is legislation.
        In this particular case the Farm Credit Administration is 
    prohibited or rather its officers are prohibited under the 
    legislation from directing or authorizing the Regional Agricultural 
    Credit Corporation, to make loans and perform the other functions 
    that are imposed upon it by law. That being the case, it is 
    apparent that the officials of the Farm Credit Administration will 
    be unable to carry out their duties in supervising the operations 
    of the corporation, in approving loans, and other duties which have 
    been assigned to them.
        It can very readily be determined that this is legislation, I 
    think, by considering the interpretation which officials of the 
    Farm Credit Administration will place upon our action if the 
    section remains in the bill. Certainly they would understand it to 
    mean that Congress no longer expected them to carry on the 
    functions which under the law they are to exercise over the 
    Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation. In other words they will 
    conclude that

[[Page 6355]]

    Congress had changed its policy and has forbidden them to do what 
    heretofore under the law they have been authorized and directed to 
    do. That, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion very clearly constitutes 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I merely 
    want to submit to the Chair the very purpose of the limitation is 
    to prevent the expression of a certain task, function, or duty. It 
    may never achieve that result, as a matter of fact, in substance, 
    but that is its primary purpose. So I submit this is a very good 
    limitation and quite within the rules and does not constitute 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the view of the Chair this section is clearly a 
    limitation, and if there are no funds provided in this section the 
    limitation will be ineffective. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Incidental Additional Duties (Crop Support Payments--Limitation on Type 
    of Program)

Sec. 67.19 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    strictly limited to funds appropriated in the bill, and which is 
    negative and restrictive in character and prohibits certain uses of 
    the funds, is in order as a limitation even though its imposition 
    will change the present distribution of funds and require 
    incidental duties on the part of those administering the funds.

    On May 26, 1969,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation. An 
amendment was offered by Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 13757-59, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: On page 22, line 17, strike 
        the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That 
        no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out any price support program (other than 
        for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than $20,000 
        under all such programs are made to any producer on any crops 
        planted in the fiscal year 1970.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserved a point of order. . . .
        . . . [T]his subject has been discussed a number of times. 
    There are several new features in this amendment that have not been 
    included in previous amendments.
        Congress set up the Commodity Credit Corporation as a 
    corporation so that it could act as such. It gets its authority 
    from several sources. One is borrowing authority granted by the 
    Congress on the recommendation of the Banking and Currency 
    Committee. Another is the sale of commodities on hand. The 
    Corporation is given the right to sue and be sued. It is given

[[Page 6356]]

    the right to conduct itself in all ways as a corporation. . . .
        So I respectfully submit that in the absence of a law repealing 
    the Government Corporation Control Act and the charter of the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation, under which it was given certain 
    functions and commitments, that we would have to change that act in 
    order to limit its functions. . . .
        We say in our report that if Mr. Conte's amendment should be 
    adopted, or Mr. Findley's, and if out of the funds in this bill the 
    Corporation can pay only $20,000, we say that the Corporation would 
    still have to do what its charter authorizes and binds it to do--
    because they have these contracts--and that is to go ahead and pay 
    the remainder, over and above $20,000, out of other moneys they 
    have. . . . The Corporation's charter provides its authority. We 
    have not amended that charter. We passed legislation letting us 
    supervise its activities, but in that law permitting us to survey 
    it, it says nothing shall be done to keep that corporation from 
    carrying out its functions under its charter.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has offered an 
    amendment against which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has made a point of order on the ground that the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2 of rule XXI.
        As the gentleman from Mississippi points out and as was further 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, amendments almost 
    exactly identical to that offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts have been offered on numerous previous occasions, as 
    early as 1959 and as recently as May 1, 1968. On several of those 
    occasions points of order have been raised against this amendment 
    or its equivalent on similar grounds. On all of those previous 
    occasions the occupants of the chair have held that the amendment 
    is a valid limitation on funds appropriated by the bill, and on all 
    of those occasions the point of order has been overruled. The Chair 
    has had occasion to observe the elaborate and scholarly argument 
    presented on May 1, 1968, by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and to hear his further argument today. The gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) contends that the amendment would 
    limit and restrict the activities of a Government corporation 
    created and regulated by other law and that therefore constitutes 
    legislation. The Chair finds on the face of the amendment that what 
    it limits and restricts is the application of funds appropriated in 
    this bill to a Government corporation, and as such the Chair 
    believes that it falls well within the rulings by Chairman Kilday 
    in 1959, by Chairman Harris on January 26, 1965, and by Chairman 
    Corman on two occasions, June 6, 1967, and May 1, 1968. The Chair 
    therefore holds that the amendment is a valid limitation on the 
    funds appropriated in the bill and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 67.20 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    negative in character and which prohibits,

[[Page 6357]]

    during the fiscal year covered by the bill, certain uses of the 
    funds therein to carry out a program whose duration extends beyond 
    that fiscal year, is in order as a limitation, even though its 
    imposition would require incidental duties on the part of those 
    administering the funds.

    On June 9, 1970,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17923), a point of order was raised against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 117 Cong. Rec. 21634-36, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        23, 1971 [H.R. 9270, agriculture, environmental, and consumer 
        protection appropriations for fiscal 1972].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations,'' strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program could be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of making payments, to make 
    loans under the Corporation Control Act, and it was provided that 
    nothing in that act should let the Congress prevent the corporation 
    from discharging its functions. I might say the same thing applies 
    to the TVA.
        I respectfully, therefore, submit, Mr. Chairman, that to change 
    the Corporation Control Act and to relieve it of its 
    responsibilities which have been carefully protected by the 
    Congress on at least two occasions, even in the Anti-Deficiency 
    Act, which was some years later, would take legislation. It can 
    only be done that way, and since it would require legislation to 
    change it, anything that has that effect here of necessity must be 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order. This 
    is the similar

[[Page 6358]]

    argument that has been extended by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    on several previous occasions. One such occasion was January 26, 
    1965; another occasion was June 6, 1967, and another occasion 
    related to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) on May 26, 1969.
        On each of those occasions the limitation went to the entire 
    act, as does this amendment. It stated on each occasion that ``no 
    part of this appropriation shall be used, or none of the funds 
    appropriated by this act,''--language of that sort. The language 
    applies to administrative salaries of ASDA organizations. The 
    limitation is clearly negative on its face. It clearly shows 
    retrenchment, the reduction in spending, and, therefore is entirely 
    within the Holman rule, and I believe it is completely in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As the gentleman from Illinois declares, the point of order and 
    the arguments supporting it have been offered on previous 
    occasions, and on occasion by the gentleman from Mississippi, as 
    recently as the 26th of May last year.
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer on any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 67.21 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    negative in character and which prohibits, during the fiscal year 
    covered by the bill, certain uses of the funds therein to carry out 
    a program whose duration extends beyond that fiscal year, is in 
    order as a limitation even though its imposition might require 
    incidental duties (not contemplated in the legislation establishing 
    the administrative agency) on the part of those administering the 
    funds.

    On June 29, 1972,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15690), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 23353-55, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]:

[[Page 6359]]

        On page 19, line 21, strike the period and insert the 
    following: ``And provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated by this act shall be used during the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1973, to formulate or carry out any single 1973 
    crop-year price support program (other than for sugar and wool) 
    under which the total amount of payments to a person under any such 
    program would be in excess of $20,000.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    reserves a point of order against the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to address himself 
    to his point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        As to my point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment, to which 
    I make the point of order, goes to tying strings on the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation at the present 
    time is a creature of statutory law originally created and 
    incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. It was made 
    into a corporation so that it could perform and discharge all of 
    the duties of a corporation, that is, sue and be sued. It had an 
    independence created by statute. With time the Congress made it a 
    U.S. corporation and brought forward the provisions which are 
    incorporated in the Corporation Control Act. It appears in the 
    compilation of statutes of February 17, page 154, 69 Stat. 1007.
        In addition, the Commodity Credit Corporation by law and in the 
    law is created for the purpose of stabilizing, supporting, and 
    protecting farm income.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts has offered an amendment to 
    which the gentleman from Mississippi has made a point of order on 
    the ground that it would constitute legislation on the pending 
    appropriation bill, and thus be in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        There have been at least six rulings on points of order offered 
    against similar or identical amendments in recent years.
        Chairman Kilday in 1959, Chairman Harris in 1965, Chairman 
    Corman in 1967 and 1968, and the present occupant of the chair in 
    1969, 1970, and 1971.
        All have ruled on similar points of order. On each occasion the 
    amendments have been held to be in order as being limitations on an 
    appropriation bill.
        In the present instance, the Chair has examined the amendment 
    and is of the opinion that it applies only to funds which would be 
    appropriated in the pending appropriation bill and that it does no 
    more than limit the use or application of the funds made available 
    in the pending bill.
        Therefore, consistent with the precedents that the Chair has 
    cited, the Chair holds that the amendment is in order as a 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Commodity Credit Corporation, Employee Salary

Sec. 67.22 Language in an appropriation bill providing that

[[Page 6360]]

    none of the funds therein shall be used to pay any employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture who serves as a member of the Board of 
    Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be a negative limitation and in order, though indirectly 
    effecting a change in policy.

    On May 11, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12117, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 
        Sec. Sec. 52, 53, supra, for discussion of proposed language in 
        appropriation bills as imposing additional duties on officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: . . . This reverses a decision made by 
    the Banking and Currency Committee and the Congress in 1949, when 
    the CCC Charter Act was amended to strike out a similar restriction 
    which had been enacted in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and 
    the mere fact it is put in the form of a limitation on the use of 
    funds appropriated by the bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, 
    volume 7, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives 
    puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it 
        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would also have to 
    recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers of the 
    Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protec

[[Page 6361]]

    tion of the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government 
    money. On the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at 
    additional expense to the Government. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    section clearly provides a limitation on the use of funds that are 
    appropriated in this bill. It does not change the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation charter. It does not change any basic law. It just 
    simply limits what the money in this bill can be used for. It has 
    been my experience and observation during the years here that the 
    Chair has many times said that it is a negative limitation on the 
    use of money and that it is clearly in order, and on that I rest 
    the committee's position.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A discussion comparing the precedents cited 
above, 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1691 and 1694 can be found in 
Sec. 51, supra. An issue suggested by the debate on May 11, 1960, is 
whether language in an appropriation bill should be ruled out if it may 
lead prospectively or indirectly to the imposition of duties on 
officials, by the operation of other laws. The ruling suggests that 
only where the duties are imposed directly by the language of the 
provision in question is it subject to a point of order.

``Stream Channelization

Sec. 67.23 An amendment to an appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    funds therein for stream channelization projects under the 
    Secretary of Agriculture unless construction had begun by a date 
    certain was held not to impose additional affirmative duties on the 
    Secretary and in order as a limitation on the use of funds in the 
    bill.

    On June 23, 1971,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of

[[Page 6362]]

order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 21648, 21649, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: On 
    page 37, immediately after line 25, insert the following:

                          ``Stream Channelization

        ``No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used 
    for engineering or construction of any stream channelization 
    measure under any program administered by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture unless such channelization is in a project a part of 
    which was in the project construction stage before July 1, 1971.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Chair, in the other ruling 
    pointed up the section which was dropped. That being sufficient, I 
    take it, the Chair did not feel any need to study the other parts. 
    Since it was going out on one ground there was no need to study the 
    others.
        The part that is left says that ``under any program 
    administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.''
        The program, apparently, that this is directed to is the Soil 
    Conservation projects. I would respectfully call the attention of 
    the Chair to the fact that these are two things which must be done 
    on these projects. The Department of Agriculture does not have any 
    right of eminent domain in order to get ground on which to build 
    these projects. Under the law there is required a local sponsor, 
    who in most cases is a drainage or similar district, which in turn 
    issues bonds or borrows money, with which they buy rights-of-way. 
    Those rights-of-way having been bought, this comes under the 
    administration of the Soil Conservation Service.
        In this instance, with all these projects throughout the United 
    States, in most cases they have to be approved by the local courts, 
    which have to determine whether all of the requirements of the law 
    have been carried out.
        This would be imposing upon the Secretary of Agriculture the 
    duty to go into each of those instances and to see whether that 
    project was, as we quote here, ``A part of which was in project 
    construction stage before July 1, 1971.'' Those things do not come 
    to the Secretary of Agriculture. They are handled, as I pointed 
    out, in the initial stage at the local level with a local 
    sponsorship and approved by local courts.
        I say here this would be imposing additional duties on the 
    Secretary of Agriculture not imposed on him by existing law. This 
    again, although not pointed up by the Chair in the earlier ruling, 
    would make it subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    that goes to the appropriation item is one carried in Public Law 
    566. In that Public Law there are certain requirements which are 
    made upon all of the political subdivisions which are participants 
    under that existing law.
        The Chair has just ruled that that requirement, the Cooper 
    Decision, such as the Chair just ruled upon, would put an 
    additional burden or an addi

[[Page 6363]]

    tional requirement on the administrative offices and would be an 
    infringement upon the legislative function, which should not be 
    carried in an appropriation act.
        Here is the situation. The situation is such that this 
    amendment goes into an infinite requirement.
        Suppose the amendment had said, ``The Soil Conservation Service 
    should not use a soil depleting plant and it should require not 
    fescue but say four-leaf clover.'' That would be just as sensible 
    as the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        I do not know how the administrative officer assigned the 
    duties under Public Law 566 is going to be responsible, when the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to tell 
    him how to function, how much water to use, how much plant leaf, or 
    how much forestation, and all the varieties of programs that are 
    employed in the total scheme and development of the overall 
    program. It does not make sense to me that we are going to have 
    amendments offered here that are going to tell administrative 
    agencies how much they are going to employ in a certain area, for 
    geographical distribution, and how they are going to develop a 
    sound and sensible program.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, all of us aspire to develop all of the 
    advantages of our resources. We are totally dedicated to the 
    proposition. There is not a single one of us here who is not as 
    anxious as he can be to accomplish this, or who wants to deplete, 
    dissipate or misuse the water resources of our country. I think we 
    are all in unity on that, but I would hate to see us come up here 
    and fragment the total programs that have been so far established 
    by the various committees of the Congress and thereby lose our grip 
    on the total water resources of this country. I cannot think of 
    anything worse, or any situation that would create more disunity 
    and create a greater loss of hope that we can work together in the 
    development of these programs in the future.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to the amendment will be sustained. . . 
    .
        Mr. Reuss: . . . This amendment is entirely germane. It is 
    within all of the precedents as a limitation on an appropriation. 
    It requires no duties on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture 
    other than for him to show up at the office in the morning and find 
    out what projects have been started. If they have been started, my 
    amendment would not touch them. Accordingly I hope that the point 
    of order will be ruled against.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the burden, if any, which is imposed on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture or any administrator in the present 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is clearly 
    different from that on the basis of which the Chair ruled that the 
    amendment previously offered would be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and would, therefore, be out of order. The 
    Chair believes that this present amendment before the House follows 
    the pattern of limitation on an appropriation bill, and that it 
    does not constitute new legislation. Therefore the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

[[Page 6364]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: On the same day, a provision requiring 
state approval of certain projects was ruled out as legislation. See 
Sec. 53.6, supra; see also the note following Sec. 53.6.

Removal of Dollar Limit on Building Cost; No Authorization Ceiling

Sec. 67.24 A provision in the general appropriation bill, 1951, 
    providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used (by the 
    Secretary of Agriculture under the Research and Marketing Act) for 
    beginning construction of any building costing in excess of 
    $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may be constructed at 
    Purdue University at a cost of not to exceed $29,000, was held to 
    be a limitation and in order inasmuch as the authorization for such 
    projects contained no ceiling on such expenditures.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786. A provision therein provided that no part of the 
appropriation shall be used [by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 
Research and Marketing Act] for beginning construction of any building 
costing in excess of $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may 
be constructed at Purdue University at a cost of not to exceed $29,000. 
A point of order was made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing in lines 15 to 17 on 
    page 157, reading ``Except that a poultry breeding house may be 
    constructed at Purdue University,'' on the ground that it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
    Chairman, I wish to call attention to the fact that under the 
    Research and Marketing Act, section 7-A, 7 United States Code 
    427(h), the Department of Agriculture is authorized to construct 
    agricultural buildings without limitation on the amounts. This 
    committee has put restrictions heretofore on these amounts, fixing 
    the individual amount at $15,000 per unit. We carry that provision 
    with the exception that in this instance we let them go above it.
        It traces back to the legislative authorization in the Research 
    and Marketing Act under which they have authority to build such 
    houses without any limitation.
        In effect this is a limitation.
        The authorization [now 7 U.S.C. 361(d)] reads as follows:

[[Page 6365]]

            The money appropriated in pursuance of this title shall 
        also be available for the purchase or rental of land and the 
        construction and acquisition of buildings necessary for 
        conducting research provided for in this title.

        In effect this is a limitation fixing the amount they may spend 
    for this purpose.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the provisions of 
    existing law cited by the gentleman from Mississippi and invites 
    attention to the fact that the first part of this paragraph appears 
    clearly to be a limitation and the latter part of the paragraph 
    appears to be an exception to the limitation for a purpose 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Price Support Programs; Limit on Single Payments

Sec. 67.25 To a paragraph of a bill making appropriations for parity 
    payments, an amendment limiting such payments to any person or 
    corporation to $1,000 was held a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Jed) Johnson of Oklahoma: On page 75, 
    line 13, after ``Government'' and before the period, insert the 
    following: ``: Provided further, That no payment or payments 
    hereunder to any one person or corporation shall be in excess of 
    the total sum of $1,000.''

    In response to a point of order made by Mr. William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, the Chairman (5) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From Cannon's Procedure, on page 61, the Chair reads the 
    following:

            The House in Committee of the Whole 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 part of the parliamentary law of the Committee of 
        the Whole.

        That was a ruling made by Mr. Chairman Nelson Dingley, of 
    Maine, January 17, 1896. The present amendment against which the 
    point of order has been made undertakes to limit payments which 
    have heretofore been provided for by law. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment is a limitation; and, therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Limits on Payments or Loans Under Farm Program

Sec. 67.26 To an appropriation bill providing funds for pro

[[Page 6366]]

    grams operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and permitting 
    a transfer of certain corporation funds to those programs, an 
    amendment providing that no funds in the act be used for price 
    support programs under which payments to producers exceed specified 
    amounts was held in order as a limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds.

    On May 26, 1969,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
During consideration, the Chair overruled a point of order against a 
substitute amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 13762, 13763, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of 
    Minnesota]: On page 22, line 17, strike the period and insert the 
    following: ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out 
    any price support program on cotton, wheat, or feed grains planted 
    during the fiscal year 1970 under which payments to any single 
    producer exceed an amount determined as follows: [A table of 
    payments was inserted here.]
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: It is legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    requires additional duties.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Quie: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe this amendment is in order, because the opening 
    language is identical with that of the Conte amendment. The only 
    difference is that where his cutoff is at $20,000 mine provides for 
    a graduation or scaling down of the cutoff above that. It applies 
    only to the funds in this act and is a limitation on the funds in 
    this act. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        For reasons declared in a previous ruling the Chair is going to 
    hold that the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie), is a limitation on the appropriation and is 
    therefore in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.27 To an appropriation bill providing funds for programs 
    operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and permitting a 
    transfer of certain corporation funds to those programs, an 
    amendment specifying that no funds appropriated by the act be used 
    to formulate or carry out price support programs which include 
    payments in excess of $20,000 to any producer, was held in order as 
    a limitation restricting the availability of funds.

[[Page 6367]]

    On May 26, 1969,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 13757-59, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 
    On page 22, line 17, strike the period and insert the following: 
    ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds appropriated by 
    this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out any price support 
    program (other than for sugar) under which payments aggregating 
    more than $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer 
    on any crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.''

    In response to a point of order against the amendment, the 
Chairman, James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, ruled as follows:

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has offered an 
    amendment against which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has made a point of order on the ground that the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        As the gentleman from Mississippi points out and as was further 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, amendments almost 
    exactly identical to that offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts have been offered on numerous previous occasions, as 
    early as 1959 and as recently as May 1, 1968. On several of those 
    occasions points of order have been raised against this amendment 
    or its equivalent on similar grounds. On all those previous 
    occasions the occupants of the chair have held that the amendment 
    is a valid limitation on funds appropriated by the bill, and on all 
    of those occasions the point of order has been overruled. The Chair 
    has had occasion to observe the elaborate and scholarly argument 
    presented on May 1, 1968, by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and to hear his further argument today. The gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) contends that the amendment would 
    limit and restrict the activities of a Government corporation 
    created and regulated by other law and that therefore constitutes 
    legislation. The Chair finds on the face of the amendment that what 
    it limits and restricts is the application of funds appropriated in 
    this bill to a Government corporation, and as such the Chair 
    believes that it falls well within the rulings by Chairman Kilday 
    in 1959, by Chairman Harris on January 26, 1965, and by Chairman 
    Corman on two occasions, June 5, 1967, and May 1, 1968. The Chair 
    therefore holds that the amendment is a valid limitation on the 
    funds appropriated in the bill and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 67.28 The Committee of the Whole having stricken from an 
    appropriation bill one limitation on compensation under an acreage 
    reserve program, an amendment proposing another limitation of 
    compensation to any one producer to $5,000 under

[[Page 6368]]

    such program was held to be in order and a proper limitation.

    On May 15, 1957,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7441, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 7023, 7033, 7034, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Acreage Reserve, Soil Bank

        For necessary expenses to carry out an acreage reserve program 
    in accordance with the provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil 
    Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1821-1824 and 1802-1814), $60,000,000: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation shall be used to formulate and 
    administer an acreage reserve program which would result in total 
    compensation being paid to producers in excess of $500,000,000 with 
    respect to the 1958 crops.
        Mr. [Burr P.] Harrison of Virginia: I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harrison of Virginia: On page 21, 
        strike out all following the word ``program'' in line 2 and 
        strike out all of line 3. . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 21, line 4, change 
        the period to a comma and add the following: ``or in total 
        compensation being paid to any one producer in excess of $5,000 
        with respect to the 1958 crops.''. . .

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) he gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The gentleman's amendment, as just 
    reported, affects a section of the bill already stricken by the 
    amendment just agreed to, and furthermore I see no reason for any 
    further discussion upon this particular amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: Upon what grounds does the gentleman make his 
    point of order?
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: That the language to which this amendment 
    applies has already been stricken out and, further, that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, 
    which was adopted, struck out only a portion of the proviso to this 
    section. But, there is language remaining to which the gentleman 
    has offered an amendment, and stated it would be at the end of that 
    paragraph. It is also a limitation on the use of the appropriation. 
    The point of order made by the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    overruled.

Sec. 67.29 To a bill appropriating funds for the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, a provision that no funds appropriated in this section 
    shall be used to process a loan

[[Page 6369]]

    which is in excess of $50,000 was held to be a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On May 18, 1959,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7175, a Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit 
Administration appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 8337, 8338, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Title II--Corporations

        The following corporations and agencies are hereby authorized 
    to make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and borrowing 
    authority available to each such corporation or agency and in 
    accord with law, and to make such contracts and commitments without 
    regard to fiscal year limitation as provided by section 104 of the 
    Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, as may be necessary 
    in carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for the fiscal 
    year 1960 for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
    provided: . . .

                   Limitation on Administrative Expenses

        Nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to prevent the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation from carrying out any activity or any 
    program authorized by law: Provided, That not to exceed $39,600,000 
    shall be available for administrative expenses of the Corporation: 
    Provided further, That $1,000,000 of this authorization shall be 
    available only to expand and strengthen the sales program of the 
    Corporation pursuant to authority contained in the Corporation's 
    charter: Provided further, That not less than 7 per centum of this 
    authorization shall be placed in reserve to be apportioned pursuant 
    to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, for use only 
    in such amounts and at such time as may become necessary to carry 
    out program operations: Provided further, That all necessary 
    expenses (including legal and special services performed on a 
    contract or fee basis, but not including other personal services) 
    in connection with the acquisition, operation, maintenance, 
    improvement, or disposition of any real or personal property 
    belonging to the Corporation or in which it has an interest, 
    including expenses of collections of pledged collateral, shall be 
    considered as nonadministrative expenses for the purposes hereof. . 
    . .
        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk on page 27.
        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: Page 27, line 18 strike out 
        the period, add a colon, and insert ``Provided further, That no 
        funds appropriated in this section shall be used to process a 
        Commodity Credit loan which is in excess of $50,000.' . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order I make is this: The Commodity Credit Corporation is 
    chartered and its charter gives it certain authority. The language 
    which the gentleman offers is legislation.
        We are here dealing with the administration of the Commodity 
    Credit Cor

[[Page 6370]]

    poration in this bill. The gentleman's limitation would apply to 
    what the Corporation would do and would have the effect of amending 
    the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair would point out that the amendment by its language is 
    a restriction upon the purpose for which the funds appropriated in 
    this bill may be used.
        The Chair would point out further that even though there should 
    be an existing liability on the Government or should be through 
    other legislation granting powers to an organization of the 
    Government, still a provision in an appropriation bill limiting the 
    purpose for which the funds appropriated in that bill may be used 
    is a limitation and not legislation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.30 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, an 
    amendment specifying that no part of the funds therein shall be 
    used, in any fiscal year, for farm program payments aggregating 
    more than $50,000 to any person or corporation was held to be a 
    proper limitation since confined to the funds in the bill.

    On May 26, 1965,(13) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8370, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 11660-62, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk: Page 36, line 20:

            Sec. 506. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
        the Department for research and service work authorized by the 
        Acts of August 14, 1946, July 28, 1954, and September 6, 1958 
        (7 U.S.C. 472, 1621-1629; 42 U.S.C. 1891-1893), shall be 
        available for contracting in accordance with said Acts.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: Page 37, after line 2, 
        insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 507. No part of any funds appropriated by this Act 
        may, in any fiscal year, be used, directly or indirectly, to 
        make payments to any person, partnership, or corporation in an 
        aggregate amount in excess of $50,000 in connection with any 
        price-support program or combination of programs for price 
        support or stabilization, irrespective of whether such payments 
        are on account of loans, purchases, or subsidies or are 
        otherwise authorized.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, you 
    will be interested to know that the U.S. Department of 
    Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation publishes a list of 
    recipients of price support loans which runs to 13 closely typed 
    pages. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi press his point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6371]]

        Mr. Whitten: This amendment would require the keeping of books, 
    it would require substantive additional duties on many people 
    because many producers produce many different crops. This would be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I would point out 
    this is very simple. I am sure the gentleman from Mississippi knows 
    no duties are imposed upon any persons by this. . . .
        This is really a limitation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] offered 
    an amendment. . . .
        To which amendment the gentleman from Mississippi makes the 
    point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that since the amendment is 
    directed to funds appropriated by the pending act, the phrase ``in 
    any fiscal year'' is not applicable, nor in fact is it necessary. 
    But the Chair is further of the opinion that this is an express 
    limitation on the funds appropriated by the pending bill, and holds 
    that the amendment is in order, and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.31 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, including an appropriation for reimbursement to the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment specifying that no funds 
    appropriated by the Act be used for agricultural price support 
    programs under which payments in excess of $25,000 will be made to 
    any single recipient was held to be a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds and in order.

    On June 6, 1967,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10509. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 14853, 14854, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    34, line 18, after the word ``hereof'' strike the period and insert 
    the following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out 
    price support or commodity programs during the period ended June 
    30, 1968, under which the total amount of payments in excess of 
    $25,000 would be made to any single recipient as (1) incentive 
    payments, (2) diversion payments, (3) price support payments. . . 
    .''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order against the amendment. While the 
    gentleman's amendment applies to a number of things that might be 
    tied to appropriations in the bill, the amendment will stand or 
    fall on all of its provisions. As I pointed out earlier, the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was set up as a corporation with 
    certain rights and powers. Later it was brought under surveil

[[Page 6372]]

    lance, and under both acts which brought it under congressional 
    surveillance it was provided that--

            Nothing in this act of surveillance shall interfere with 
        the operations of the Corporation in maintaining price 
        supports.

        If you read the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois, you will see that item 3 states, ``Price 
    support payments may not exceed $25,000.'' So that language clearly 
    would interfere with price support payments and would repeal the 
    two acts that I mentioned. It would, to that extent, change the 
    authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment comes 
    clearly within the Holman rule. It is negative. It represents a 
    retrenchment. It designates things for which funds may not be 
    spent.
        I would call the attention of the Chair to the Congressional 
    Record, volume 111, part 9, page 11656.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] 
    offered an amendment which had almost the same, almost the precise 
    language--the substantive phrases at least. The Chair overruled the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten]. So I do believe this is very much in order and in keeping 
    with previous amendments of the same sort.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On January 26, 1965, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Harris, 
    was in the chair when a similar amendment was offered to a bill 
    appropriating funds to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
    The Chair ruled that the proposed amendment was a limitation that 
    applied only to the appropriations carried in the bill before the 
    Committee at that time. The Chair therefore overruled the point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chair holds that the amendment is a limitation and, 
    therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.32 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service including 
    programs operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment 
    specifying that ``one of the funds appropriated by this act shall 
    be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 to formulate or 
    carry out any 1971 crop-year program under which the total amount 
    of payments to a person under such program would be in excess of 
    $20,000'' was held in order as a limitation.

    On June 9, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17923, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6373]]

            Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

       expenses, agricultural stabilization and conservation service

        For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
    formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1301-
    1393); Sugar Act of 1948, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1101-1161); sections 
    7 to 15, 16(a), 16(d), 16(e), 16(f), 16(i), and 17 of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
    590g-590q); subtitles B and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1831-
    1837, 1802-1814, and 1816); and laws pertaining to the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation, $152,690,000: Provided, That in addition, not 
    to exceed $68,779,000 may be transferred to and merged with this 
    appropriation from the Commodity Credit Corporation fund (including 
    not to exceed $30,228,000 under the limitation on Commodity Credit 
    Corporation administrative expenses): Provided further, That other 
    funds made available to the Agricultural Stabilization and 
    Conservation Service for authorized activities may be advanced to 
    and merged with this appropriation: Provided further, That no part 
    of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act shall be 
    used (1) to influence the vote in any referendum; (2) to influence 
    agricultural legislation, except as permitted in 18 U.S.C. 1913; or 
    (3) for salaries or other expenses of members of county and 
    community committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, for 
    engaging in any activities other than advisory and supervisory 
    duties and delegated program functions prescribed in administrative 
    regulations.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations'', strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program would be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten (of Mississippi): Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of making payments, to make 
    loans under the Corporation Control Act, and it was provided that 
    nothing in that act should let the Congress prevent the corporation 
    from discharging its func

[[Page 6374]]

    tions. I might say the same thing applies to the TVA.
        I respectfully, therefore, submit, Mr. Chairman, that to change 
    the Corporation Control Act and to relieve it of its 
    responsibilities which have been carefully protected by the 
    Congress on at least two occasions, even in the Anti-Deficiency 
    Act, which was some years later, would take legislation. It can 
    only be done that way, and since it would require legislation to 
    change it, anything that has that effect here of necessity must be 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As the gentleman from Illinois declares, the point of order and 
    the arguments supporting it have been offered on previous 
    occasions, and on occasion by the gentleman from Mississippi, as 
    recently as the 26th of May last year.
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer or any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 67.33 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, an 
    amendment specifying that none of the funds therein shall be used 
    for commodity programs under which payments to any single farmer 
    would exceed a certain dollar amount was held a proper limitation 
    and in order.

    On May 1, 1968,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16913), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 11281-88, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On 
        page 33, line 5, after the word ``hereof'', strike the period 
        and insert the following: ``Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or 
        carry out price support or commodity programs during the period 
        ending June 30, 1969, under which the total amount of payments 
        in excess of $10,000 would be made to any single recipient as 
        (1) incentive payments, (2) diversion payments, (3) price 
        support payments, (4) wheat marketing certificate payments, (5) 
        cotton equali

[[Page 6375]]

        zation payments, and (6) crop-land adjustment payments.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, may I point out several things? The Commodity 
    Credit Corporation was created as a corporation under the laws of 
    Delaware some years ago. It was incorporated so as to have, in 
    connection with the farm program, all the rights and 
    responsibilities that a corporation under general law has.
        This is the right to buy and sell and the right to discharge 
    its responsibilities assigned to it by the Congress such as 
    supporting the farm program which the Congress passed and the 
    President signed. The very purpose of creating the Corporation was 
    to be freed of restrictions such as we offered here, which any 
    Congress might impose, from year to year, on appropriated bills, if 
    the erroneous rulings are continued. . . .
        The purpose of the Corporation's Charter Act is to avoid such 
    action as is offered here which would make the Corporation a part 
    of the Department of Agriculture. Through the years every time the 
    Congress has tried to restrict this Corporation, the Congress has 
    carefully provided that such act could not be used to keep the 
    Corporation from discharging its duties and its functions under its 
    charter.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you to reverse the prior 
    decisions of other Chairmen who have presided, and have had this 
    question before them. Also may I say the present amendment is very 
    different from the one that we had before. This one reads:

            None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out price support or commodity programs 
        during the period ending June 30, 1969, under which the total 
        amount of payments in excess of $10,000 would be made to any 
        single recipient as (1) incentive payments----

        The funds in this bill are to restore past losses. So I 
    respectfully submit that the Corporation, being a corporation, has 
    a right to hire its own employees. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have with me here a brief, and I have sent a 
    copy of this brief to the Parliamentarian earlier so I am sure he 
    has had time to study it. My brief, which I shall present to you, 
    points out that, if you will go through all of the legislation 
    since this Corporation was set up as a corporation, you will see 
    that Congress has carefully said that no action under appropriation 
    bills should be taken to prevent the Corporation from performing 
    its functions.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that you cannot limit the basic powers 
    of the Corporation by the imposition of a restriction thereon in an 
    appropriation bill because Congress has carefully seen that such a 
    procedure could not prevent the Corporation from carrying out its 
    responsibilities. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has read the amendment 
    and is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Consistent with the decision of Chairman Harris in 1965 and 
    Chairman Kilday in 1959, and consistent with the Chair's own ruling 
    on June 6, 1967, the Chair finds that the amendment is a limitation 
    on appropriations.

[[Page 6376]]

Restriction on Contract Authority Contained in Bill

Sec. 67.34 To a section of an Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    containing legislation authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    make such additional commitments as may be necessary in order to 
    provide full parity payments, an amendment providing that the 
    payments shall not exceed an amount necessary to equal parity 
    ``when added to the market price and the payment made for 
    conservation . . . of agricultural land resources,'' was held a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of funds which did 
    not add further legislation to that already contained in the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
bill, the Clerk read the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2124, 2125, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              parity payments

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make parity payments 
    to producers of wheat, cotton, corn (in the commercial corn-
    producing area), rice, and tobacco pursuant to the provisions of 
    section 303 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, there are 
    hereby reappropriated the unobligated balances of the 
    appropriations made under this head by the Department of 
    Agriculture Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1941 and 1942, 
    to remain available until June 30, 1945, and the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to make such additional commitments or 
    incur such additional obligations as may be necessary in order to 
    provide for full parity payments: . . . Provided further, That such 
    payments with respect to any such commodity shall be made with 
    respect to a farm in full amount only in the event that the acreage 
    planted to the commodity for harvest on the farm in 1943 is not in 
    excess of the farm acreage allotment established for the commodity 
    under the agricultural conservation program, and, if such allotment 
    has been exceeded, the parity payment with respect to the commodity 
    shall be reduced by not more than 10 percent for each 1 percent, or 
    fraction thereof, by which the acreage planted to the commodity is 
    in excess of such allotment. The Secretary may also provide by 
    regulations for similar deductions for planting in excess of the 
    acreage allotment for the commodity on other farms or for planting 
    in excess of the acreage allotment or limit for any other commodity 
    for which allotments or limits are established under the 
    agricultural conservation program on the same or any other farm.

    An amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John) Taber (of New York): On page 
    77, line 5, after the word ``farm,'' strike out the period, insert 
    a colon and a proviso as

[[Page 6377]]

    follows: ``Provided further, That parity payments, under the 
    authority of this paragraph, shall not exceed such amount as is 
    necessary to equal parity when added to the market price and the 
    payment made or to be made for conservation and use of agricultural 
    land resources under sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act approved February 29, 1936, 
    as amended; and the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
    of 1938 as amended; Provided further, That the total expenditures 
    made and the contracts entered into in pursuance of this paragraph 
    shall not exceed in all $212,000,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I submit a 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber]. . . .
        Mr. Taber: . . . The bill, on page 75, provides that the 
    Secretary is authorized and directed to make such additional 
    commitments or incur such additional obligations as may be 
    necessary in order to provide for full parity payments.
        That is legislation. It is brought in order under the rule. The 
    language that I have submitted is clearly germane to that provision 
    because it provides a method. It is purely a limitation to the 
    payments that shall be made for parity under the authority of this 
    paragraph. For this reason it is clearly germane and it is clearly 
    in order.
        It would be in order if there was no legislation in the 
    paragraph because it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I make the 
    observation that if the proposal is clearly a limitation, even 
    though it embraces some legislation, it is in order under the 
    Holman rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] if there are any funds other than those 
    appropriated in this bill to be used for parity payments?
        Mr. Taber: None.
        The Chairman: Just the funds in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The amendment the gentleman is offering is to 
    limit the funds offered in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is my intention. I think perhaps I ought to 
    insert after the word ``payments'' in the third line the words 
    ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' With that in, it would 
    clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] ask 
    to modify his amendment?
        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word 
    ``payments'' ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber]?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has 
    offered an amendment, on page 77, line 5, under

[[Page 6378]]

    taking to provide further limitations on the payment and the 
    administration of parity payments, to which the gentleman from 
    Georgia has made a point of order.
        It seems to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York constitutes a limitation 
    upon the funds appropriated by this paragraph or proposed to be 
    appropriated by this paragraph and does not constitute legislation.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Acreage Reserve, Payment Per Acre

Sec. 67.35 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no 
    payment under the acreage reserve shall be made above $16 per acre 
    out of the appropriation was held to be a limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds in the bill and in order.

    On Feb. 25 and 26, 1958,(3) The Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 10881, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 2895, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Acreage Reserve Program

        For an additional amount for ``Acreage reserve program,'' 
    fiscal year 1958, $250,000, which shall be available to formulate 
    and administer an acreage reserve program in accord with the 
    provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 
    1821-1824 and 1802-1814), with respect to the 1958 crops, in an 
    amount not to exceed $175 million in addition to the amount 
    specified for such purposes in Public Law 85-118.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 4, line 9, strike 
        out the period and insert: ``Provided, That no payment under 
        acreage reserve shall be made above $16 per acre out of this 
        appropriation.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . Under the basic act the Secretary has authority to set 
    the rate of payment, and I respectfully submit that were this 
    amendment to change that legislative authority which is vested in 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: It is a pure limitation on the funds involved in 
    that paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule on the point of order that 
    has been made. The point of order is not sustained.

Limit on Authorized Purchase of Motor Vehicles

Sec. 67.36 Language in a general appropriation bill providing

[[Page 6379]]

    that not to exceed a certain amount of money be available for the 
    purchase of motor vehicles was held to be a proper limitation on an 
    appropriation bill for a purpose otherwise authorized by law.

    On Apr. 23, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6523, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3783, 3784, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Federal-Aid Highway System

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide that the United States shall aid the States in the 
    construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes'', 
    approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355-359), and all acts 
    amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, to be expended in 
    accordance with the provisions of said act, as amended, including 
    not to exceed $556,000 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $150,000,000. . . . Provided further, That 
    not to exceed $45,000 of the funds provided for carrying out the 
    provisions of the Federal Highway Act of November 9, 1921 (U.S.C., 
    title 23, secs. 21 and 23), shall be available for the purchase of 
    motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles necessary for carrying 
    out the provisions of said act, including the replacement of not to 
    exceed one such vehicle for use in the administrative work of the 
    Bureau of Public Roads in the District of Columbia. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the part of the paragraph beginning with the word 
    ``Provided', on page 72, line 13, and running down as far as the 
    word ``Columbia'', in lines 21 and 22, is not authorized by law.
        This refers to the purchase of automobiles. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this is merely 
    a limitation. Otherwise the whole amount could be spent for 
    automobiles. This proviso limits the amount which may be used. It 
    is not legislation, and is not subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order on the ground that the 
    proviso constitutes a limitation, without which the Secretary could 
    spend any amount within the total of the appropriation for this 
    purpose.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the language in the bill was not 
specifically limited to the funds appropriated, the Chair evidently did 
construe it as limited to the appropriated funds.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 68. Civil Liberties

Segregation by Race, Color, Creed; Limitation on Funds

Sec. 68.1 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropria

[[Page 6380]]

    tion bill providing that no part of the money contained in the act 
    shall be used for any agency, office, or department of the District 
    of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District in 
    employment, facilities afforded, services performed, accommodations 
    furnished, instructions, or aid granted, on account of the race, 
    color, creed, or place of national origin of the citizens of the 
    District was held a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. This precedent was 
        followed in later rulings: see Sec. 68.2, infra, for the ruling 
        of Apr. 19, 1950, and see 95 Cong. Rec. 1743, 1744, 81st Cong. 
        1st Sess., for the Mar. 2, 1949, ruling on identical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    In line 7, page 2, insert the following: ``Provided, That no part 
    of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used for any of 
    the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, office, or department 
    of the District of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the 
    District of Columbia in employment, facilities afforded, services 
    performed, accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted, 
    on account of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin 
    of the citizens of the District of Columbia.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, and that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in that it attempts to change the fundamental 
    laws of the District of Columbia that have been established and in 
    effect for at least 80 years or probably a hundred years.
        This amendment, if adopted, would destroy the school system of 
    the District of Columbia. It would stir up race hatred and bring 
    about race trouble, the like of which nothing else has ever done in 
    all the history of the District. If it is done, the effect will be 
    to destroy the legislation providing funds with which to carry on 
    the public schools in the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The gentleman is not addressing himself to the point of 
    order but is addressing himself to the merits of the legislation.
        Mr. Rankin: I am not surprised that the gentleman from New York 
    does not understand me when I am talking to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will address himself to the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: It is very difficult to understand the 
    gentleman when he is talking propaganda.

[[Page 6381]]

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am developing the point that if 
    this amendment is adopted it will destroy the school system of the 
    District.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will talk strictly to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Rankin: That is what I am doing now.
        It is legislation on an appropriation bill designed to destroy 
    the school system of the District of Columbia for which we are 
    required to appropriate. The people of the District of Columbia 
    have to look to Congress to legislate for them. They have no 
    legislative body of their own. They have maintained this separate 
    school system at least for the last 80 years and probably ever 
    since the District of Columbia was created. This amendment would 
    destroy it, and in my opinion would close the white schools of the 
    District. For that reason I say it is more far reaching than any 
    mere limitation, it is a change in fundamental law, and the point 
    of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment proposes to incorporate a 
    legislative provision in an appropriation bill that does not come 
    within the purview of the Holman rule and that it sets up an 
    affirmative agency in the law.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    add further points of order upon which I should like to be heard at 
    a later time in the discussion.
        The Chairman: The Chair would appreciate very much the 
    gentleman's talking to the points of order to help the Chair arrive 
    at a decision.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I merely want to make them at this time. 
    I will discuss them later.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then there will be two points of order pending 
    at the same time.
        The Chairman: Any number of reasons can be given for the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But reasons are different from points of 
    order. I submit the points of order to be dealt with one at a time 
    and the first point of order raised must be passed on before others 
    are made.
        Mr. Rankin: Oh, no. That is not the rule.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The Chair will make the ruling, not the 
    gentleman form Mississippi. I am addressing the Chair.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the further point 
    of order that this amendment would impose additional duties upon 
    the executive officials.
        I make the further point of order that it does not necessarily 
    and will not even if carried out result in any reduction of 
    expenditures as required under the Holman rule.
        I make the further point of order that it is obvious on the 
    face of the amendment that the object is not to effect a 
    retrenchment, as required by the Holman rule, but to effect 
    legislation.
        I ask to be heard on these points of order at a later time.

[[Page 6382]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The first point of order is that it would change the laws of 
    the District of Columbia. There are no laws of the District of 
    Columbia which guarantee segregation.
        As to the second point of order that it would add to expenses, 
    we can cite that segregation has always been more expensive than 
    democracy.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is definitely a 
    negative limitation. It prohibits the use of funds appropriated in 
    this bill for certain specific purposes which are enumerated in the 
    amendment. It does not change any existing law and Congress has the 
    right to withhold the funds for any purpose enumerated in an 
    appropriation act or to withhold funds for any purpose for which an 
    appropriation is being made.
        This bill makes appropriations for the District of Columbia. 
    The amendment simply states that none of the funds appropriated in 
    this bill shall be expended to do certain things. We have had that 
    up time and time again. I recall distinctly the Lea amendment in 
    which funds were withheld from the National Labor Relations Board 
    for taking jurisdiction over so-called agricultural workers.
        There is no additional duty imposed upon anyone. The amendment 
    deals with an existing condition, that is, segregation in 
    education, segregation in recreation, in hospitals and other 
    places. I repeat there is no additional duty imposed on anyone. The 
    amendment strictly is a negative limitation which we have had in 
    this committee time and time again. . . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, this question all revolves 
    around the so-called Holman rule, which is rule XXI. The theory of 
    the Holman rule is that legislation on an appropriation bill is out 
    of order unless it retrenches expenses and to that has been added 
    by various rulings of the Chair from time to time further 
    limitations upon the rule.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Virginia give the Chair 
    the benefit of his advice as to how this is a limitation of the 
    fund?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It is a very definite limitation. It 
    says, ``No part of the fund shall be expended,'' for certain 
    facilities, for certain things, either done or omitted to be done.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to find out whether or not 
    this is a proper limitation. The Chair does not believe that the 
    Holman rule is involved so much as the limitation question.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, if we go to the question 
    of limitation, we still have the same rule to this extent, and you 
    will find it in the rule book under section 845. I will not 
    undertake to read all of it:

            But such limitation must not give affirmative direction and 
        must not impose new duties upon an executive officer.

        I made that point of order because if this amendment were 
    adopted it would

[[Page 6383]]

    cover every executive agent performing the duties covered by these 
    appropriations to proceed to carry out this rule of segregation. It 
    would impose not only affirmative duties but arduous duties upon 
    every executive officer who has anything to do with carrying out 
    these facilities.
        It is a very definite rule which has been sustained time and 
    time again by the Speaker and by the chairmen of various committees 
    that no limitation is in order which imposes any other duty upon an 
    executive officer.
        Passing that point to another, let me quote:

            And it must not be coupled with legislation not directly 
        instrumental in effecting a reduction.

        Let us look at this amendment and see whether it effects any 
    reduction. I ask the gentlemen who oppose the point of order, will 
    this amendment, if adopted, save the District of Columbia a single 
    dollar?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Certainly it would.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Will it remove a single facility?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Absolutely. Instead of having two school 
    systems you will have one.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Exactly the same facilities will be 
    required; exactly the same number of children will go to school and 
    exactly the same number of teachers, janitors, the same amount of 
    heat and every other thing appropriated for in this bill will be 
    required.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The gentleman has asked a question. May I 
    answer it? . . .
        The point is, Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's 
    question, that with segregation you double the number of 
    administrative offices, the number of facilities, and the 
    expenditures are thereby increased, and therefore the amendment 
    definitely is a saving to the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That is just the gentleman's conclusion.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Well, the gentleman asked the question.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: My conclusion is just the opposite; that 
    it will not do any such thing. As to the burden of proof when such 
    an amendment is offered and the point of order is made the 
    authorities are clear that it is the duty of the proponent of the 
    amendment to show definitely that there will be a retrenchment in 
    expenditures and a reduction in the necessary appropriations. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Since I am the proponent of the measure, I would 
    like to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, that here 
    in the District of Columbia an entirely duplicate system of 
    superintendence is maintained out of the treasury of the District 
    of Columbia. You have a Negro superintendent and a white 
    superintendent with exactly the same position right down the line. 
    That would be a saving.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And you would have to have just as many 
    superintendents, and just as many schools, and just as many school 
    children, and just as many teachers.
        Mr. Powell: But not as many superintendents.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I do not know about that. I expect you 
    would have just as many, if not a few more.
        Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I wanted to make. It is 
    another

[[Page 6384]]

    very definite rule of parliamentary law. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: This would also increase the number of police 
    required, and increase the expenses of the District instead of 
    curtailing them.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Well, again, as I say, as I said to the 
    gentleman from New York, that is just one man's opinion, and there 
    has not been any proof that it will save a nickel.
        I call attention of the Chairman to the third point I wanted to 
    make. This is on construing a proposed limitation, and I think very 
    crucial and very decisive on this point of order.

            In construing a proposed limitation, if the Chair finds the 
        purpose to be legislative, in that the intent is to restrict 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail, 
        he should sustain the point of order.

        Now, this is definitely a situation where obviously the purpose 
    is to change an administrative policy, a policy that has long 
    prevailed, and the authorities on that are so definite and so clear 
    that it seems there can be no doubt left.
        I would like to read the Chair what Chairman Luce said on 
    January 8, 1925, when this amendment was up, which was offered by 
    Mr. Hull, of Iowa, which reads:

            No part of the moneys appropriated in this act shall be 
        used to pay any officer to recruit the Army beyond the limit of 
        100,000, 3-year enlisted strength.

        There was long discussion about the point of order on that 
    amendment, and this is the conclusion of the Chair on page 1497:

            In the judgment of the Chair there is no adequate proof 
        embodied in the amendment, or any necessary conclusion from the 
        amendment, that there will be a reduction of expenditure.

        Therefore, the Chair is unable to see that it complies in this 
    regard with the second paragraph of rule XXI, commonly known as the 
    Holman rule.
        I think that is all I have to say except to call attention to 
    one more extract of a ruling that took place on February 18, 1918, 
    when Mr. Saunders, of Virginia, was in the chair and a similar 
    question arose. He said:

            The situation developed by this amendment is as follows: 
        The amendment first proposes to reduce the amount carried in 
        this paragraph. That is perfectly competent under parliamentary 
        law. In addition, it is proposed for legislation to accompany 
        the reducing portion of the amendment. But this legislation has 
        no sort of relation to the proposed reduction. It is perfectly 
        competent to legislate on an appropriation bill, provided the 
        legislation proposed necessarily effects a reduction; but it is 
        just as plainly incompetent to propose a reducing amendment to 
        an appropriation bill, a motion which can be made at any time 
        without reference to the Holman rule, and then undertake to 
        attach to this motion legislation which does not effect the 
        reduction and is not in any wise related to it.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is clearly subject 
    to the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: I call the gentleman's attention also to the fact 
    that it has been held time and time again that the reduction or 
    entrenchment must show on the face of the amendment. This amendment 
    shows no such reduction.

[[Page 6385]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That would show it would be a saving of 
    money?
        Mr. Rankin: Yes. This amendment makes no such showing. . . .
        Mr. Marcantonio: First of all, the Chair has ruled with regard 
    to the Holman rule. What is involved here, as the gentleman from 
    Virginia pointed out, is whether or not there is a change of policy 
    or law; and when we are talking about policy we are talking about 
    law. This amendment does not involve a change in the law at all. 
    This restricts, or rather, prohibits the use of funds with regard 
    to an administration which is not authorized by law at all. 
    Congress has passed no law providing for segregation in the 
    District of Columbia. Segregation is only an administration ruling 
    applied by various agencies and departments of the District of 
    Columbia. Congress certainly has the right to say, by means of a 
    negative limitation, that none of those agencies can have any funds 
    in carrying out that particular practice. I see no difference 
    between this negative limitation and all of the others that we have 
    had before this Committee. It simply says to the various bureaus, 
    ``No funds shall be given to you, not for the carrying out of any 
    law, but no funds shall be given to you for the carrying out of a 
    practice not authorized by law.'' Therein lies the distinction 
    between the situation the gentleman from Virginia tried to set up 
    and what we actually have involved in this amendment.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a moment 
    on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Rankin: I call the attention of the Chair to the fact, as I 
    pointed out to the gentleman from Virginia a moment ago, that it 
    has been held time and time again that in order to be in order 
    under the Holman rule the reduction or retrenchment must show on 
    the face of the amendment. All the reduction they propose is 
    speculative.
        If you are going off into the realm of speculation, I submit 
    that this amendment will probably increase expenses far more than 
    it will curtail them, by increasing the police force, hospital 
    facilities, doctors, jail facilities, and other things of that 
    kind. I submit that this is merely a fantastic attempt to stir up 
    race trouble in the District of Columbia, and the point of order 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has listened very attentively to the arguments pro 
    and con and has reached the conclusion that the Holman rule is not 
    in issue at the present moment. The wording of the amendment reads, 
    ``Provided, that no part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used for any of the purposes therein mentioned,'' and they 
    are enumerated.
        After serious consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a proper limitation and overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 68.2 An amendment to a chapter of the general appropriation bill, 
    1951, providing that no part of any appropriation contained in this 
    chapter shall be used for any of the purposes therein men

[[Page 6386]]

    tioned by any agency, office, or department of the District of 
    Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District of Columbia 
    in employment, facilities afforded, services performed, 
    accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted, on account 
    of race, color, creed, or place of national origin of the citizens 
    of the District of Columbia, was held to be a proper limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and therefore in order.

        On Apr. 19, 1950,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 5390, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Vito) Marcantonio (of New York): Page 
    2, line 5, after the period, insert the following: ``Provided, That 
    no part of any appropriation contained in this chapter shall be 
    used for any of the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, 
    office or department of the District of Columbia which segregates 
    the citizens of the District of Columbia in employment, facilities 
    afforded, services performed, accommodations furnished, 
    instructions or aid granted, on account of race, color, creed, or 
    place of national origin of the citizens of the District of 
    Columbia.''
        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not germane. It goes beyond the scope of the chapter that we have 
    under consideration.
        Mr. Marcantonio: . . . The amendment is a negative limitation. 
    It does not violate the Holman rule. It provides for a saving. We 
    had the same situation on March 2, 1949, and on April 5, 1946, and 
    the germaneness of the amendment was sustained by the Chairmen. I 
    call the Chair's attention to the two precedents, the one on March 
    2, 1949, and the one on April 5, 1946. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I just 
    rise to say that this amendment is not in order. In the first place 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It attempts to change a 
    law, to change the requirements, you might say, for the use of this 
    money in the District of Columbia, and in that way attempts to 
    write legislation into an appropriation bill, and is therefore not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment which has been 
    reported. Of course, the decision of the Chair has to be in 
    conformance with the precedents and the rules of the House, and it 
    certainly does not reflect any individual views of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the identical 
    amendment was offered on two previous occasions, on April 5, 
    1946,(11) and on March 2, 1949.(12) In both 
    instances the point of order was overruled. Under the prece

[[Page 6387]]

    dents here cited, the Chair is compelled to overrule the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 68.1, supra.
12. See 95 Cong. Rec. 1743, 1744, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.3 To a section of a supplemental appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds appropriated therein shall be used in the branches of 
    the Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation was held germane and a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds.

    On Apr. 15, 1948,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6226. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    On page 2, line 25, insert ``Provided further, That none of the 
    funds herein appropriated shall be used in the branches of the 
    Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation.''. . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is, 
    therefore, not in order on this bill; that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; that it imposes additional burdens and 
    restrictions that are entirely out of place.
        This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill. 
    I submit that the amendment is out of order from practically every 
    standpoint.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Joseph P. O'Hara (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment which has 
    limitations; it is negative; it is the type that has been ruled in 
    order on previous appropriation bills.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is germane and is in order 
    and consequently overrules the point of order.

Sec. 68.4 To the Federal Security Agency title of the general 
    appropriation bill, 1951, an amendment providing that ``No part of 
    any appropriation under this title shall be paid as grants to any 
    State or educational institution in which, because of race, color, 
    or creed, discriminatory practices deny equality of educational 
    opportunity or employment to anyone to pursue such educational 
    courses or employment as are provided by such a grant,'' was held 
    to be a proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and 
    in order.

    On Apr. 26, 1950,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6388]]

ering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 5816, 5817, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Vito) Marcantonio (of New York): On 
    page 151, line 5, after the period, add a new section:
        ``Sec. 209. No part of any appropriation under this title shall 
    be paid as grants to any State or educational institution in which, 
    because of race, color, or creed, discriminatory practices deny 
    equality of educational opportunity or employment to anyone to 
    pursue such educational courses or employment as are provided by 
    such a grant.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane 
    and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I do not see 
    how those conclusions can be escaped. It is clearly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and an attempt to interfere with and direct 
    the affairs of every State in the Union and of every Territory. The 
    point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I refer the Chairman 
    to the Congressional Record of March 8, 1948, page 2356. This 
    identical amendment was offered by me on that day and a point of 
    order was made by the gentleman from Mississippi, against the 
    amendment. It is the same amendment, word for word, to the same 
    section of the bill, and the point of order was overruled. It is 
    definitely a negative limitation.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state in reply that 
    because one Chairman makes a mistake does not bind the House for 
    all time to come. There was an error on the part of the Chairman, 2 
    years ago.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi knows that the present occupant of the chair is bound 
    by the decisions and precedents of the House.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi has made a point of order against the amendment. The 
    Chair has examined the amendment and has compared it with the 
    language appearing in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York on March 8, 1948, against which a point of order was made 
    by the gentleman from Mississippi on the same grounds as stated by 
    him on this occasion. At that time the Chair ruled that the 
    amendment was a limitation on an appropriation bill. Of course, it 
    is the duty of the occupant of the chair to follow the rules of the 
    House and the precedents and decisions of the House. So, in view of 
    this decision the Chair is compelled to and has no other recourse 
    than to overrule the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the Mar. 8, 1948, ruling (17) 
referred to by Mr. Marcantonio, the Chairman, Forest A. Harness, of 
Indiana, decided that an identical amendment was germane to H.R.

[[Page 6389]]

5728, the Labor-Federal Security appropriation bill. Mr. Rankin made 
the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 2356, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment that the amendment is not germane and it is not in order 
    at this point in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Marcantonio: . . . The amendment certainly is germane. It 
    is simply a negative limitation. It restricts the use of the funds 
    and it is clearly in order.
        The Chairman: There is no question but that the amendment is 
    germane. This is an appropriation bill and the amendment deals with 
    an appropriation made in the bill. Therefore the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 68.5 In an appropriation bill providing funds for grants for 
    hospital construction, an amendment providing that ``no part of any 
    appropriation contained in this section shall be used . . . by any 
    agency or facility which segregates . . . on account of race, 
    color, ancestry or religion'' was held to be a limitation and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5024, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grants for hospital construction: For payments under parts C 
    and G, title VI, of the act, as amended, $121,200,000, of which 
    $99,000,000 shall be for payments for hospitals and related 
    facilities pursuant to part C, $1,200,000 shall be for the purposes 
    authorized in section 636 of the act, and $21,000,000 shall be for 
    payments for facilities pursuant to part G, as follows: $6,500,000 
    for diagnostic or treatment centers, $6,500,000 for hospitals for 
    the chronically ill and impaired, $4,000,000 for rehabilitation 
    facilities, and $4,000,000 for nursing homes: Provided, That 
    allotments under such parts C and G to the several States for the 
    current fiscal year shall be made on the basis of amounts equal to 
    the limitations specified herein. . . .
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: On page 25, line 17, 
        before the period insert ``Provided, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this section shall be used for any 
        of the purposes therein mentioned by any agency or facility 
        which segregates citizens in facilities offered, services 
        performed, and granted on account of race, color, ancestry or 
        religion.'' . . .

        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane for the same reason that 
    the other amendment was not germane. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this amendment in 
    exact language as submitted has been held to be germane for the 13 
    years I have been a Member of the House of Representatives and I 
    submit the following

[[Page 6390]]

    pages in the Record: For instance, in the 83d Congress, 1st 
    session, volume 99, part 5, page 5921, where the Parliamentarian 
    upheld my views.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule, 
    having ruled on a quite similar motion back in 1946 when the 
    District of Columbia appropriation bill was up for consideration. 
    The Chair held then that it was a limitation on the use of the 
    money and so holds now, and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.6 To a bill appropriating funds for the Civil War Centennial 
    Commission, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    appropriated may be used for activities conducted in facilities in 
    which individuals are segregated or discriminated against because 
    of race, religion, or color was held to be a limitation and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 18, 1961,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6345, a Department of the Interior appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 6132, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold M.] Ryan [of Michigan]: Page 
    41, immediately before the period in line 18, insert the following: 
    ``, except that no part of such amount shall be expended for 
    activities of the Civil War Centennial Commission conducted in 
    facilities in which individuals are segregated on the basis of 
    race, religion, or color, or for any activities of the Commission 
    in which individuals are discriminated against on the basis of 
    race, religion, or color.''
        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment, in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment is in order 
    because it is a limitation on the appropriation and how it shall be 
    spent. I believe the amendment is in order under previous rulings 
    and under section 843 of the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It appears to the Chair that this is merely a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill; therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 68.7 To an appropriation bill providing funds for hospital 
    construction, an amendment providing that no part of the 
    appropriations in the paragraph under consideration be used for any 
    hospital having separate facilities on the basis of race, creed, or 
    color was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6391]]

ering H.R. 10904, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 5165, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Hospital Construction Activities

        To carry out the provisions of title VI of the Act, as amended, 
    $188,572,000, of which $125,000,000 shall be for grants or loans 
    for hospitals and related facilities pursuant to part C. . . .
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of New York: On page 25, line 
        21, immediately before the period insert the following ``: 
        Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated in 
        this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color''. . . .

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I 
    rise to support an amendment which would provide a limitation upon 
    the appropriations for hospital construction activities: that is, 
    relating to page 25 of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the use of funds 
    appropriated under the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction 
    for segregated facilities.
        The Hill-Burton program has provided Federal financing to help 
    construct more than 2,000 medical care facilities in 11 Southern 
    States. Since the inception of the Hill-Burton program these States 
    have received $562,921,000 for hospital construction. Authorities 
    have pointed out that virtually all of these institutions 
    discriminate in various ways against Negro citizens.
        Patterns of discrimination may vary. For example, some 
    hospitals bar Negro patients altogether. The New York Times on 
    February 13, 1962, reported that, according to the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare, 100 of the 4,000 Hill-Burton 
    hospitals bar Negroes. Others admit Negro patients, but segregate 
    them within the hospital. One hospital in Georgia, for example, 
    provides only 12 beds for Negro patients, and the beds are located 
    in a segregated section of the hospital in the basement. This 
    hospital also refuses to admit any Negro pediatric or maternity 
    cases. In addition, many Southern hospitals refuse to allow Negro 
    doctors to treat patients in the hospital, and discriminate against 
    Negroes in their employment practices.
        Recently, discriminatory practices in federally aided hospitals 
    have been dramatized. On February 13, 1962, six Negro doctors and 
    three Negro dentists and two Negroes in need of medical care filed 
    a complaint in a Federal district court in Greensboro, N.C. The 
    complaint alleged that discriminatory practices in hospitals 
    violate the due process and equal protection clause of the fifth 
    amendment. The court has been asked to issue an injunction 
    prohibiting the defendants from--

            Continuing to enforce the policy, practice, custom, and 
        usage of deny

[[Page 6392]]

        ing admission to patients on the basis of race and in any way 
        conditioning or abridging the admission to, and use of, the 
        said facilities on the basis of race.

        The pattern of discrimination may vary, Mr. Chairman, but there 
    is abundant evidence that the results seldom do. The policy of 
    ``separate but equal'' in our medical care system almost invariably 
    results in the unequal or inadequate medical care for many American 
    citizens. Equality must be more than a mere slogan. It must, if we 
    are to be true to our democratic principles, be a reality.
        I believe that the elimination of Federal expenditures for 
    segregated facilities is long overdue and that it is time for the 
    U.S. Congress to make clear that it does not condone racial 
    segregation in our hospitals nor the practice of using taxpayer's 
    money to support this doctrine. I hope that all the Members of this 
    body will support this amendment and uphold the principles upon 
    which our Nation was founded.
        Civil rights is the great unfinished business facing America. 
    It is the unfinished business of Congress. Of course, I do not mean 
    to imply by my amendment that the executive branch is without power 
    to act in this situation, but I do believe that Congress has a 
    present responsibility. By adopting this simple amendment, we have 
    the opportunity to strike down one area of discrimination. Mr. 
    Chairman, I urge its adoption. . . .
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, ever since I have been on this 
    committee I have opposed legislation on appropriation bills. In my 
    opinion, even though this is technically a limitation, this would 
    have the effect of changing existing law, the so-called Hill-Burton 
    Act. Therefore, I request that the amendment be voted down. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Rhode Island 
    has reserved his point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island insist on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have 
    stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I 
    ask the committee to vote down the amendment. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet 
    at the time the gentleman from Rhode Island was recognized and I 
    was on my feet for the purpose of making a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] 
    now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order 
    against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order. 
    However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from 
    Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment to which a 
    point of order has been made. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a proper 
    limitation

[[Page 6393]]

    under the rules of the House and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Busing of Students

Sec. 68.8 A provision in an appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    the funds therein ``to force busing of students, the abolishment of 
    any school or the attendance of students at a particular school as 
    a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds'' was held in 
    order as a limitation.

    On July 31, 1969,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, an appropriation bill for the Departments of 
Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk Read as follows:
        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any school or 
    the attendance of students at a particular school as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State, school district, or school.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of 
    the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not 
    a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional 
    duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408 
    because it would require additional personnel to determine whether 
    busing has been used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, 
    two, to require the attendance of any student at any particular 
    school. You would have to have investigators there to determine 
    this as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
    available to any State school district or school: No. 1, for the 
    abolition of any school, and No. 2, whether the attendance of any 
    student at any particular school could be investigated there to 
    determine this as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds 
    otherwise available to any State, school district or school.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chairman to sustain the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    raised the point awhile ago that the gentleman, having asked 
    unanimous consent that the amendments to the two sections be 
    considered en bloc and having obtained that unanimous-consent 
    request, and after having the amendments considered en bloc in 
    connection with the two sections, that the House has already 
    considered section 409 and the point of order comes too late. That 
    is the situation on the one hand.
        Second, a reading of the section clearly shows that the House 
    has already considered section 409 in connection with the prior 
    amendments. In addition to that, this is clearly a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and does not have to conform to the Holman rule.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman--

[[Page 6394]]

        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a limitation on the expenditure 
    of funds provided in this legislation. The wording of section 409 
    is identical in every respect with the wording of the language 
    included in the bill last year and agreed to by this House. 
    Therefore, we have the precedent of its having been accepted 
    without a point of order having been made.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts for that purpose.
        Mr. Conte: The point of order that was ruled against the 
    amendment offered was passed by this House last year on a unanimous 
    vote and no one raised a point of order on that.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The clear intent of this section is to impose a negative 
    restriction on the use of the moneys contained in this bill.
        The Chair has examined a decision in a situation similar to 
    that presented by the current amendment in the 86th Congress, 
    during consideration of the Defense Department appropriation bill, 
    an amendment was offered by Mr. O'Hara, of Michigan, which 
    provided--and the Chair is now paraphrasing--no funds appropriated 
    in that bill should be used to pay on a contract which was awarded 
    to the higher of two bidders because of certain Defense Department 
    policies. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Keogh, of 
    New York, held the amendment in order as a limitation, even though 
    it touched on the policy of an executive department--86th Congress, 
    May 5, 1960; Congressional Record, volume 106, part 7, page 9641. 
    Chairman Keogh quoted, in his decision, the precedent carried in 
    section 3968 of volume IV, Hinds' Precedents, and the Chair thinks 
    the headnote of that earlier precedent is applicable here:

            The House may provide that no part of an appropriation 
        shall be used in a certain way, even though executive 
        discretion be thereby negatively restricted.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: But see Sec. 61.1, supra, where a 
prohibition against the use of funds ``in order to overcome racial 
imbalance'' was held to impose additional duties on federal officials 
and was ruled out as legislation on July 31, 1969.

Sec. 68.9 To provisions in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to force any school district to take any 
    actions involving the busing of students, or other specified 
    actions, against the will of parents, or as a condition precedent 
    to obtaining federal funds, amendments limiting

[[Page 6395]]

    the application of such provisions to those school districts in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of race 
    were held in order as adding definitions to the valid limitations 
    in the bill and as being merely descriptive of the school districts 
    covered thereby.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 15931, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare, appropriation bill, which contained the following 
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. The provisions in 
        the appropriation bill containing the prohibition described 
        above are quoted on p. 4022, by Mr. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may be 
    used to force any school district to take any actions involving the 
    busing of students, the abolishment of any school or the assignment 
    of any student attending any elementary or secondary school to a 
    particular school against the choice of his or her parents or 
    parent.
        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force any school district to take any actions involving the 
    busing of students, the abolishment of any school or the assignment 
    of students to a particular school as a condition precedent to 
    obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any State, school 
    district or school.

    The following amendments were offered to such provisions, and a 
point of order against the amendments was subsequently made:

        Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 60, line 20 after the words ``school district'' insert ``in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of the race 
    or color of prospective students and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race or color'' and on line 23 after the 
    words ``particular school'' insert the words ``other than his 
    neighborhood school.''
        On page 61, line 2, after the words, ``school district,'' 
    insert the words, ``in which students are assigned to particular 
    schools on the basis of geographic attendance areas drawn without 
    consideration of the race or color of prospective students and in 
    which personnel are assigned without regard to race or color.'' And 
    on line 4, after the words, ``particular school,'' insert the 
    words, ``other than his neighborhood school.'' . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, these are the neighborhood school 
    amendments.
        We have heard a good deal of oratory recently to the effect 
    that the problem of segregation in the South is just exactly like 
    the problem of segregation in the North, and that we ought to treat 
    the two alike and consider them the same.

[[Page 6396]]

        Well, I do not happen to agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I 
    am here giving a clear-cut opportunity to any southern school 
    system to enjoy the benefits of the Whitten amendment by 
    establishing a neighborhood school system in which attendance areas 
    are drawn without regard to race and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race.
        This amendment is designed to prevent a school district from 
    having its cake and eating it at the same time. The Whitten 
    amendment, if my amendments are adopted, would apply only to school 
    systems that have a bona fide neighborhood school system. It would 
    not apply to a school system that is already busing pupils in order 
    to maintain segregation. The Whitten amendments, if my amendments 
    are adopted, would not apply to dual school systems--the school 
    systems where they are now taking a black child who might live next 
    door to the white school and busing him across the county to the 
    black school. They would not obtain any benefit from the Whitten 
    amendments if my amendments to them are adopted.
        Mr. Chairman, this is an eminently reasonable amendment, and I 
    hope it will be adopted.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . [A]s I read the 
    language proposed in the amendment, it seems crystal clear to me 
    that the language imposes on the executive branch additional 
    burdens and consequently is contrary to the rules of the House as 
    far as legislation on an appropriation bill is concerned. It is 
    clearly an instance of where the language proposed adds burdens and 
    is contrary to the rules of the House as far as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill is concerned. None of the additional burdens 
    were previously authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara:  . . . Mr. Chairman, the limitation is in sections 
    408 and 409. It is a bona fide limitation. All my amendment seeks 
    to do is to prescribe with particularity the school districts to 
    which the limitation in sections 408 and 409 will apply. It does 
    not seek to insert the limitation or to provide for legislation. It 
    simply seeks to describe with more particularity the school 
    districts and the school systems to which the limitations in 
    sections 408 and 409 will apply. Therefore I submit it is not 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There is nothing in Federal law today which 
    would authorize such action by the proper officials in the 
    executive branch of the Government. This addition to the limitation 
    in sections 408 and 409 does put additional burdens on the 
    executive branch of the Government to determine these kinds of 
    school districts. It is perfectly obvious by the proposed language 
    that it has to be done in each and every case. It is not authorized 
    by law. It is a new burden. It is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had occasion to study both of the amendments and 
    the language contained therein. It is clear to the Chair that the 
    language relates to the limitations which are already a part of 
    sections 408 and 409. It defines the limitations further by adding 
    an additional definition to the limitations and in the opinion of 
    the Chair is negative insofar as additional action is

[[Page 6397]]

    concerned on the ground that it really is a description of the 
    school district as it exists at the present time. Therefore, the 
    Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 69. Commerce and Public Works

Maritime Commission; Limiting Funds for Vessel Construction

Sec. 69.1 To a paragraph of a bill providing money for construction of 
    ships by the Maritime Commission, an amendment prohibiting such 
    appropriation for the construction of any vessel for use as a naval 
    auxiliary that is not constructed on a reimbursable basis from 
    funds appropriated to the Navy Department pursuant to an act as 
    specified, was held a proper limitation on an appropriation bill 
    and in order.

    On Feb. 26, 1943, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
1974, a deficiency appropriation bill. Under consideration was the 
following provision: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 1359, 1360, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Construction fund, United States Maritime Commission: To 
    increase the construction fund established by the Merchant Marine 
    act, 1936, $4,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount of contract 
    authorizations contained in prior acts for ship construction and 
    facilities incident thereto is hereby increased by $5,250,000,000 
    (toward which $3,076,280,455 is included to the amount appropriated 
    herein): Provided further, That without regard to the limitations 
    imposed thereon in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1943, 
    the Commission is hereby authorized to incur obligations for 
    administrative expenses, including the objects specified in such 
    Appropriation Act, during the fiscal year 1943, of not to exceed 
    $16,625,000.

    An amendment was offered, against which a point of order was made: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 1362, 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Vinson of Georgia: Page 11, 
    line 4, before the word ``Provided'', insert the following: 
    ``Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this act shall 
    be available for the construction or acquisition and conversion of 
    any vessel for use as a naval auxiliary which is not constructed or 
    acquired and converted on a reimbursable basis from funds 
    appropriated to the Navy Department pursuant to an act authorizing 
    the construction or acquisition and conversion of auxiliary vessels 
    for the Navy Department, and.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, this is on the point or 
    order. I

[[Page 6398]]

    submit this is not legislation on an appropriation bill. It is a 
    limitation on the money to be used in the construction of certain 
    types of ships. . . .
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, this 
    appropriation bill provides money for the construction of ships by 
    the Maritime Commission. As I understand the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia, it simply limits those funds as to the 
    type of ships for which the funs might be used and is, therefore, 
    very definitely a limitation on the appropriation itself and not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard briefly?
        The Chairman: (10) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, the beginning of the section is that 
    the appropriation is made to increase the construction fund 
    established by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and any amendment 
    such as proposed by the gentleman effects an amendment to the 
    Merchant Marine Act, 1936. If legislation is brought in to 
    accomplish the purpose which the gentleman desires, I have no 
    objection, but I am unable and he is unable to say what effect it 
    will have upon the fund that is provided for the work now in 
    progress. But whether that is true or not, it would be an amendment 
    to the construction fund provided by the Merchant Marine Act.
        Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, here is an authorization 
    for the Maritime Commission to build ships, any kind of ships. We 
    put a limitation on it and say they cannot build a certain type of 
    ship. That certainly is not legislation. It is a limitation.
        That is the whole point. . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Georgia [Mr. Vinson] provides for a limitation upon the 
    appropriation contained in this bill. Therein it differs from the 
    last amendment offered. . . .
        The Chair thinks that clearly this is merely a limitation upon 
    an appropriation, therefore overrules the point of order.

    Note: This amendment would probably be ruled out of order today, 
because it appears to make the availability of funds contingent upon 
future authorizations and future appropriations. Mr. Vinson's concern 
is proposing the amendment seemed to be to ensure that money would not 
be available, from the construction fund cited in the bill, for 
construction of auxiliary vessels without specific authorization. He 
had earlier (11) offered the following amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 1360, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Page 11, line 4, 
    insert ``Provided further, That no funds appropriation under this 
    act or heretofore or hereafter appropriated under this heading, 
    shall be available for the construction or acquisition and 
    conversion of any vessels for use as a naval auxiliary, except on a 
    reimbursable basis from funds appropriation to the Navy Department, 
    pursuant to an act authorizing the construction or acquisition and 
    conversion of auxiliary vessels for the Navy Department.''

[[Page 6399]]

    Explaining the amendment, Mr. Vinson stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter, and I shall 
    state to the Committee how it happened, how it arose. In January 
    the Navy Department submitted to the Budget in the usual method 
    required by the Department for clearance, a bill to authorize the 
    construction of a million tons of auxiliary. Bear in mind that from 
    the beginning of time down to date the Navy has always controlled 
    what is known in the Navy as the auxiliary shipping bills. For 
    instance, in 1941 and 1942 we authorize 2,500,000 tons of 
    auxiliaries. In the past that authorization has been brought before 
    the House in a separate bill from the Naval Affairs Committee, and 
    when it becomes law, then we go to the Committee on Appropriations 
    to get the money to carry out the authorization. When the Navy 
    Department in January desired to build a million tons of auxiliary, 
    what happened? The Naval budget officer from the Navy, on January 
    13 went before the general Budget officials and they said this:

            They state that they were already giving to the Maritime 
        Commission, Admiral Land, sufficient money to finance the 
        building of the merchant ships which can be built according to 
        the types which we call naval auxiliary tonnage. In addition to 
        that, they have given and propose to continue to give the War 
        Shipping Administration, also Admiral Land, plenty of money to 
        convert many of the ships for Army or Navy use. The paper today 
        states a request for $4,000,000,000 before Congress for the 
        Maritime Commission.

        Here it is in the bill. Now, what does that mean? It means that 
    if the construction of the auxiliaries for the Navy, which are 
    composed of tankers, supply ships, repair ships, and other ships 
    that are armed but do not carry armament, they propose by the set-
    up that is not being worked out with the Maritime Commission or the 
    War Shipping Administration, to give to the Navy its auxiliaries. 
    Now, I am opposed to the War Shipping Administration or the 
    Maritime Commission taking the place of Congress. In other words, 
    what is under way now is to circumvent Congress in making the 
    authorization, the Naval Affairs Committee in presenting it to the 
    House, and the Naval Appropriations Committee from making the 
    appropriation. We have no objection to the Maritime Committee 
    acting as the agent of the Navy to construct any of its 
    auxiliaries, but we do propose to enter a vigorous protest against 
    the Navy Department becoming the pensioner of the Maritime 
    Commission or the War Shipping Administration.

    The amendment in that instance, however, was conceded to be out of 
order.

Limiting Purchase of Foreign Agricultural Products if Domestic Supplies 
    Adequate

Sec. 69.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a 
    motion to recommit which provided that no funds should be used to 
    purchase any foreign dairy or other competitive agricultural 
    products produced in the

[[Page 6400]]

    United States in sufficient quantities to meet needs, was held a 
    limitation and in order.

    On May 19, 1939,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
6392, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments and Judiciary 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Hawks [Jr., of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the 
    bill to the committee with instructions to report it back forthwith 
    with the following amendment: At the end of the bill insert a new 
    paragraph, as follows:
        ``No part of the funds appropriated in this bill shall be used 
    for the purpose of purchasing any foreign dairy or other 
    competitive foreign agricultural products which are not [sic] 
    produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet 
    domestic needs.''
        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the motion to recommit is not in order in that it is an 
    attempt to place legislation in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, it 
    is a limitation on appropriations.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from South Carolina.
        The point of order has been made that the motion to recommit is 
    not in order because of the fact that it sets up matters of 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. The Chair has tried carefully 
    to read the provisions of the motion. On a fair reading and 
    construction of the whole motion it appears that there is nothing 
    affirmative in the motion in the way of legislation. It appears to 
    the Chair on the whole to be a restriction or a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of funds.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    More recently, a provision with a similar intent contained in H.R. 
14262, the Department of Defense appropriation bill, was ruled out of 
order.(14) In that case, the portion of the bill in question 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 122 Cong. Rec. 19014, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 723. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
    shall be available for the procurement of any article of food, 
    clothing, cotton, woven silk or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn 
    for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric, 
    or wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn or contained in 
    fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles), or speciality metals 
    including stainless steel flatware, not grown, reprocessed, reused, 
    or produced in the United States or its possessions, except to the 
    extent that the Secretary of the Department concerned shall 
    determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of 
    any articles of food or clothing or any form of cotton, woven silk 
    and woven silk

[[Page 6401]]

    blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or 
    coated synthetic fabric, wool, or specialty metals including 
    stainless steel flatware, grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced 
    in the United States or its possessions cannot be procured as and 
    when needed at United States market prices.

    The affirmative and express duty placed on the Secretary to make 
the determinations described was probably a determining factor in the 
Chair's ruling.

Federal-aid Airports

Sec. 69.3 To a section of an appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the federal-aid airport program, an amendment 
    providing that ``no part of the appropriation . . . shall be used 
    for the development of class 4 and larger airports unless approval 
    of Congress is hereafter granted'' was held to be a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill restricting the availability of funds and in 
    order where existing law permitted inclusion of language making 
    that appropriation contingent upon subsequent congressional 
    approval.

        On May 15, 1947,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 3311, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
    and Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 5379, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: On 
    page 49, line 2, after the word ``appropriation'', insert the 
    following: ``Provided further, That no part of the appropriation 
    made herein shall be used for the development of class 4 and larger 
    airports unless approval of Congress is hereafter granted.''. . .
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this amendment as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . . It seems to me that the argument with 
    reference to the other point of order would apply here. The 
    Administrator, on February 19, 1947, has complied with the 
    requirement of law and has made the required report to Congress.
        In reading section 8 of the act, the distinguished gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Keating], in commenting on the point of order 
    made against the other amendment, it seems to me did not properly 
    interpret the last part of section 8 of the act, and that the 
    amendment actually would change the law by action on an 
    appropriation bill, when the act specifically says:

            In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated 
        to pay the United States' share of allowable project costs 
        during the next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider 
        such appropriation as granting the authority requested, unless 
        a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the Congress by 
        a law or by concurrent resolution.

        This, it would seem to me, would be by amendment to an 
    appropriation bill

[[Page 6402]]

    rather than by a law or by a concurrent resolution, and it would 
    appear that the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, as indicated by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case], this is clearly simply a limitation upon 
    the amount of an appropriation, and it seems to me to be clearly in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a limitation, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair apparently took the view that 
existing law [60 Stat. 174, Sec. 8 of which was referred to by Mr. 
Priest, above] permitted inclusion of the language making the 
appropriation contingent upon subsequent congressional approval.

Public Works

Sec. 69.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds 
    appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by law ``or 
    which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be 
    appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the 
    amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to 
    limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order 
    against the language as legislation was overruled.

    On May 24, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12326. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law; detailed 
    studies, and plans and specifications, of projects (including those 
    for development with participation or under consideration for 
    participation by States, local governments, or private groups) 
    authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such studies 
    shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
    construction); and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer to the 
    Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife as 
    authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available until 
    expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by 
    a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line 
    18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a

[[Page 6403]]

    law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may 
    be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to 
    be appropriated.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    make the further point of order that this is authorizing 
    appropriations for projects not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958, by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber]. It also happens that the present 
    occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The Chair 
    ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no 
    question about its referring to the controlling phrase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be emphasized that the provision 
in question did not permit appropriations for unauthorized projects, 
but merely stated that where projects are authorized, even just for 
planning, money is only available within limits now or hereafter 
changed. This and related precedents are discussed further in Sec. 7, 
supra. See, for example, the June 18, 1958, ruling discussed at 
Sec. 7.10, supra.

Public Works Acceleration

Sec. 69.5 An amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill providing 
    funds for public works acceleration but prohibiting use of such 
    funds for (1) projects previously rejected and (2) projects, other 
    than for forest preservation, not requiring state or local matching 
    funds was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 10, 1963,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5517. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 6130-32, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]:
        Page 7, after line 14 insert:

                        ``Public Works Acceleration

        ``For an additional amount for `Public Works Acceleration', 
    $450,000,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for any project that has ever been rejected by the Senate or 
    House of Representatives or by any Committee of the Congress: 
    Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used 
    for any project that does not require a financial contribution from 
    State or local sources except projects dealing with

[[Page 6404]]

    preservation of forests in the jurisdiction of the Department of 
    Agriculture and the Department of the Interior.''. . .
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment on the basis that you are legislating in an 
    appropriation bill. This particular language which is added by this 
    amendment is, in fact, legislation.

        The Chairman: (20) Will the gentleman state in what 
    respect it is legislation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Laird: The legislation is in the proviso as far as the 
    matching formula is concerned, which is contrary to the basic law. 
    The second proviso of the amendment does not follow the basic act 
    which was passed in the last session of Congress and is, in fact, 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit 
    that this language is accurate and in order. The gentleman refers 
    to the proviso ``providing further that no part of this 
    appropriation shall''. It only deals with this appropriation. It is 
    a limitation on the use of the fund and, therefore, I submit it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The Chairman has had an opportunity to examine 
    the amendment and feels that the matter discussed is a limitation 
    on the appropriation. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authorizing law, Public Law No. 87-658 
(the Public Works Acceleration Act of 1962) required matching funds for 
projects but did not contain the exception stated in the amendment for 
projects dealing with preservation of forests. Had the argument been 
pressed that to provide such an exception would allow an unauthorized 
use of funds for forest projects which do not meet the conditions of 
the authorizing legislation the Chair should have upheld the point of 
order.

Public Buildings

Sec. 69.6 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that ``none 
    of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for providing 
    facilities at Flint, Mich.'' was held in order as a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds.

    On July 22, 1954,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9936, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 11459, 11460, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for alteration of Federal buildings to 
    provide facilities for additional Federal judges as authorized by 
    the act of February 10, 1954 (68 Stat. 8), and additional court 
    personnel, and for expansion of existing court facilities, 
    including costs of moving agencies thereby displaced from space in 
    Federal buildings, $3

[[Page 6405]]

    million, to remain available until June 30, 1956.
        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cederberg: On page 12, line 21, 
        after ``1956'', insert ``Provided, That none of the funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for providing facilities at 
        Flint, Mich.''

        Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, this is a limitation upon the 
    appropriation bill rather than legislation.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan is definitely a 
    limitation. The point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee Valley Authority Personal Services

Sec. 69.7 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 since 
    restricted to funds in the bill.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. 
During consideration, a point of order against an amendment was 
overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.''. . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I made the point of order that 
    it 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: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Just prior to this ruling, the Chair had 
ruled out of order an amendment stating that ``not to exceed 
$99,131,125 of the funds available to the Tennessee Valley Authority 
shall be used for personal services.'' [See 98 Cong. Rec. 2673, 2674]. 
The Chair stated that that amendment was not limited to funds contained 
in the bill.

[[Page 6406]]

Restricting Highway Funds to Limit Vehicle Weights

Sec. 69.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of Interstate Highway System funds in the bill by any state 
    which permits the Interstate System to be used by vehicles in 
    excess of certain sizes and weights but not interfering with 
    contractual obligations entered into prior to enactment was held in 
    order as a negative limitation on the use of funds in the bill 
    which did not impose new duties on federal officials (who were 
    already under an obligation to determine vehicle weights and widths 
    in each state) and which did not directly change any allocation 
    formula in existing law.

    On July 10, 1975,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill (H.R. 8365), a point of order against an amendment 
was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 22006, 22007, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: 
        page 35, after line 21, insert:
            Sec. 315. (a) No part of any appropriation for the 
        Interstate System contained in this Act shall be available for 
        expenditure or obligation in any State within the boundaries of 
        which the Interstate System may lawfully be used by vehicles 
        with weight in excess of eighteen thousand pounds carried on 
        any one axle, or with a tandem-axle weight in excess of thirty-
        two thousand pounds, or with an overall gross weight in excess 
        of seventy-three thousand two hundred and eighty pounds, or 
        with a width in excess of ninety-six inches, or the 
        corresponding maximum weights or maximum widths permitted for 
        vehicles using the public highways of such State under laws or 
        regulations established by appropriate State authority in 
        effect on July 1, 1956 (or in the case of the State of Hawaii 
        February 1, 1960), whichever is the greater.
            (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall take effect in 
        each State on the 30th day after the 1st day of a regular 
        session of the legislature of that State which session begins 
        after the date of enactment of this Act.
            (c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the 
        payment of any contractual obligation of the United States 
        entered into prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        It imposes a tremendous amount of new duties on the Secretary 
    of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Highway System, 
    in order to enforce the law. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . This amendment, if 
    adopted, would require a great number of the States--28 of them, if 
    my information is current and correct--to amend

[[Page 6407]]

    or repeal their own basic laws, adopted in good faith and in total 
    conformity with applicable Federal law, under pain of losing their 
    Federal highway apportionments. If that is not changing the basic 
    law, Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult, indeed, to conceive of a 
    provision which would change basic law.
        This amendment, if adopted, would impose upon the 
    administrators in the Federal Highway Administration and the 
    Department of Transportation the duty of ascertaining just which 
    States had complied with this new directive, when they had come 
    into compliance with the new directive, whether their individual 
    statutes met the test herein prescribed, part of which test is 
    totally new to Federal law, whether their individual legislative 
    action had been timely within the meaning of this amendment, and 
    precisely how much of their entitlements were to be withheld based 
    upon their untimeliness or their total failure to comply. . . .
        Moreover, the effect of the amendment would go far beyond the 
    period covered by the annual appropriation. I invite the attention 
    of the Chair to subsection (b) of the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which reads as follows:

            Subsection (a) of this section shall take effect in each 
        State on the 30th day after the 1st day of a regular session of 
        the legislature of that State which session begins after the 
        date of enactment of this Act.

        Therefore, this would be applicable at different times in 
    different States. Furthermore, it is a well-known and verifiable 
    fact, Mr. Chairman, that in some of the States the next regular 
    session of the legislature will not occur until the year 1977, and 
    therefore, the applicability of this provision in the current 1976 
    appropriations bill, if it were adopted, would not occur in some of 
    the States until many months after the expiration of the period for 
    which this appropriations bill is written, almost 2 years from the 
    present date.
        An understanding of title 23 of the United States Code, which 
    sets forth the basic highway laws of the Nation, makes it 
    abundantly clear that the presently offered amendment, by its very 
    terms, would profoundly affect not only the present appropriation, 
    but future appropriations and apportionments under the law and the 
    basic legal relationship which present law prescribes between the 
    States and the Federal Government. . . .
        Sections 104, 106, and 118 of title 23 set forth the manner of 
    apportionment and obligation of funds among the States, including 
    the approval of plans, specifications, and estimates for individual 
    projects, and mandate advance contractual obligations on the part 
    of the Federal Government.
        They contain the declaration that--

            On or after the date the funds are apportioned, they shall 
        be available for expenditure.

        Section 104 requires that apportionments among the States be 
    based upon a ratio concerning the estimated cost of completing the 
    Interstate System within each such State. It also requires, Mr. 
    Chairman, in the interest of orderly planning and continuity, that 
    apportionments be made as far in advance of each fiscal year as 
    possible and, in no case, less than 18 months prior to the 
    beginning of that year.
        So, if this amendment were adopted and were to go into effect 
    in some

[[Page 6408]]

    States 18, 20 or 23 months from now, it would have a profound 
    effect on the duties of the Administrator in that not only would he 
    have to make ascertainments, he would have to make guesses in 
    advance as to whether a given State were going to comply with this 
    act, because the language compels him to make that apportionment 18 
    months in advance; and any apportionments withheld as a result of 
    this amendment clearly would affect and even control appropriations 
    and expenditures in future fiscal years. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    and the gentleman from Texas make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York on the grounds 
    that it constitutes legislation and is not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would first state that it is well settled that the 
    House may in an appropriation bill negatively deny the use or 
    availability of funds for certain purposes or to certain recipients 
    even though authorized by law, if the denial is limited to funds 
    contained in the bill and if the limitation does not constitute new 
    legislation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York limits 
    itself to appropriations contained in the bill for the Interstate 
    System. The amendment denies the availability of such funds for 
    expenditure or obligation within States wherein certain truck 
    weights and widths may be lawfully used on the Interstate System.
        The determination by the Federal Government, whether States 
    would meet the test mandated by the amendment, would not require 
    new affirmative duties. As Chairman Price ruled on December 11, 
    1973--the decision is noted in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, 
    section 16.2--almost any limitation on an appropriation bill 
    requires some determination to establish the fact whether the 
    limitation would apply, and it is in order to restrict the 
    availability of funds to recipients not meeting certain 
    qualifications as long as the determination of those qualifications 
    is readily ascertainable under existing law and facts. The Chair 
    would note that under section 127 of title 23 of the United States 
    Code, as amended by the Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974, the 
    Federal Government has the authority and duty to determine the 
    vehicle weights and widths which may be used in each State on the 
    Interstate System.
        It has been contended that the amendment constitutes 
    legislation because it denies the availability of funds not only 
    for expenditures but also for obligation. Yet the limitation is 
    confined to the funds carried in the bill and would deny only their 
    use for certain obligations entered into. The amendment reaches no 
    funds which are not carried in the bill, and that goes to the point 
    raised by the gentleman from Texas that some State legislatures are 
    not in session on an annual basis. It has been held in order on an 
    appropriation bill to deny the use of funds in the bill for the 
    Export-Import Bank to guarantee the payment of certain obligations 
    therein-after incurred, as cited in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 
    25, section 16.5. Again Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, section 
    17.1, indicates that an amendment

[[Page 6409]]

    to an appropriation bill may provide that none of the funds therein 
    shall be available for payments on certain contracts, and 4 Hinds' 
    Precedents, section 3987, lays down the principle that an 
    appropriation may be withheld from a designated object although 
    contracts may be left unsatisfied thereby.
        The amendment in issue does not seek to directly change a 
    formula, repeal a provision of law or require the use or allocation 
    of funds contrary to law. It simply denies appropriation for a 
    purpose which is authorized by law. For that reason the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.


 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 71.--Military Contracts

Conventional Powerplant for Ship

Sec. 71.1 To a bill appropriating funds for defense procurement, an 
    amendment providing that none of the funds therein shall be 
    available for paying the cost of a conventional powerplant for a 
    designated ship was held to be a proper limitation and in order 
    even though it was apparent that there were no funds in the bill 
    for the ship in question.

    On Apr. 22, 1964,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10939, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. A 
point of order against an amendment was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 8802, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: On 
    page 42, line 18, after line 18 insert a new section 540--and 
    renumber the following sections--to read as follows:
        ``None of the funds appropriated herein shall be available for 
    paying the cost of a conventional powerplant for CVA-67.''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there are no funds in this bill for an aircraft 
    carrier.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Yes, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear him.
        Mr. Hosmer: My point is, It is irrelevant whether or not there 
    are any funds in this bill. An amendment of this nature will lie 
    irrespective.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . Apparently the only basis for that point of order is that 
    there are no funds in the pending bill to accomplish that which is 
    sought to be accomplished by the amendment. As futile, therefore, 
    as the amendment might be, it is in fact a limitation of the funds 
    herein appropriated and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Retired Military Officers Employed by Defense Contractors; Incidental 
    Duties Imposed on Officials

Sec. 71.2 Where the manifest intent of a proposed amendment is to 
    impose a negative limitation on the use of funds

[[Page 6417]]

    appropriated in the bill, the implication that the administration 
    of the limitation will impose certain incidental burdens on 
    executive officers does not destroy the character of the 
    limitation. For example, an amendment providing that none of the 
    funds appropriated in a bill could be used to enter into contracts 
    with any concern having on its payroll a retired or inactive 
    military officer was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On June 3, 1959,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7454, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 9741, 9742, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Construction of Ships, Military Sea Transportation Service, 
                           Department of Defense

        The appropriation to the Department of Defense for 
    ``Construction of ships, Military Sea Transportation Service,'' 
    shall not be available for obligation after June 30, 1959.
        Mr. [Alfred E.] Santangelo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Santangelo: On page 25, after line 
        17, add new section, as follows:

                               General Provisions

            ``Sec. 301. None of the funds contained in this Title may 
        be used to enter into a contract with any person, organization, 
        company or concern which provides compensation to a retired or 
        inactive military or naval general officer who has been an 
        active member of the military forces of the United States 
        within 5 years of the date of enactment of this act.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. I will reserve a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In a similar ruling, on May 5, 1960, the 
Chair allowed an amendment stating in part:

        None of the funds contained in this Title may be used to pay or 
    reimburse any Defense Contractor which  . . . within two years from 
    the release from active duty of a retired commissioned officer 
    knowingly permits any such retired commissioned officer to sell or 
    aid in the selling of anything of value to

[[Page 6418]]

    the Department of Defense or an Armed Force of the United 
    States.(9)

 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 9632, 9634-36, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current practice, however, it would probably be held that the 
language denying funds to contractors who ``knowingly'' permit retired 
officers to participate in the sales in question constitutes 
legislation, in that it places on administrative officials the 
additional burden of making findings as to the intent or state of 
knowledge of the defense contractors described.

Resale of Subsidized Commodities

Sec. 71.3 An amendment to the war agencies appropriation bill providing 
    that no part of the appropriation in the pending bill shall be used 
    for payment to any person who pays any subsidy, authorizes the 
    payment of a subsidy, or participates in any of several stated 
    manners in the payment of subsidies involving the purchase of any 
    commodity by the government for the purpose of its resale at a 
    lower price than that paid by the government was held to be a 
    proper limitation and in order.

    On June 18, 1943,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2968. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 6111, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the Office 
    of Price Administration in carrying out the provisions of the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended by the act of 
    October 2, 1942 (50 U.S.C. App. 901), and the provisions of the act 
    of May 31, 1941 (55 Stat. 236), as amended by the Second War Powers 
    Act, 1942 (50 U.S.C. App. 622), and all other powers, duties, and 
    functions which may be lawfully delegated to the Office of Price 
    Administration . . . $165,000,000 . . . [Provided], That no part of 
    this appropriation shall be available for making any subsidy 
    payments: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
    shall be used to enforce any maximum price or prices on any 
    agricultural commodity or any commodity processed or manufactured 
    in whole or substantial part from any agricultural commodity unless 
    and until (1) the Secretary of Agriculture has determined and 
    published for such agricultural commodity the prices specified in 
    section 3(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942; (2) in 
    case of a comparable price for such agricultural commodity, the 
    Secretary of Agriculture has held public hearings and determined 
    and published such comparable price in the manner prescribed by 
    section 3(b) of said act; and (3) the Secretary of Agriculture has 
    determined after investigation and proclaimed that the maximum 
    price or prices so established on any

[[Page 6419]]

    such agricultural commodity will reflect to the producer of such 
    agricultural commodity a price in conformity with section 3(c) of 
    said act: Provided further, That any employee of the Office of 
    Price Administration is authorized and empowered, when designated 
    for the purpose by the head of the agency, to administer to or take 
    from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit when such 
    instrument is required in connection with the performance of the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    functions or activities of said Office.

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 6123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: 
    Page 13, after line 3, add the following: ``Provided further, That 
    no part of any appropriation contained herein shall be used for 
    payment of the salary or expense of any person who, directly or 
    indirectly, pays any subsidy of any kind or character whatsoever, 
    or who directs or authorizes the payment of a subsidy, or who 
    participates in the preparation of or calculations for the payment 
    of a subsidy, or who directs any other person to pay or prepare or 
    calculate or supply information for the payment of a subsidy, or 
    any person who, directly or indirectly, collaborates with, 
    consults, cooperates with, or directly or indirectly aids any other 
    Federal agency for the payment or the preparation of a subsidy; or 
    of any person who engages or participates as aforesaid in the 
    preparation, formulation, or carrying out of any plan or scheme 
    involving the purchase of any commodity by the Government for the 
    purpose of its resale at a price lower than that paid by the 
    Government.''
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not germane and 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. The rule under which this 
    bill was brought into this Chamber waived all points of order with 
    reference to limitations that were engrafted on the bill itself by 
    the Appropriations Committee. For example, a proviso was inserted 
    to the effect that no part of this appropriation shall be available 
    for making any subsidy payments. This type of provision was made 
    impervious to a point of order by the rule which brought this bill 
    into this Chamber, but I believe the rule would not preclude a 
    point of order I now make with reference to the amendment the 
    gentleman from Illinois has offered. So I make the point of order 
    that the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill and not 
    a mere limitation of amount of appropriation nor a mere limitation 
    of purpose of the appropriation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Dirksen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The point needs no belaboring. 
    This is purely a limitation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes the point of order against 
    the

[[Page 6420]]

    amendment that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and that 
    it is not germane. The Chair thinks that the amendment is a 
    limitation and is not subject to the point of order, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Inventions From Research and Development

Sec. 71.4 An amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated in 
    the bill may be used to enter into research or development 
    contracts under which new inventions or patents, conceived in the 
    process of performing the contract, do not become the property of 
    the United States was held to be a limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

    On May 5, 1960,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11998, which included the appropriation of funds for 
research and development to be carried out directly by government 
personnel and by contract. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 9624, 9627, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harris B.] McDowell [Jr., of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. McDowell: On page 29, after line 13, 
    insert the following:

            ``Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
        shall be available for making payments on any research or 
        development contract under which any invention, improvement, or 
        discovery conceived or first actually reduced to practice in 
        the course of performance of such contract or any subcontract 
        thereof, or under which any patent based on such invention, 
        improvement, or discovery, does not become the property of the 
        United States.''
            And renumber the following sections accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: The point of order is that 
    this proposed amendment would imply additional duties beyond the 
    scope of the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Delaware desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. McDowell: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I cited to the Chair certain Hinds' and Cannon's 
    precedents which adequately demonstrate that the amendment does not 
    in any way restrict the administrative procedures under the act. It 
    is not retroactive in any sense of the word. With that, I simply 
    leave the matter at this point to the Chair for a ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. McDowell] offered an amendment 
    in the language heretofore reported, and a point of order was made 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon] that it was, in effect, 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, imposing additional du

[[Page 6421]]

    ties on the executive branch of the Government.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to reread the language of the 
    amendment and to refer to the precedents applicable, in the opinion 
    of the Chair, thereto. It is the opinion of this occupant of the 
    chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware is, 
    in fact, a limitation on the appropriations appropriated in this 
    act, and while it may be argued that the limitation imposed causes 
    or results in additional burdens on the executive branch, in the 
    opinion of this occupant of the chair, that is normal and 
    reasonable to expect in the carrying out of the limitation.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Prohibiting Funds for Contracts Containing Specified Clause

Conditions for Dispute Settlement

Sec. 71.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing that no funds in 
    the bill shall be used for the purpose of entering into contracts 
    containing a certain condition was held to be a proper limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7391, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 3891, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 635. No funds contained in this act shall be used for the 
    purpose of entering into contracts containing article 15 of the 
    Standard Government Contract, which reads as follows:
        ``Disputes: Except as otherwise specifically provided in this 
    contract, all disputes concerning questions of fact arising under 
    this contract shall be decided by the contracting officer subject 
    to written appeal by the contractor within 30 days to the head of 
    the department concerned or his duly authorized representative, 
    whose decision shall be final and conclusive upon the parties 
    thereto. In the meantime the contractor shall diligently proceed 
    with the work as directed.''
        Mr. [Overton] Brooks [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in Section 365 on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (16) If no one desires to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair is ready to rule. The Chair holds, 
    after careful consideration of the paragraph to which the gentleman 
    from Louisiana makes a point of order, that the language is a 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 72. District of Columbia

Public Assistance; Apportionment to Escape Deficiency

Sec. 72.1 An amendment to the District of Columbia appro

[[Page 6422]]

    priation bill providing that no part of the appropriation for 
    public assistance shall be expended in such a manner as to require 
    a deficiency to supplement the appropriation was held to be a 
    proper limitation and in order as not changing the law 31 USC 
    Sec. 665(c) (see Revised Statutes Sec. 3679) already requiring 
    expenditures in such manner.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Public Assistance

        For the purpose of affording relief to residents of the 
    District of Columbia who are unemployed or otherwise in distress 
    because of the existing emergency, to be expended by the Board of 
    Public Welfare of the District of Columbia by employment and direct 
    relief, in the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and under 
    rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board and without 
    regard to the provisions of any other law, payable from the 
    revenues of the District of Columbia, $900,000, and not to exceed 
    7\1/2\ percent of this appropriation and of Federal grants 
    reimbursed under this appropriation shall be expended for personal 
    services: Provided That all auditing, disbursing, and accounting 
    for funds administered through the Public Assistance Division of 
    the Board of Public Welfare, including all employees engaged in 
    such work and records relating thereto, shall be under the 
    supervision and control of the Auditor of the District of Columbia: 
    Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so apportioned 
    and distributed by the Commissioners over the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered, during such fiscal 
    year, as to constitute the total amount that will be utilized 
    during such fiscal year for such purposes: Provided further, That 
    not more than $75 per month shall be paid therefrom to any one 
    family. . . .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 58, line 2, after 
        the colon, insert ``Provided, That no part of this 
        appropriation shall be expended in such a manner as to require 
        a deficiency to supplement such appropriation.''

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Boileau] will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] 
    would be legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore not in 
    order. The same argument and the same reasons would apply to this 
    amendment as to the former pro

[[Page 6423]]

    viso which was stricken. It is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment carefully and is of the 
    opinion this is a limitation; therefore the point of order is 
    overruled.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The amendment was in fact in conformity with existing law [see 31 
        USC Sec. 665(c)], which required expenditures to be carried out 
        in the manner described in the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Segregation

Sec. 72.2 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of the money contained therein should be 
    used for any agency, office, or department of the District of 
    Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District of Columbia 
    in employment, facilities afforded, services performed, 
    accommodations furnished, instructions, or aid granted, on account 
    of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin of the 
    citizens of the District of Columbia was held a proper limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and therefore in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    In line 7, page 2, insert the following: ``Provided, That no part 
    of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used for any of 
    the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, office, or department 
    of the District of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the 
    District of Columbia in employment, facilities afforded, services 
    performed, accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted, 
    on account of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin 
    of the citizens of the District of Columbia.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, and that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in that it attempts to change the fundamental 
    laws of the District of Columbia that have been established and in 
    effect for at least 80 years or probably a hundred years.
        This amendment, if adopted, would destroy the school system of 
    the District of Columbia. It would stir up race hatred and bring 
    about race trouble, the like of which nothing else has ever

[[Page 6424]]

    done in all the history of the District. If it is done, the effect 
    will be to destroy the legislation providing funds with which to 
    carry on the public schools in the District of Columbia. . . .
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment is definitely a negative limitation. It prohibits the use 
    of funds appropriated in this bill for certain specific purposes 
    which are enumerated in the amendment. It does not change any 
    existing law and Congress has the right to withhold the funds for 
    any purpose enumerated in an appropriation act or to withhold funds 
    for any purpose for which an appropriation is being made.
        This bill makes appropriations for the District of Columbia. 
    The amendment simply states that none of the funds appropriated in 
    this bill shall be expended to do certain things. . . .
        There is no additional duty imposed upon anyone. The amendment 
    deals with an existing condition, that is, segregation in 
    education, segregation in recreation, in hospitals and other 
    places. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has listened very attentively to the arguments pro 
    and con and has reached the conclusion that the Holman rule is not 
    in issue at the present moment. The wording of the amendment reads, 
    ``Provided that no part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used for any of the purposes therein mentioned,'' and they 
    are enumerated.
        After serious consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a proper limitation and overrules the point of 
    order.

Teachers Doing Clerical Work

Sec. 72.3 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of an appropriation shall be used to pay the 
    salary of any teacher performing any clerical work other than that 
    necessary or incidental to the classroom teaching assignments was 
    held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering provisions of H.R. 5996, relating to appropriations for 
personal services of teachers. An amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 3106, 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 25, line 3, after 
        the word ``grades'' insert ``Provided, That no part of this 
        appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any teacher 
        performing any clerical work other than that necessary or 
        incidental to the classroom teaching assignments.''

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order to that amendment for the same reason.(3) The 
    existing law today says

[[Page 6425]]

    nothing about clerical work being done by teachers. This amendment, 
    of course, is introduced for the purpose of preventing teachers 
    from doing any clerical work. Even though it places a limitation on 
    some clerical work that they may be doing, it is contrary to 
    existing law and the point of order would lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The Chairman had just ruled out of order a provision in the bill 
        that ``teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that 
        which is necessary or incidental to their regular classroom 
        teaching assignments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The amendment here offered by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi provides that no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used to pay the salary of any teacher performing any clerical work 
    other than that necessary or incidental to the regular classroom 
    teaching assignment.
        The Chair is of opinion that this amendment in the form 
    presented is very clearly a limitation and retrenchment of 
    expenses, that it is germane, and that the point of order should be 
    overruled.

Airport Access Road

Sec. 72.4 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington, 
    D.C. airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the 
    appropriation which may be used for the construction of an 
    authorized access road was held to be a proper limitation and in 
    order.

    On June 29, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 3, 
    line 6, after the word ``expended,'' insert ``provided that not to 
    exceed $400,000 of the foregoing appropriation may be used for an 
    access road north from the airport.''
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, we think the amendment cures the 
    objection raised by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa. We think 
    this one is purely a straight limitation. It requires no outside 
    effort on the part of anybody. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access 
    roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that 
    the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which 
    funds may be used, that it is

[[Page 6426]]

    germane to the bill and is not legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Personal Services

Sec. 72.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    appropriating for personal services and providing that no other 
    appropriation made in the bill would be available for the 
    employment of additional assistant engineers or watchmen for the 
    care of the district buildings was held authorized by law and in 
    order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1303, 1304, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services, including temporary labor, and service 
    of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per hour, 
    $129,000: Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act 
    shall be available for the employment of additional assistant 
    engineers or watchmen for the care of the District buildings.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a 
    point of order against the proviso in this paragraph, but first I 
    wish to raise a point of order as to the entire paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. In the 
    pending appropriation bill this proviso is found on page 4, line 
    15, with respect to the care of District buildings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act 
        shall be available for the employment of additional assistant 
        engineers or watchmen for the care of the District Building.

        To that proviso the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harlan] directs a 
    point of order upon the ground that the proviso is in the nature of 
    legislation which is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Caldwell: May I ask whether the point of order was not 
    later changed from the particular language referred to to the 
    entire section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will reach that in a moment. The Chair 
    is now directing his attention to the proviso because the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Harlan], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Collins], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] directed 
    their arguments largely to that proviso.
        The authority for making appropriations for the care of 
    District buildings is found in Fiftieth Statutes at Large, page 
    377, in this language:

            Provided, That all buildings belonging to the District of 
        Columbia

[[Page 6427]]

        shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the 
        Commissioners of the District.

        This proviso does not in any manner seek to take from the 
    District Commissioners their authority as custodians of the 
    buildings under their duties and responsibilities as Commissioners 
    of the District. This proviso in no manner contravenes the language 
    of this positive law. It is more in the nature of a limitation upon 
    the appropriation than a contravention or change of existing law.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair 
    permit an interruption?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Nichols: The point is, Mr. Chairman, that before this 
    proviso the existing law was that all of the buildings in the 
    District of Columbia should be under the control of the 
    Commissioners of the District, except certain buildings included in 
    which was the court building by specific provision. That was under 
    the control of the judges of the courts. This proviso wipes out the 
    control of the judges over this court building and places the 
    control in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. To this 
    extent the proviso does change existing law.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma that the feature to which the Chair is especially 
    addressing the ruling is whether this is a change of existing law. 
    The gentleman from Ohio bases his point of order on the ground that 
    this is a change of the law affecting the custody of the building 
    according to the statute the Chair just quoted. The proviso under 
    consideration in no manner changes existing law but is merely a 
    limitation on an appropriation. The Chair so holding must 
    necessarily overrule the point of order.
        The gentleman from Ohio also directed the point of order 
    against the paragraph the first portion of which includes this 
    language:

            For personal services, including temporary labor, and 
        service of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per 
        hour, $129,000.

        Standing alone, as a matter of course, this language is immune 
    from a point of order because it is solely an appropriation for 
    personal services, and so forth. If, therefore, the argument 
    directed to the proviso goes down, necessarily the point of order 
    against the paragraph as a whole must go down.
        The Chair overrules the point of order directed against the 
    paragraph.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 73. Education and Community Service; Health; Labor

Educational Assistance to Federally Impacted Areas

Sec. 73.1 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    educational assistance to ``federally impacted areas,'' an 
    amendment providing that the appropriation shall not be available 
    for a certain percentage of children of parents who live or work on

[[Page 6428]]

    federal property or where local contribution rates are not 
    determined in accordance with certain requirements specified in the 
    authorizing law was held a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

    On May 4, 1966,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14745, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 9833, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On page 17, 
    at the end of line 18, strike out the period and insert the 
    following: ``Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be 
    available for payments to any local educational agency on account 
    of (1) three per centum of the total number of children in average 
    daily attendance in cases of children of parents who reside and 
    work on Federal property, or (2) six per centum of the total number 
    of children in average daily attendance in cases of children of 
    parents who reside or work on Federal property, or (3) local 
    contribution rates not determined in accordance with the first two 
    sentences of section 3(d) of such Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 
    238(d)), with respect to the areas covered thereby.''
        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) the gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank Thompson, Jr. (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: I make a point of order in that this 
    would be legislation on an appropriation bill, because it would 
    change the basic formula which is contained in the authorizing 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair notes that the three categories which 
    are set forth in the amendment are merely limitations on an 
    appropriation bill and are proper in its context. The point of 
    order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair apparently took the view that the 
distribution of funds under the amendment did not represent an 
alteration of the formula existing in law for allocating funds in 
federally impacted areas; rather, that the amendment merely withheld a 
portion of the funds that otherwise would have been distributed, the 
statutory formula nevertheless remaining intact. In other rulings, 
provisions relating to appropriations for educational assistance have 
been prohibited as constituting a distributional scheme different from 
that set forth in the authorizing law and, in some cases, as requiring 
additional duties not found in existing law on the part of 
administrative officials. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 36.10-36.12, 
52.18 and 52.19, supra.

[[Page 6429]]

Sec. 73.2 Where legislation authorizing funds for impacted school aid 
    establishes an apportionment formula for distribution of that aid 
    to educational agencies, language in a general appropriation bill 
    reducing, in a uniform manner, amounts available to all agencies 
    for a certain category of such aid does not violate Rule XXI clause 
    2.

    On Apr. 7, 1971,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Education Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7016), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 10096, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas

        For carrying out title I of the Act of September 30, 1950, as 
    amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 13), and the Act of September 23, 1950, as 
    amended (20 U.S.C., ch. 19), $577,000,000, of which . . . 
    $15,000,000 . . . shall be for providing school facilities as 
    authorized by said Act of September 23, 1950: Provided, That none 
    of the funds contained herein shall be available to pay any local 
    educational agency in excess of 68 per centum of the amounts to 
    which such agency would otherwise be entitled pursuant to section 
    3(b) of title I: Provided further, That none of the funds contained 
    herein shall be available to pay any local educational agency in 
    excess of 90 per centum of the amounts to which such agency would 
    otherwise be entitled pursuant to section 3(a) of said title I if 
    the number of children in average daily attendance in the schools 
    of that agency eligible under said section 3(a) is less than 25 per 
    centum of the total number of children in such schools.
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
provisos appearing on page 3, beginning at line 4 and running through 
line 15.

        Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the language referred 
    to constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. It provides a 
    different method of making adjustments where necessitated by 
    appropriations than that provided in the authorizing legislation; 
    to wit, in section 203(c)(4) of Public Law 91-230. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Thank you, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the language to which the gentleman objects is 
    clearly a limitation on the use of funds contained in this bill. 
    The language is germane and it is completely negative. In the words 
    of Chairman Nelson Dingley of Maine, which are quoted in Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives--Chairman Dingley said:

[[Page 6430]]

            The House in Committee of the Whole 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 principal 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. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The precedents which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) 
    pointed to are quite familiar to the Chair. There is a subtle 
    difference between those amendments and the language that is before 
    us.
        [The Chair has] examined these two provisions appearing in the 
    bill on page 3 and [has] reviewed the provisions of Public Law 874, 
    including the two rulings which were made by the Chair a year ago 
    on April 14 and February 19.
        The first proviso uniformly reduces the amount available to the 
    school districts which are entitled to funds under section 3(b) of 
    Public Law 874, which is the section of the law which applies to 
    local educational agencies where the impact is due to children of 
    parents who reside or work on Federal property.
        The second proviso limits the entitlement of certain local 
    educational agencies where the impact is due to school attendance 
    of children whose parents both reside and work on Federal property 
    as determined by section 3(a) of Public Law 874 if the number of 
    such children is less than 25 percent of the total number of 
    children in such school.
        Under the law, the Commissioner of Education is already 
    required to determine the number of such children in this category 
    in average daily attendance and the schools so affected. 
    Determining these districts or local agencies where the 25-percent 
    limitation applies thus presents the Commissioner with no 
    substantial additional duties. He is already required by basic law 
    to make that determination.
        The Chair feels the decision of the committee is valid; that 
    these provisos are in fact limitations couched in negative language 
    on the funds in the bill. The Chair therefore overrules the point 
    of order.

Health, Education, and Welfare Building Construction

Sec. 73.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing that none of the 
    funds in the bill shall be used for construction or planning of any 
    building of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, nor 
    to pay the salary of anyone in connection therewith, under the 
    lease-purchase program, was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6287, a Departments of Labor, and 
Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, a point of order was 
overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 5040, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 211. None of the funds provided herein shall be used, 
    either directly or

[[Page 6431]]

    indirectly, for construction or planning of any building for the 
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under the lease-
    purchase program, nor shall any of the funds provided herein be 
    used to pay the salary of any person who assists or consults with 
    anyone in connection with the construction or planning of any 
    building for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under 
    the lease-purchase program.
        Mr. (John W.) Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 211 in its entirety as being legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin makes a point of order against 
    section 211 on page 38 of the bill. The Chair has read the section 
    and finds that it is a pure limitation, and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.

College Housing Construction; No Funds ``Unless in Compliance With 
    Law''

Sec. 73.4 To an appropriation bill providing for construction of 
    college housing, an amendment specifying that none of the funds may 
    be allocated to an institution unless it is in full compliance with 
    a law requiring the withholding of funds to students who are 
    convicted of engaging in campus disorders was held to be a 
    limitation (not requiring additional duties on the part of any 
    federal official) and in order.

    On June 24, 1969,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12307, an appropriation bill for independent offices 
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Clerk read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 17085, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
    Urban Development Act of 1968, $2,500,000: Provided, That the 
    limitation otherwise applicable to the total payments that may be 
    required in any fiscal year by all contracts entered into under 
    such section is increased by $5,500,000.
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Scherle: On page 35, at the end of 
        line 24, strike the period and insert the following: ``And 
        provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
        act for payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
        Urban Development Act of 1968, shall be used to formulate or 
        carry out any grant or loan to any institution of higher 
        education unless such institution shall be in full compliance 
        with section 504 of Public Law 90-575.''

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John S. Monagan (Conn.).

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

[[Page 6432]]

        Mr. Ryan: I make a point of order on the ground that this 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Scherle: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in order because it 
    is in conformity with rule 21, clause 2 . . . specifying that 
    amendments to appropriation bills are in order if they meet the 
    qualifications of the ``Holman Rule.''
        My amendment is germane, negative in nature, and shows 
    retrenchment on its face. It does not either impose any additional 
    or affirmative duties or amend existing law. . . .
        In support of my amendment, I cite section 843 of the rules of 
    the House discussing the Holman rule under rule 21: . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule and holds that the 
    amendment is a proper limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This ruling (and Public Law No. 90-575 
Sec. 504) are discussed more fully in Sec. 53, supra, in relation to 
other rulings which concern the issue of what constitutes the 
imposition of additional duties on officials, and whether the 
imposition of such duties on nonfederal officials or private parties 
amounts to legislation on appropriation bills. (See the ``Note on 
Contrary Rulings'' following Sec. 53.6.) Such rulings have not been 
uniform, and some effort in Sec. 53 is made to clarify the trend of 
these rulings. Rulings discussed include those with respect to attempts 
to limit or prohibit funds for certain types of projects not having 
``local'' approval, where such approval is not required in the 
authorizing law.

Discrimination

Sec. 73.5 To the labor-federal security appropriation bill, an 
    amendment providing that no part of any appropriation under one of 
    its titles shall be paid as grants to state or educational 
    institutions in which because of race, color, or creed, 
    discriminatory practices deny equality of educational opportunity 
    or employment was held germane and in order.

    On Mar. 8, 1948,(17) an amendment was offered as follows 
to the Department of Labor and Federal Security Agency appropriation 
bill of 1949: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 2356, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. H.R. 5728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: On 
    page 27, after line 22, insert a new section:
        ``Sec. 207. No part of any appropriation under this title shall 
    be paid as grants to any State or educational institution in which, 
    because of race, color, or creed, discriminatory practices

[[Page 6433]]

    deny equality of educational opportunity or employment to any one 
    to pursue such educational courses or employment as are provided 
    for by such a grant.''

    The point of order which followed did not expressly raise the issue 
of whether the above language constituted legislation, but the Chair, 
in ruling that the amendment was germane, implicitly recognized Mr. 
Marcantonio's position that the amendment was permissible as a negative 
limitation on the use of funds. The point of order and ruling thereon 
were as follows:

        Mr. [John E. Rankin] [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that the amendment is not 
    germane and it is not in order at this point in the bill. I will 
    reserve the point of order if the gentleman wants to discuss the 
    matter.
        Mr. Marcantonio: No. Let us have it decided now. . . . The 
    amendment certainly is germane. It is simply a negative limitation. 
    It restricts the use of the funds and it is clearly in order.
        The Chairman [Forest A. Harness, of Indiana]: There is no 
    question but that the amendment is germane. This is an 
    appropriation bill and the amendment deals with an appropriation 
    made in the bill. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also Sec. Sec. 61 and 68, supra, for more precedents relating 
        to civil liberties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cut Off in Certain Education Funds to Students

Sec. 73.6 Where existing law authorized basic opportunity grants for 
    higher education assistance to students in all years of study, an 
    amendment prohibiting the availability of funds in a general 
    appropriation bill for assistance to students enrolled prior to a 
    date certain was held in order as a negative limitation on the use 
    of funds in the bill.

    On June 27, 1974,(20) during consideration of the 
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation 
bill (H.R. 15580), the following amendment was ruled in order as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 21671, 21672, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flood: Page 18, line 7, insert ``: 
        Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
        pay any amount for basic opportunity grants for full-time 
        students at institutions of higher education who were enrolled 
        as regular students at such institutions prior to April 1, 
        1973.'' . . .

        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order

[[Page 6434]]

    against this amendment. The point of order is what I cited a moment 
    ago, Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, on page 
    246:

            If a part of a paragraph . . . is out of order, all is out 
        of order and a point of order may be raised against the portion 
        out of order or against the entire paragraph. . . .

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood), does appear to meet the tests of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. It limits the funds in this specific bill and 
    it is negatively stated. For these reasons it would clearly appear 
    to be admissible as a limitation, distinguishable from that 
    language which was stricken in the proviso that had appeared in the 
    original bill.
        The Chair does not understand that the gentlewoman had raised a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph. The gentlewoman raised 
    two specific points of order on which the Chair ruled.
        If the gentlewoman had at that time intended to make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph she should so have stated, and 
    the Chair believes that a point of order at this moment on those 
    grounds would be untimely made since an amendment to the paragraph 
    is now pending.

Busing to Schools Nearest Home

Sec. 73.7 Where existing law prohibited the implementation by any 
    court, department, or agency of a plan to transport students to a 
    school other than the school nearest or next nearest their homes 
    which offers the appropriate grade level and type of education for 
    each student (thus requiring determinations of school proximity and 
    curriculum to be made by federal officials), a paragraph in a 
    general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein for 
    the transportation of students to a school other than the school 
    nearest their homes and offering the courses of study pursued by 
    such students was held in order as a negative limitation on the use 
    of funds in that bill, since it did not directly amend existing law 
    and did not require new determinations by federal officials that 
    they were not already required by law to make.

    The proceedings of June 24, 1976,(2) are discussed in 
Sec. 64.26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 20408-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6435]]

Abortion; Broad Limitation of Funds

Sec. 73.8 An amendment restricting the use of funds in an appropriation 
    bill for abortion or abortion referral services, abortifacient 
    drugs or devices, the promotion or encouragement of abortion, 
    etcetera, was held to be a negative limitation on funds in the bill 
    imposing no new duties on federal officials other than to construe 
    the language of the limitation in administering the funds.

    On June 27, 1974,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15580), an amendment 
was held in order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the second amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        My grounds are the same as to the previous amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman; namely, that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Second, that it requires new duties on the part of officials in 
    connection with the operation of this amendment.
        I particularly call the attention of the Chair to the use of 
    the term ``promotion or encouragement of abortion.''
        This phrase will require additional duties on the part of the 
    outside officials. Therefore, it goes beyond the scope of an 
    appropriation provision. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The language of the 
    revised section 412 necessarily requires a definition of what 
    constitutes the moment of fertilization, in that the term 
    abortifacient drug or devices is used.
        Now, the question of whether or not a drug or device is 
    abortifacient depends on the moment of fertilization. If it is to 
    be not abortifacient, it prevents fertilization. If it comes under 
    the language of this act, the moment of fertilization must occur 
    before the drug or the device acts upon the inseminated egg.

        Therefore, there is an absolutely necessary determination by 
    the agency of the moment of fertilization.
        Furthermore, there is the term abortion, the term abortion must 
    nec

[[Page 6436]]

    essarily determine the definition as contained in the last line 
    and, therefore, requires affirmative duties on the part of the 
    agency. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    originally offered, the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
    definitely did require some sort of action on the part of the 
    Government officials, but I heartily disagree with the statements 
    that have been made here.
        There are no additional duties imposed whatsoever. In fact, 
    like the antibusing amendment in the two other sections, it is a 
    limitation on the expenditure of funds in this bill just as the 
    rules provide. No new duties and no directions are allowed. 
    Abortion is a well understood term, and is found in any dictionary. 
    It is perfectly admissible under the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As originally offered, the amendment contained a definition of 
    abortion which would have defined that term as being the 
    intentional destruction of unborn human life, which subjected the 
    amendment to a successful challenge on the ground that it would 
    have imposed upon an administrator the responsibility of 
    determining a question of another person's intent.
        There have been precedents under which that type of a 
    requirement has been held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        As presently constituted, the amendment secondly offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, in the opinion of the Chair, contains no 
    direction nor immediately discernible new duty incumbent upon its 
    administrator beyond the fact that every limitation is a 
    compilation of words if it is written into a law, and it always 
    would devolve upon an administrator to interpret the meaning of the 
    words therein contained. It would be, of course, manifestly 
    contrary to the main thrust of the rulings of the Chair if 
    limitations were to be construed as legislation merely because 
    their enactment would require some statutory interpretation.
        Under the circumstances, the Chair, the present occupant having 
    carefully examined the amendment and carefully listened to the 
    arguments, is constrained to overrule the point of order.

Occupational Safety and Health Act Enforcement--Salary Cut Off for 
    Inspectors of Certain Size Firms

Sec. 73.9 An amendment prohibiting the payment of funds for salaries of 
    federal employees ``who inspect firms employing 25 or fewer persons 
    to enforce compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act'' 
    was held in order as a negative limitation on the availability of 
    funds in a general appropriation bill which merely described a 
    category of employees who would not be compensated from those 
    funds.

        On June 27, 1974,(5) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of

[[Page 6437]]

    the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare 
    appropriation bill (H.R. 15580), an amendment was held in order as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 21652, 21662, 21663, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and Health 
    Administration, $100,816,000.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On Page 6, after line 17, 
        add the following:
            ``None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        expended to pay the salaries of any employees of the Federal 
        Government who inspect firms employing twenty-five or fewer 
        persons to enforce compliance with the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Act of 1970.'' . . .

        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    to raise a point of order for the reason it is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Very hurriedly, let me state that a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill is legitimate if and only if:
        First, it is worded so that it limits the use of money, rather 
    than limiting the discretion of an Executive officer to carry out 
    his duties;
        Second, it applies only to the use of the present appropriation 
    rather than attempting to legislate a permanent restraint on the 
    spending authority of an Executive officer.
        An amendment which forbids the Secretary of the Treasury from 
    paying the salary of OSHA inspectors out of the current DOL 
    appropriation for the inspections of premises of employers with 25 
    or fewer employees, would seem to meet these criteria. There are, 
    however, three arguments which seem to indicate that this 
    limitation is in fact legislation and therefore not appropriate 
    under House rule 21, clause 2.
        First, section 8(f) of the act provides that an employee in any 
    size business may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, and 
    the Secretary must respond to such complaint. Further, this 
    employee right is protected by the antidiscrimination clause of 
    section 11(c) of the act. Failure to provide the Secretary with the 
    funds to respond to these employee complaints leaves these 
    employees with a protected right but without a remedy, a situation 
    abhorred by the law. It effectively amends OSHA to remove the right 
    for a group of employees, and there is no rational basis for this 
    sort of discrimination. While it is well established that the 
    Congress may pass a law creating a Government authority or function 
    and then withhold funds from it, it is questionable whether there 
    is any precedent for using a limitation to delete the remedy for a 
    legislatively established right vested in an individual. The mover 
    of the amendment should be asked to provide such a precedent.
        Second, the inspectors used by the Secretary of Labor to carry 
    out all investigations are assigned to regions at the present time 
    on the basis of the concentration of businesses in each region--all 
    businesses. The vast majority of businesses do employ under 25 
    persons, and following the terms of the amendment, these could no 
    longer be counted in the computation by the Secretary of Labor. . . 
    . In short the amendment imposes a substantial burden upon the 
    Secretary of Labor, and

[[Page 6438]]

    the precedents are clear that a limitation may not impose any 
    additional duties upon an executive officer.
        Finally, OSHA is a carefully developed law which was the result 
    of deliberate balancing of employee and employer rights by the 
    appropriate committees of the Congress, and any change in that 
    balance effectively constitutes legislation. Since the amendment 
    would change the rights of some employees, it should, therefore, 
    not be attached to an appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . Mr. Chairman, in fact this language is so 
    close to being identical to a number of other similar amendments 
    offered and sustained by rulings of the Chair, that I am surprised 
    that any point of order would be raised. It is clearly within the 
    rule that it is retrenchment on its face. It establishes no 
    obligation on the part of the executive branch for additional 
    duties. It requires no determination. It does not go beyond the 
    fiscal year involved, and it simply withholds the salaries for a 
    specified purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, as distinguished from an 
    authorization, and therefore it would be in violation of clause 2, 
    rule XXI.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and the provisions of the 
    Occupational Safety and Health Act, Public Law 91-596. The 
    amendment would prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 
    payment of the salaries of Federal employees who inspect firms 
    employing 25 or fewer persons with respect to compliance under that 
    act.
        Clearly, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania acknowledges, and 
    as all the precedents would attest, the House could refuse to 
    appropriate any sums whatever for the administration of the act in 
    question. Or, it could prohibit the appropriation of any funds to 
    pay the salaries of any inspecting officers under the act. This 
    particular amendment merely limits the use of funds in the bill for 
    a certain described category of such employees.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania suggests that this fact would 
    render the burden upon the executive branch and the administrators 
    to make precise determinations, and that it would have a 
    discriminatory effect.
        The Chair has examined several precedents which relate to 
    restrictions on the payment of appropriations for certain salaries 
    or expenses. On June 6, 1963, Chairman Keogh ruled that to a bill 
    appropriating funds for the Department of Agriculture, an amendment 
    providing that--

            None of the funds herein shall be used to pay the salary of 
        any  . . . employee who  . . . performs duties  . . . 
        incidental to supporting the price of  . . . cotton at a level 
        in excess of 30 cents a pound.

        Was a proper limitation, and admissible under the rules of the 
    House.
        On June 6, 1941, Chairman Lanham ruled that an amendment to a 
    military appropriation bill providing that no funds therein shall 
    be paid as compensation to any person employed in the manufacture 
    of defense articles who stops work in excess of 10 days on

[[Page 6439]]

    a strike, or who fails to resume work within 3 days after the 
    Government takes over such a plant, was a valid limitation.
        The Chair would also simply call attention to Cannon's volume 
    7, paragraphs 1663 and 1689, which were cited by Chairman Gibbons 
    on the agriculture and environmental consumer appropriation bill on 
    Friday last, when that Chairman overruled a point of order that a 
    limitation therein on the payment of salaries or funds in the bill 
    constituted legislation.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois is a valid limitation on the use of funds 
    appropriated in this bill, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

--Monitoring State Procedures

Sec. 73.10 An amendment denying the use of funds for state plan 
    monitoring visits by the Occupational Safety and Health 
    Administration where the workplace has been inspected by a state 
    agency within six months, but also providing that the limitation 
    would not preclude the federal official from conducting a 
    monitoring visit at the time of the state inspection, to 
    investigate complaints about state procedures, or as part of a 
    special study program, or to investigate a catastrophe was held not 
    to require new determinations by federal officials, where existing 
    law directed state agencies to inform federal officials of all 
    their activities under state plans.

    The proceedings of June 27, 1979,(7) are discussed in 
Sec. 66.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 17033-35, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--No Funds to Enforce Certain Regulations

Sec. 73.11 Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibited the use of funds therein for the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Administration to administer or enforce regulations with 
    respect to employers of 10 or fewer employees included in a 
    category having an ``occupational injury lost work day case rate'' 
    less than the national average, except to perform certain 
    enumerated functions and authorities, but exempted from the 
    prohibition farming operations not maintaining a temporary labor 
    camp, the amendment was held not to constitute additional 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; the determination as to the 
    category in which the business fell

[[Page 6440]]

    with respect to the average injury lost work day rate, and the 
    determination whether that average was less than the national 
    average, were easily ascertainable from statistics periodically 
    published, pursuant to law, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the 
    permissible functions and authorities funded by the amendment were 
    all authorized in existing law; and the exemption as to certain 
    farming operations restated a legislative provision already in the 
    bill, in the paragraph to which the amendment related.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 7998), a point of order 
against the following amendment was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 23519-21, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Beverly B.] Byron (of Maryland): At 
    page 10, line 10, insert after ``fishing:'' the following new 
    proviso:
        ``Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this 
    paragraph shall be obligated or expended to administer or enforce 
    any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten 
    or fewer employees who is included within a category having an 
    occupational injury lost work day case rate, at the most precise 
    Standard Industrial Classification Code for which such data are 
    published, less than the national average rate as such rates are 
    most recently published by the Secretary, acting through the Bureau 
    of Labor Statistics, in accordance with section 24 of that Act (29 
    U.S.C. Sec. 673), except  . . .
        ``(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect to 
    complaints of discrimination against employees for exercising 
    rights under such Act: Provided further, That the foregoing proviso 
    shall not apply to any person who is engaged in a farming operation 
    which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
    fewer employees''. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against this amendment for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriations bill. The amendment changes 
    existing statutory law and, in effect, amends the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 by exempting a specific class of 
    employers from the integral provisions of the act. This amendment 
    goes far beyond reducing or restricting the amount of money in the 
    appropriation.
        The language of this amendment would clearly impose on OSHA 
    officials new additional duties not otherwise required by existing 
    law. Look at all the additional determinations to be made by the 
    Department of Labor. OSHA officials, under this amendment, would be 
    required to make determinations on the exempt status of firms which 
    are not required by existing law. . . .

[[Page 6441]]

        . . . This amendment serves to change existing law by adding to 
    the basic statute conditions or requirements governing the scope of 
    investigations and the assessment of penalties pursuant to these 
    investigations. In other words, this amendment provides an 
    affirmative direction to executive officials in situations where 
    the statute provides these officials with the discretion in the 
    exercise of their authority. . . .
        . . . [A]ccording to Deschler's Procedure, language in a 
    paragraph of a--
        General appropriations bill containing funds for the Federal 
    Trade Commission for the purpose of collecting line-of-business 
    data from  . . . ``not to exceed 250 firms''  . . . was conceded to 
    directly interfere with the discretionary authority of the F.T.C.--
    a restriction on the scope of the investigation rather than a 
    limitation on availability of funds. . . .
        The amendment before us directly interferes with the 
    discretionary authority of OSHA by limiting the scope of general 
    schedule safety inspections to only those inspections or 
    investigations meeting the substantive requirements of the 
    amendment. This approach is tantamount to limiting the safety 
    inspections to a fixed number of firms. . . .
        Mrs. Byron: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    point of order. This amendment does not impose any additional 
    duties upon the Secretary of Labor, and therefore is not 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . In order to comply with the limitation regarding the size 
    of the business and the safety records of the industry, no new 
    duties are required of the Secretary. Section 24 of the 
    Occupational Safety and Health Act already requires the Secretary 
    to maintain occupational and safety health statistics. Section 
    1904-20 of title XXIX of the Code of Federal Regulations 
    specifically includes the exact statistics that are utilized in the 
    first part of my amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . In reviewing the amendment, it would prohibit the use of 
    funds in the bill to enforce standards or rules under the 
    Occupational Safety and Health Act with respect to certain 
    employers, except for enumerated functions and activities 
    authorized under such Act. The amendment applies to employers with 
    10 or fewer employees whose business falls within a category having 
    an injury work loss day rate less than the national average as 
    indicated by statistics published by the Bureau of Labor pursuant 
    to law. The amendment does not require individual findings of 
    injury rates in each separate business, but only a determination as 
    to the category into which the business falls.
        The Chair has reviewed the set of statistics that is required 
    by section 673 of the OSHA law, and finds that the determination as 
    to what category that the business relates to and the relationship 
    between the average rate for that category and the average rate for 
    all business is very easily ascertainable and is now being 
    undertaken under OSHA regulations. . . .
        No new duties or determinations are hereby required, and the 
    final proviso, while requiring findings as to the tem

[[Page 6442]]

    porary status of a farm labor camp, is already in the bill and the 
    amendment does not add legislation to that permitted to remain in 
    the bill. . . .
        The amendment restricts the use of funds to carry out part of 
    the authorized activity while allowing but not requiring the agency 
    to use funds in the bill to carry out other authorized activities. 
    While an amendment to an appropriation bill may not directly 
    curtail executive discretion delegated by law, it is in order to 
    limit the use of funds for an activity or a portion thereof 
    authorized by law if the limitation does not require new duties or 
    impose new determinations.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Reduction in Trade Adjustment Assistance by Amount of Unemployment 
    Insurance

Sec. 73.12 Where existing law (19 Sec. 2292) established trade 
    readjustment allowances to workers unemployed because of import 
    competition and required the disbursing agency to take into 
    consideration levels of unemployment insurance entitlements under 
    other law in determining payments, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill reducing the availability of funds therein for 
    trade adjustment assistance by amounts of unemployment insurance 
    was held not to impose new duties upon officials already required 
    to make those reductions.

        The proceedings of June 18, 1980,(10) are discussed 
    in Sec. 52.36, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 15354-56, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 74. Federal Employment

Maximum Age

Sec. 74.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment to provide that no 
    part of the funds thereby appropriated shall be used to pay 
    compensation of persons who allocate positions in the classified 
    civil service with a requirement of maximum age for such positions 
    was held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 30, 1955,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5240, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 101 Cong. Rec. 4077, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: On 
    page 37, after line 25, insert a new section to be designated as 
    section 108, as follows:
        ``No part of any appropriation contained in this title shall be 
    used to pay the compensation of any officers and employees who 
    allocate positions in the

[[Page 6443]]

    classified civil service with a requirement of maximum age for such 
    positions.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    [Mr. Yates] on the ground that it is legislation and placing a duty 
    upon the agency to determine the age of each applicant. . . .
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, this is negative restriction directed 
    solely to funds sought to be appropriated by this bill. It is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule. It 
    appears to the Chair that this is a proper limitation. Therefore, 
    the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting Number of Employees in Executive Office of President

Sec. 74.2 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    total amount of funds used to pay certain salaries and for certain 
    positions constitutes a valid limitation if it is confined to 
    appropriations made by that bill and does not affect funds 
    appropriated in other acts.

    On June 22, 1972,(13) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 22098, 22099, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 38, line 18, add a 
        new section 611, as follows:
            Sec. 611. No part of the appropriation made by this Act 
        shall be expended for the compensation of more than 1647 
        employees in the Executive Office of the President, including 
        not more than 50 employees of any Department or agency detailed 
        to serve in the Executive Offices;
            Nor shall the total amount appropriated to the Executive 
        Office of the President for personnel compensation exceed 
        $29,737,760;
            Nor shall any part of the appropriations be expended for 
        the compensation of more than 95 ungraded employees in the 
        Executive Office of the President, whose individual salaries 
        are in excess of the maximum rates of pay established at the 
        pay level of GS-10 of the General Schedule (5 USC 5332);
            Nor shall any part of the appropriation be expended for the 
        compensation of more than 549 employees in the Executive Office 
        of the President whose annual rates of pay are more than the 
        minimum rate in effect for GS-13 of the General Schedule (5 USC 
        5332) but less than the annual rate of pay for Level II of the 
        Executive Schedule (5 USC 5313);
            Except that no part of this section shall apply to the 
        compensation of any employees of the White House Office, or the 
        compensation of the President. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona.

[[Page 6444]]

        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding 
    that in order to be qualified under the rules and the precedents of 
    the House, a limitation on an appropriation bill must limit the 
    funds appropriated under that act and that act only.
        I think the chairman of the subcommittee has already pointed 
    out to the Chair that there are other Executive Office agencies 
    under the heading of the Executive Office of the President to which 
    the amendment seeks to add a limitation. I would say to the Chair 
    that those agencies are, among others, the Council on Environmental 
    Quality, the National Aeronautics and Space Council, the National 
    Commission on Productivity, the National Council on Marine 
    Resources and Engineering, the Office of Consumer Affairs, the 
    Office of Science and Technology, the Special Representative for 
    Trade Negotiations, and finally, Mr. Chairman, the Office of 
    Economic Opportunity, for none of which agencies is money provided 
    under this appropriation bill.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on a point of 
    order; in the first place, my esteemed friend from New York (Mr. 
    Robison) did not reserve a point of order. He is either making the 
    same one my friend from Oklahoma made, or he is making a different 
    one, and the gentleman from Oklahoma's point of order has been 
    ruled upon.
        He has no right to make a point of order, since he did not 
    reserve one, and debate had intervened.
        On the second ground, I think the Chairman has already covered 
    in his earlier ruling the precise point the gentleman has raised.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard further?
        The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will direct his attention 
    to the first paragraph, he will see a specific reference to the 
    number 1,647 employees in the Executive Office of the President. It 
    does not say, in this act. It says, in the entire office. It says:

            Nor shall the total amount appropriated--

        Not in this act, but in all acts--

            To the Executive Office of the President for personnel 
        compensation exceed $29,737,760.

        Mr. Chairman, there is no way from the record here or any other 
    available record that we can show where the 1,647 limitation does 
    increase or decrease the people available in the Executive Office 
    of the President.
        In the rules of the House it is very specific under the Holman 
    rule, that unless a definite reduction can be shown this language 
    would be legislation and would not be appropriate to this bill.
        The Chairman: The point made by the gentleman from New York is 
    essentially that already made by the gentleman from Oklahoma. This 
    bill does contain appropriations for the Executive Office of the 
    President and the Chair reads the amendment as being a limitation 
    upon those appropriations. And, as pointed out before, the specific 
    provision is that no part of the appropriations made by this act 
    shall be ex

[[Page 6445]]

    pended for certain purposes--detailed in the first four paragraphs 
    of the amendment. The Chair is constrained, therefore, to overrule 
    the point of order.

Hatch Act Application

Sec. 74.3 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that no part 
    of any appropriation in the bill be used for compensation of any 
    officer or employee of a designated bureau who for the purposes of 
    the Hatch Act, ``shall not be included within the construction of 
    the term `officer' or `employee' '' was held in order as a 
    limitation where the determinations of employment status were 
    already required by law.

    On Mar. 4, 1954,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 100 Cong. Rec. 2697, 2698, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: At 
    page 52, after line 19, add the following new section:
        ``Sec. 604. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used to pay the salary or wages of any officer or employee 
    of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs of the Department of 
    State who, for the purposes of the act of August 2, 1939, as 
    amended (5 U.S.C. 118i), shall not be included within the 
    construction of the term `officer' or `employee'.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; that it changes existing law and requires new 
    and additional duties.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I cite volume VII, Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1663 and section 1670:

            1. Denial of use of an appropriation for payment of 
        salaries of employees of the Department of Agriculture who 
        forecast the price of agricultural products was construed as a 
        proper limitation and in order on an appropriation bill.
            The Chairman at that time, March 2, 1928, Allen T. 
        Treadway, of Massachusetts, relied on prior decisions of 
        Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Graham, of 
        Illinois, in 1924, and Mr. Longworth, of Ohio, in 1923, and 
        held such a limitation proper and not subject to a point of 
        order.
            2. An amendment forbidding payment of salary authorized by 
        law from any part of an appropriation to a designated 
        individual was held to be a limitation and in order on an 
        appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. Taber: . . . This amendment, Mr. Chairman, refers to the 
    so-called Hatch Act, section 118i, of title V of the Code. It reads 
    as follows:

            For the purposes of this section the term ``officer'' or 
        ``employee'' shall

[[Page 6446]]

        not be construed to include (1) the President and Vice 
        President of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation 
        is paid from the appropriation for the Office of the President 
        (3) heads and assistant heads of executive departments; (4) 
        officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the 
        advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to 
        be pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign 
        powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws. The 
        provisions of the second sentence of this subsection shall not 
        apply to the employees of the Alaska Railroad.

        This provision in effect brings about the prohibition of 
    payments to these employees who are not determined to be officers 
    or employees within the provisions of this paragraph of section 
    118. It requires a determination on the part of some officer before 
    the thing can be effective. For that reason, it requires additional 
    duties to be performed by some officer before it can be effective. 
    Therefore, it is subject to the rule that it requires additional 
    duties, and it is an attempt on the part of the amendment to change 
    and enlarge the provisions of that section. . . .
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, in House Report No. 1365, 82d 
    Congress, relative to H.R. 5678, the McCarran-Walter bill, it is 
    stated on page 36:

            The Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, section 104, 
        creates a new organizational setup within the Department of 
        State to administer the issuance of passports and visas. There 
        will be a responsible authority in the Department of State of 
        rank and power corresponding to the Commissioner of Immigration 
        and Naturalization and to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation--

        Mr. J. Edgar Hoover--

            and the Central Intelligence Agency--

        Mr. Dulles--

            All of whom are to collaborate in the interests of national 
        security.

        Is it the contention of anybody here that we would want, for 
    instance, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover going around the country making 
    political speeches? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It appears to the Chair that the contention of those who make 
    the point of order is answered by this provision in Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume IV, section 3954:

            A provision that no part of an appropriation for pay of 
        retired Army officers should go to one receiving pay for 
        services as a civil employee was held to be a limitation.

        Likewise we have a similar expression in Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume VII, section 1651, which contains the provision that no part 
    of an appropriation shall be allotted to a beneficiary failing to 
    comply with certain requirements. That provision was held in order 
    as a proper limitation on an appropriation bill. With those two 
    precedents the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order, 
    and the Chair so rules.
        The point of order is overruled.

Past Employment of Heads of Departments

Sec. 74.4 An amendment providing that no part of an appropriation shall 
    be paid to

[[Page 6447]]

    the head of any executive department who, within a specified period 
    was a partner in a firm which derived any income from representing 
    a foreign government, was held to be a proper limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and in order.

    On July 26, 1951,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4740, a State, Justice, Commerce Departments and 
Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8963, 8965, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: On 
    page 58, following line 14, add a new section to be numbered 
    section 602:
        ``None of the money appropriated in this act shall be paid to 
    the head of any executive department who, within a period of 5 
    years preceding his appointment, was a partner in, or a member of, 
    a professional firm which derived any part of its income from 
    representing, or acting for, a foreign government, or who, acting 
    as an individual, derived income from such representation.''

    Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, made a point of order on which 
debate occurred as follows:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    proposed amendment starts out under the guise of a limitation, ``No 
    money in this appropriation shall be paid,'' and so forth. A 
    limitation, as I understand it, cannot impose any more duties upon 
    an official, any affirmative duties, any additional duties, that do 
    not presently exist by law.

        Let us see what additional duties this amendment imposes upon 
    someone. It does not state here, but someone has to carry out the 
    provisions of this amendment if it were held to be in order and it 
    was adopted. ``Who in a period of 5 years preceding his 
    appointment.'' Who is going to determine the 5-year period? 
    Somebody has got to say. That is an additional duty and 
    responsibility resting upon somebody. This is legislation. ``Was a 
    partner in.'' Somebody has to pass on that. That imposes additional 
    duties upon somebody. ``Or a member of a professional firm which 
    derived any part of its income from representing, or acting for a 
    foreign government.'' That imposes additional duties upon some one, 
    and that duty is not imposed upon anybody by law now. There is no 
    organic law now relating to it. ``Or who, acting as an individual, 
    derived income from such representation.'' There are many firms 
    where men may be partners in one thing and in one case, and not 
    partners in another. Somebody has to determine all of these 
    factors.
        Mr. Chairman, under the guise of a limitation I respectfully 
    submit that the proposed amendment constitutes pure legislation. . 
    . .
        Mr. Phillips: . . . I am sure that all the information 
    necessary was necessarily obtained before the appointment was made. 
    It all appears, I will say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, in 
    the Senate hearings. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: . . . If [Mr. McCormack's] 
    argu

[[Page 6448]]

    ment is logically followed through it would not be possible for the 
    Congress to make any appropriation, because every appropriation 
    that we make requires that someone take some action to determine 
    that a condition or situation exists before the money appropriated 
    can be had or used. For example, if we make an appropriation for 
    the armed services, someone has to certify the individuals who are 
    entitled to receive it. Someone must take action to create the 
    obligation which justifies the expenditure. What I say with 
    reference to this appropriation is true with reference to every 
    appropriation bill. Every appropriation requires something be done 
    before the money becomes available, an action which is incidental 
    rather than legislative. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California has offered an amendment which 
    has been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from New York has 
    made a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not a proper limitation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care. 
    . . .
        It should be clear that almost any limitation must necessarily 
    require some action on the part of somebody. One of the classic 
    illustrations given on many occasions by the distinguished 
    parliamentarian to whom the Chair made reference a few moments ago, 
    Hon. James R. Mann, of Illinois, was that if a provision states 
    that ``no part of this appropriation shall be paid to a red-headed 
    man,'' somebody will have to find that red-headed man and determine 
    whether his hair is red; therefore, it would appear that in any 
    instance where a limitation is sought to be imposed there must be 
    some activity contemplated or some effort exerted by someone to 
    carry out the provisions of the limitation.
        The Chair would invite attention to section 1593 of Cannon's 
    Precedents. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that that decision is applicable to 
    the pending question raised by the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York. It would appear that the over-all and 
    controlling element of the pending amendment is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. It is entirely negative in character, and does 
    not affirmatively impose any additional duties upon anybody.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As a general rule, it is in order in a 
general appropriation bill to describe the qualifications of the 
recipients of funds provided therein and to deny the availability of 
those funds to persons or purposes not meeting those criteria, so long 
as the restriction is confined to the fiscal year covered by the bill. 
See Sec. 54, supra, discussing qualifications of recipients of funds. 
Of course, a determination must be made by the administrator of the 
funds as to whether prospective recipients have the qualifications 
described as a condition to receiving funds, and in some instances

[[Page 6449]]

that determination may entail the performance of new and substantial 
duties on the part of the administrator. In such cases, as has been 
seen (Sec. 52, supra), the express or implied requirement that such 
duties be performed would amount to legislation prohibited by Rule XXI. 
The question of whether the new duties are in fact of such a 
substantial nature is sometimes a difficult one, especially where those 
duties are merely implicit in the proposed limitation. The application 
of any limitation on an appropriation bill places some minimal extra 
duties on federal officials, who, if nothing else, must determine 
whether a particular use of funds falls within that prohibited by the 
limitation. But when an amendment, while curtailing certain uses of 
funds carried in the bill, explicitly places new duties on officers of 
the government or implicitly requires them to make investigations, 
compile evidence, or make judgments and determinations not otherwise 
required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation 
and is subject to a point of order. See 115 Cong. Rec. 21653, 21675, 
91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 31, 1969 (discussed in Sec. 61.6, supra), 
ruling that the words ``in order to overcome racial imbalance'' in an 
amendment to an appropriation bill would impose additional duties on 
school officials. If language such as that involved in the 1951 ruling 
above were to be ruled on today, the issue of whether it constitutes 
prohibited ``legislation'' might depend on whether the applicability of 
the provision could be determined on the basis of information that was 
already required to be disclosed under existing law, or whether the 
administrator of the funds in question would have to undertake new 
duties of an investigative nature.

Abortion; Prohibition Against Federal Funds for Insurance Coverage

Sec. 74.5 An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying the use 
    of funds therein to pay for an abortion, or administrative expenses 
    in connection with any federal employees health benefits plan which 
    provides any benefits or coverage for abortions after the last day 
    of contracts currently in force, was held not to constitute 
    legislation, since the amendment did not directly interfere with 
    executive discretion (in contracting to establish such plans); it 
    is permissible by limitation to negatively deny

[[Page 6450]]

    the availability of funds although discretionary authority may be 
    indirectly curtailed and contracts may be left unsatisfied.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(19) during consideration of the 
Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriation bill (H.R. 
7593), an amendment was ruled in order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 22171, 22172, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Page 
        43, after line 5, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 614. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion or the administrative expenses 
        in connection with any health plan under the Federal Employees 
        Health Benefit Program which provides any benefits or coverage 
        for abortions under such negotiated plans after the last day of 
        the contracts currently in force.''. . .

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that this amendment constitutes legislation in an 
    appropriation bill. This limitation changes existing law, and 
    imposes new duties on administrative officials.
        This amendment changes current law in a variety of ways. 
    Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, lists the authorized 
    content of a Federal employee health plan. This amendment, in 
    effect, amends this section to add an exclusion. By doing so, the 
    amendment changes the benefits provided to Federal employees. 
    Directly on point is the precedent found in section 9.8 of chapter 
    26 of Deschler's Procedure, holding that language in a general 
    appropriation bill changing the allowances and benefits due 
    overseas employees of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission was 
    held to be legislation and not in order (106 Congressional Record 
    17899, 86th Congress, 2d session, August 26, 1960).
        There are other ways in which this amendment changes the basic 
    law. Throughout the development of Federal labor-relations law 
    culminating in passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, a 
    careful balance was worked out on labor organization rights. 
    Congress did not go along with providing an agency shop in which 
    dues would be required from bargaining unit members, but did allow 
    labor organizations to offer health plans exclusively to their 
    members as a membership and fund-raising device. This amendment 
    would strip one of the attractive features out of these plans and 
    would thereby deny labor organizations one of the rights which they 
    fought hard for during civil service reform. . . .
        This amendment imposes considerable new duties on the Office of 
    Personnel Management. The general rule on this is well stated in 
    section 11.3 of chapter 26 of Deschler's Procedure:

            It is not in order, in an appropriation bill, to impose 
        additional duties on an executive officer or to make the 
        appropriation contingent upon the performance of such duties.

        Currently, virtually all the health plan contracts for 1981 are 
    written, signed and sealed. Most provide abortion health services 
    or indemnification

[[Page 6451]]

    for abortions. The adoption of this amendment would force the 
    renegotiation of these contracts in the very limited time prior to 
    the beginning of the open session in October. The administrative 
    burdens are so high, in fact, that I am not certain they can be 
    discharged in time. . . .
        Another side of this question of administrative duties has to 
    do with changing the authority of a Federal official. . . .
        . . . [S]ections 20.6 and 13.3 of chapter 26 of Deschler's 
    Procedure stand for the proposition that changing the authority of 
    a Federal official renders an amendment out of order. Here, the 
    plenary authority of the Director of the Office of Personnel 
    Management to negotiate health plans is limited by a requirement 
    that he negotiate plans having a certain type of coverage. By tying 
    the Director's hands in this way, the amendment is seriously 
    changing the contracting authority of an executive official. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, if we read the amendment, the 
    amendment very clearly is a limitation on expenditures, it is a 
    limitation consistent with previous limitations that have been 
    upheld by this Chair.
        As I say, it does not require any affirmative actions.
        My colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, refers to 
    abortions that are in current health benefits programs. I know of 
    no federally protected right that anyone would have for an abortion 
    that comes under a Federal employees' health benefit program.
        The truth of the matter is that since June 30, the Supreme 
    Court upheld the right of this Congress to withhold funds. This has 
    been the stated purpose. The Hyde amendment originally withheld 
    funds for activities that up to that time had been legal. There is 
    nothing new about that. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . If the Chair will 
    examine the specific limitations that are embodied in the language, 
    he will find that it would require nothing more than incidental 
    determinations which have been held in the past to be perfectly 
    adequate and within the rule allowing limitations on expenditures.
        I would cite to the Chair chapter 25, section 10.4, Deschler's 
    Procedure, where it was ruled in the 86th Congress that:

            Where the manifest intent of a proposed amendment is to 
        impose a limitation on the use of funds appropriated in the 
        bill, the fact that the administration of the limitation will 
        impose certain incidental but additional burdens on executive 
        officers does not destroy the character of the limitation.

        In this case, the amendment forbids the use of Federal funds to 
    pay for an abortion or the administrative expenses in connection 
    with any health plan under the Federal employee's health benefit 
    program providing abortions. Those health plans at the present time 
    are well known, are available, their contents are fully known, and 
    no new determinations must be made. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from Colorado makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman

[[Page 6452]]

    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The gentlewoman cites statutory 
    provisions relating to the discretionary authority conferred upon 
    the Office of Personnel Management in contracting with health 
    insurance carriers to establish health benefit plans for Federal 
    employees, and also to administer the health benefits fund. The 
    gentlewoman then cites precedents to the effect that it is not in 
    order on a general appropriation bill to directly limit executive 
    discretionary authority, to directly change entitlement benefits or 
    to directly change contracts entered into pursuant to law, or 
    otherwise impose new duties not required by existing law by 
    requiring new investigations or judgments to be made. All of the 
    precedents examined by the Chair standing for the proposition 
    asserted by the gentlewoman from Colorado involve situations where 
    the Chair was able to discern from the language of the amendment 
    itself, rather than from resulting circumstances which might derive 
    from the enactment of the amendment, that a change in law would 
    necessarily result from the amendment.
        On the other hand, the great weight of precedent in the House, 
    not only with respect to the denial of availability of funds in a 
    general appropriation bill for abortions but also for any other 
    purpose otherwise authorized by law, indicates that it is 
    permissible as a limitation to negatively deny the availability of 
    funds although discretionary authority may be indirectly curtailed 
    or although contracts may remain unsatisfied thereby. And, while 
    new determinations, which the gentlewoman suggests would 
    necessarily have to be made in order to properly administer the 
    funded program within the terms of the amendment cannot be 
    foreclosed as possibilities, the Chair sees no language in the 
    amendment itself which would require those new findings to be made. 
    Such was the essence of the decision of the Chair on July 17, 1979, 
    where to the D.C. appropriation bill a substitute amendment 
    providing that none of the funds in the bill provided by the 
    Federal payment to the District shall be used to perform abortions 
    was held not to constitute legislation.
        The Chair rules therefore that the amendment is in order, and 
    the point of order is overruled.

Striking Employees Not To Be Rehired

Sec. 74.6 Where existing law (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7311, 3333; 18 USC 
    Sec. 1918) provided civil and criminal sanctions against strikes by 
    federal employees, and where a federal court order had enjoined a 
    particular strike by a union representing a group of federal 
    employees, it was held in order as a limitation on a general 
    appropriation bill to deny funds for the rehiring of those 
    employees engaged in a strike, where federal officials 
    administering those funds would know which of the employees in 
    question were ``on strike''.

[[Page 6453]]

    On Sept. 10, 1981,(1) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to rehire 
certain federal employees engaged in a strike in violation of federal 
law (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7311; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1918) was held in order as a 
limitation not requiring new determinations on the part of federal 
officials administering those funds, since existing law (5 USC 
Sec. 3333) requiring an affidavit undertaking not to strike to be 
signed by federal employees, and a court order enjoining the strike in 
question, already imposed an obligation on the administering officials 
to enforce the law. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 20109, 20110, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of 
        Pennsylvania]: On page 38, after line 15, insert the following 
        new section:
            ``Sec. 322. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
        used to rehire Federal air traffic controllers engaged in a 
        strike in violation of Federal law.'' . . .

        Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: . . .  Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania is legislation on an appropriation bill, contrary 
    to clause 2 of rule XXI.
        I make the further point of order that it places additional 
    duties on officers of the Government or implicitly requires them to 
    make investigations, compile data or otherwise make determinations 
    not otherwise required by law.
        Mr. Chairman, chapter 26 of the Deschler's procedure, section 
    11.2 states:

            Where an amendment, in the guise of a limitation, imposes 
        additional determinations and duties on an executive, it may be 
        ruled out as legislation on a general appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: . . . I would like to draw to 
    the Chair's attention that, in fact, other duties may be incumbent 
    as a result of this point of order in the amendment raised by 
    virtue of the fact that it would require a self-standing judicial 
    determination to be made if, in fact, the strike was a violation of 
    Federal laws, separate judicial determination that has not been 
    made. Therefore, there is a contingency contained in this amendment 
    which I believe would place it within the grounds of the point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) [T]he determination required of 
    the Federal Government by the amendment involves a set of facts 
    that is within the knowledge of the Federal Government in that the 
    Federal Government is under an obligation to know which of its 
    employees have been engaged in a strike in violation of Federal 
    laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would cite the precedent in Deschler's procedure, 
    chapter 5, section 12.7, which states:

            While an amendment under the guise of a limitation may not 
        require

[[Page 6454]]

        affirmative action or additional duties on the part of federal 
        officials, it is in order on a general appropriation bill to 
        deny funds to a nonfederal recipient of a federal grant program 
        unless he is in compliance with a provision of federal law; for 
        such a requirement places no new duties on a federal official 
        (who is already charged with responsibility for enforcing the 
        law) but only on the non-federal grantee.

        The Chair would also cite the related precedents appearing in 
    Cannon's precedents, volume 7, sections 1661 and 1662.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.



 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 76. Interior

Reclamation Projects; Equating Expenses to Repayments

Sec.  76.1 A provision that no part of an appropriation shall be 
    available for operation and maintenance of any reclamation projects 
    in excess of the amount of repayments made pursuant to law during a 
    current fiscal year was held to be in order as a limitation

[[Page 6463]]

    restricting the availability of funds and not requiring the use of 
    repayments.

    On May 1, 1951,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order against an amendment to the bill was overruled as 
indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 4655, 4656, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         operation and maintenance

        For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or parts 
    thereof and of other facilities, as authorized by law . . . 
    $15,385,000, of which not to exceed $12,883,900 shall be derived 
    from the reclamation fund and not to exceed $1,671,000 shall be 
    derived from the Colorado River dam fund. . . .

    Mr. John Phillips, of California, offered an amendment, which was 
read. The following proceedings then took place:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John R.] Murdock [of Arizona] to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 16, at the end 
        of the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips insert: ``Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be available 
        for operation and maintenance of any irrigation works in excess 
        of repayments during the current fiscal year pursuant to law.''

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in effect 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and therefore a violation of 
    rule 21.
        I make the further point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona to my amendment 
    purports to be a limitation but is in effect an authorization. 
    There is no authorization at the present time for expenditures, 
    from the funds to which the gentleman refers, for operation and 
    maintenance of these certain projects. Therefore, if the gentleman 
    from Arizona offers an amendment which says, ``You must not spend 
    more than that amount of money,'' then it is in effect not a 
    limitation but an authorization for the expenditure of money to 
    that point. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock] offers an amendment 
    which the Clerk has reported to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Phillips). The gentleman from 
    California makes a point of order against the amendment for the 
    reasons which he has stated.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California. The Chair has concluded that the 
    amendment is clearly a limitation, negative in character on an 
    appropriation bill. The amendment limits in a negative manner the 
    amount which can be spent only during the fiscal year covered by 
    the bill presently before the Committee.

[[Page 6464]]

        The device by which the limitation of the amount is determined 
    is the extent to which the law is complied with. It does not add to 
    the requirements of any law; it does not require compliance with 
    any law; all it does is to say that you may spend this 
    appropriation up to the amount that the law requiring repayment is 
    complied with. The amendment therefore is in order and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from California.

Qualification of Employees in Bureau of Reclamation

Sec.  76.2 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    proposing that no part of the appropriation for the Bureau of 
    Reclamation shall be used for salaries of persons in certain 
    positions who are not qualified engineers with at least 10 years' 
    experience was held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On May 27, 1948,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6705. An amendment was offered by Mr. Alfred J. 
Elliott, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 6630, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 38, line 21, insert after the colon the following: 
    ``Provided further, That no part of any appropriation for the 
    Bureau of Reclamation contained in this act shall be used for the 
    salaries and expenses of a person in any of the following positions 
    in the Bureau of Reclamation, or of any person who performs the 
    duties of any such position, who is not a qualified engineer with 
    at least 10 years' engineering and administrative experience: (1) 
    Commissioner of Reclamation; (2) Assistant Commissioner of 
    Reclamation; and (3) Regional Director of Reclamation.''
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, not a limitation. The mere 
    use of the words ``Provided further'' does not mean it makes 
    everything in order. This is legislation relating to the 
    requirements that must be met by one person or certain employees of 
    the Bureau of Reclamation before they may hold office or be 
    appointed.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Elliott: No.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    a limitation, that it refers to a part of this appropriation; 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Territories and Former Possessions

Sec.  76.3 A provision preventing the expenditure of certain funds 
    appropriated for sala

[[Page 6465]]

    ries, administrative expenses, travel, or other purposes in any 
    territory where refunds of excise-tax collections were being made 
    to such territory was held to be a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds and in order on an appropriation bill.

        On Mar. 7, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 8745, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
    Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 2542, 2543, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John G.] Alexander [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 143, after line 14, insert a new section to be known as 
    section 6, to read as follows:
        ``No funds appropriated herein shall be expended for salaries, 
    administrative expenses, travel, or other purposes in any Territory 
    or former possession where refunds of excise-tax collections are 
    being made to such Territory or former possession.''
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it constitutes legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to me that this 
    is legislation that comes within the previous rulings of the Chair, 
    because it is a limitation and therefore comes under the Holman 
    rule. . . .
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is not germane 
    because it refers to appropriations not covered by this bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair invites attention to the 
    fact that the bill does carry certain appropriations for the 
    Philippine Islands, the Virgin Islands, and insular possessions. 
    The Chair therefore is under the impression that the amendment is 
    germane to the provisons of the pending bill, and the Chair is of 
    the opinion that the amendment offered is in the form of a 
    limitation and would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is overruled.

National Park Roads

Sec. 76.4 In an appropriation bill a provision that none of the funds 
    in the bill shall be used for maintenance of roads, other than 
    parkways, outside the boundaries of national parks was held in 
    order as a limitation restricting the availability of funds.

    On Apr. 6, 1954,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8680, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 4721, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Physical Facilities

        For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
    rehabilitation of roads (including furnishing special road 
    maintenance service to defense

[[Page 6466]]

    trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), trails, buildings, 
    utilities, and other physical facilities essential to the operation 
    of areas administered pursuant to law by the National Park Service, 
    $8 million: Provided That none of the funds herein appropriated 
    shall be used for maintenance of roads, other than national 
    parkways, outside the boundaries of national parks and monuments.
        Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 24, starting with the 
    word ``Provided'' on line 11 and ending on line 14. . . .
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Even though such expenditures 
    are authorized by law, the fact still remains that you can provide 
    a limitation on an appropriation bill, and I so contend. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair has carefully studied the point of order submitted by the 
    gentleman from Montana (Mr. D'Ewart). The Congress, although it is 
    authorized to make appropriations, can also deny the use of such 
    appropriations by proper limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that this is a limitation and not legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Limiting Draft Deferments

Sec. 76.5 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    providing that none of the funds therein shall be used to pay the 
    salary of any person who is qualified physically for military duty 
    and who received a deferment under specified circumstances was held 
    a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1944,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4679. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 3757, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: On page 
    107, after section 10, insert a new section, numbered section 11, 
    as follows:
        ``Sec. 11. No part of the money appropriated in this act shall 
    be used to pay the salary of any male person between the ages of 18 
    and 30 years who is physically and mentally qualified for military 
    duty, as shown by his selective-service classification, and who has 
    been deferred from military duty, either at his own request or the 
    request of the Secretary of the Interior, for reasons other than 
    dependency or as necessary to war production, and who, 30 days 
    after the approval of this act, still retains such deferment.''
        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. In 
    the opinion of the Chair the amendment is a limitation, and the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6467]]

Limitation Applicable on Condition Subsequent--Unconstitutionality of 
    Authorization Law

Sec. 76.6 To a paragraph appropriating money for the National 
    Bituminous Coal Commission, an amendment providing that if the act 
    appropriated for is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, 
    none of the money provided in the bill shall thereafter be spent, 
    was held in order as a limitation.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 994, 996, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses, National Bituminous Coal Commission: For 
    all necessary expenditures of the National Bituminous Coal 
    Commission in performing the duties imposed upon said Commission by 
    the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, including personal 
    services and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, contract stenographic reporting services, 
    stationery and office supplies and equipment, printing and binding, 
    and not to exceed $2,500 for newspapers, reference books, and 
    periodicals, fiscal year 1936, $400,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for obligations incurred on and 
    after September 21, 1935, including reimbursement to other 
    appropriations of the Department of the Interior for obligations 
    incurred on account of said Commission. . . .
        Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bacon: Page 22, line 11, after the 
        word ``Commission'', insert ``Provided, That if the Bituminous 
        Coal Conservation Act of 1935 is declared to be 
        unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, no 
        money herein provided shall thereafter be spent, and all money 
        herein appropriated and unexpended shall be immediately covered 
        back into the Treasury.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum: This seems to me to be legislation undertaking to 
    effect a limitation. If, of course, the Supreme Court declares the 
    act unconstitutional expenditures under it will cease and no money 
    may thereafter be expended under the act.
        Mr. Bacon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is an amendment 
    that comes within the Holman rule, that it is a limitation saving 
    money for the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Woodrum: But it is made contingent on something that may or 
    may not happen.

[[Page 6468]]

        Mr. Bacon: Yes; it is made contingent on something happening.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, is the gentleman suggesting that the Congress 
    should hint the unconstitutionality of a law before it is passed on 
    by the Supreme Court?
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the Holman rule 
    does not necessarily apply. The Chair is of the opinion, however, 
    that the amendment is a limitation. The purport of the amendment 
    taken as a whole impresses the Chair as being a limitation.
        Mr. Woodrum: May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact 
    that the amendment means hereafter, any time in the future, any 
    appropriation that hereafter may be made, and that it is not 
    confined to the appropriation in this bill?
        The Chairman: Yes; that is the very point on which the Chair's 
    decision turns. The Chair interprets the words used in the 
    amendment to mean that it refers to the appropriation provided in 
    this bill. It would, therefore, be a limitation on the 
    appropriation here provided. The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Consultant Salaries

Sec. 76.7 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing 
    expenditures of funds provided in the bill for temporary services 
    of consultants at rates not in excess of $100 per day was held to 
    be in order as a limitation which did not set rates of pay but 
    merely restricted use of funds in the bill.

        On Apr. 24, 1951,(14) The Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation bill. 
    The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4307, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         administrative provisions

        Appropriations of the Bonneville Power Administration shall be 
    available to carry out all the duties imposed upon the 
    Administrator pursuant to law, including not to exceed $40,000 for 
    services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 
    (5 U.S.C. 55a), including such services at rates not to exceed $100 
    per diem for individuals; purchase of not to exceed 16 passenger 
    motor vehicles of which 12 shall be for replacement only; and 
    purchase (not to exceed 2) of aircraft. . . .
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in the bill beginning with 
    line 24, page 5, and continuing through to line 12, page 6, on the 
    ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, all of the 
    language contained in the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Kansas is authorized by law under the Bonneville Project Act 
    and other acts and amendments to the original Bonneville Project 
    Act and may be found in Sixteenth United States Code, section 825. 
    For example, there is contained in the area covered by the 
    gentleman's

[[Page 6469]]

    point of order the authority with reference to the purchase of 
    automobiles. This is contained in general authorizing legislation 
    that is applicable to all departments of Government.
        The Chairman: (15) Will the gentleman from Kansas be 
    more specific with reference to the language that he deems to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, the language in line 4, 
    beginning with the word ``including'' and ending with the word 
    ``individuals'' in line 5 is certainly without authorization and 
    for that reason the entire paragraph, in my judgment, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not authorized.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, in response to the 
    gentleman's contention at that point, may I say that Public Law 600 
    of the Seventy-ninth Congress specifically authorizes the 
    Department to do this very thing.
        The Chairman: It authorizes the department to pay at the rate 
    of $100 per diem?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: That is right.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Washington explain to the 
    Chair the reason for carrying it in the appropriation bill itself, 
    if it is authorized?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Unless the Committee on 
    Appropriations each year authorizes a specific amount, they have no 
    authority to spend any money for this purpose. In other words, 
    existing law gives the department the authority to pay per diem 
    expenses to individuals but the amount as to what should be paid is 
    left to the discretion of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
    committee from time to time has changed the amount. I will be glad 
    to read from Fifth United States Code, section 55a, as follows:

            The head of any department, when authorized in an 
        appropriation or other act, may procure the temporary (not in 
        excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants or organizations thereof.

        I think that section clearly leaves it to Congress, and 
    Congress has to act each year for the simple reason that the 
    authority to make the payment is limited to a maximum of 1 year.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, may I add this further? It 
    would occur to me then it is an attempt by law to change the Rules 
    of the House and that certainly cannot be done. So, we still have 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: For the information of the gentleman from Kansas 
    the Chair will read from the United States Code, title 5, on page 
    79, section 35a:

            Temporary employment of experts or consultants; rate of 
        compensation:
            The head of any department, when authorized in an 
        appropriation or other act, may procure the temporary (not in 
        excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants or organizations thereof, including stenographic 
        reporting services, by contract and in such cases such service 
        shall be without regard to the civil service and classification 
        laws (but as to agencies subject to sections . . . at rates not 
        in excess of the per diem equivalent of the highest rate 
        payable under said sections, unless other rates are 
        specifically provided in the appropriation or other law) and 
        except in the

[[Page 6470]]

        case of stenographic reporting services by organizations 
        without regard to section 5 of title 41.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Might I be allowed to make a 
    suggestion, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
        Mr. Taber: It is the duty of the legislative committees to 
    bring in legislation that will fix the rate of compensation. A 
    limitation by a Committee on Appropriations can be made restricting 
    the amount below the statutory amount. But when you come by a 
    statute to authorize the Committee on Appropriations to bring in 
    legislation, it is utterly void, because the rules of the House 
    provide that the Committee on Appropriations shall not bring in 
    legislation. This not being a limitation or anything of that kind, 
    it is clearly legislation and not in order on this bill.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: If the Chair will permit me to speak 
    further, of course the answer to the statement of the gentleman 
    from New York is that the argument does not apply when the 
    Committee on Appropriations has been authorized by another basic 
    law, and that law itself contemplates the very possibility which 
    has arisen here, namely, that from time to time rates would have to 
    be fixed each year as to the amount that should be paid on a per 
    diem basis. The argument the gentleman from New York has advanced 
    has no application in this instance because specific authorizing 
    legislation has covered this part of it.
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands, there is no per diem 
    ceiling fixed in the provision to which the Chair has alluded. The 
    gentleman from New York mentions a ceiling, and then the authority 
    of the committee to place a limitation under that ceiling. Does the 
    gentleman from New York know of some ceiling provided in law for 
    per diem pay?
        Mr. Taber: I do not, but there is legislation to fix the rate 
    of pay, and the authority contained in the legislation would not 
    give the Committee on Appropriations jurisdiction because the 
    jurisdiction of the committee is governed by the rules of the 
    House. You cannot change the rules of the House by legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct that you 
    cannot change the rules of the House by legislation, but the 
    language referred to by the Chair seems to authorize beyond any 
    doubt the per diem payment by this service to individuals. There 
    does not appear to be any ceiling fixed upon what the payment per 
    day may be. So it appears to the Chair that the language contained 
    in the bill in line 4 through ``individuals'' in line 5 on page 6 
    is actually in the form of a limitation. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Kansas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair by citing the above statute was 
not ruling that the language of that law specifically permitted the 
Committee on Appropriations in a general appropriation bill to fix per 
diem rates of pay--rather that a negative limitation setting a ceiling 
on use of those funds for per diem pay was in order under Rule XXI 
clause 2, as a limitation.

[[Page 6471]]

Reindeer Industry

Sec. 76.8 To an appropriation for the purchase of reindeer, an 
    amendment limiting the purchase to an average price of $4 per head 
    was held to be a limitation restricting the availability of funds 
    in the bill and in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner as 
    the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable and without 
    regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the Revised Statutes, of 
    reindeer, abattoirs, cold-storage plants . . . and communication 
    and other equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, as authorized 
    by the act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . 
    Provided, That under this appropriation not exceeding an average of 
    $4 per head shall be paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative 
    owners: Provided further, That the foregoing limitation shall not 
    apply to the purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak Island.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill unauthorized by law. In fact, 
    the language clearly indicates that it repeals the specific 
    provisions of existing law as incorporated in sections 3709 and 
    3744 of the Revised Statutes.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: No; I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following 
    amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 60, line 
        23, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such 
        manner as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable, 
        of reindeer . . . as authorized by the act of September 1, 1937 
        (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . Provided, That under this 
        appropriation not exceeding an average of $4 per head shall be 
        paid for reindeer purchased from nonnative owners: Provided 
        further, That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to the 
        purchase of reindeer located on Nunivak Island.''

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, unauthorized by law, and it delegates to the 
    Department additional authority which it does not now have. . . .
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is 
    unnecessary

[[Page 6472]]

    to make an extended argument, as I am sure the Chair is fully 
    advised and ready to rule. Certainly there is no question but that 
    this item is clearly authorized by existing law. Authority will be 
    found in the act of September 1, 1937, Fiftieth Statutes, page 900. 
    It plainly authorizes an appropriation of $2,000,000. I call the 
    attention of the Chair to section 16 which reads as follows:

            The sum of $2,000,000 is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated for the use of the Secretary of the Interior in 
        carrying out the provisions of this act.

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: What more authority do you 
    want? That is enough.
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Carter: The opening sentence of the amendment reads:

            For the purchase in such manner as the Secretary of the 
        Interior shall deem advisable.

        Now, certainly there is nothing in the statute that gives the 
    Secretary of the Interior that much discretion. In addition to 
    that, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the proviso in the amendment which reads as the proviso in the 
    bill, which is clearly legislation. Therefore I say the point of 
    order must be sustained against the proposed amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The act of September 
    1, 1937, on which the appropriation contained in this paragraph is 
    based, reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized 
        and directed to acquire, in the name of the United States, by 
        purchase or other lawful means, including exercises of power of 
        eminent domain, for and on behalf of the Eskimos and other 
        natives of Alaska, reindeer, reindeer range, equipment, 
        abattoirs, cold-storage plants, warehouses and other property, 
        real or personal, the acquisition of which he determines to be 
        necessary to the effectuation of the purposes of this act.

        This seems to be a broad, all-inclusive grant of power. The 
    language used in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma merely restates, in slightly different words, the 
    authorization contained in the act of September 1, 1937.
        The proviso to which the gentleman from California (Mr. Carter) 
    refers appears to the Chair to be nothing more than a limitation, 
    in the strictest sense of the word.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules both points of order.

Sec. 76.9 A direction in law to an executive official to acquire, by 
    purchase or otherwise, ``necessary'' cold storage plants and other 
    equipment for purposes of developing the Alaskan reindeer industry, 
    was held to permit an appropriation for the object to be 
    implemented in such manner as the official shall determine.

        The proceedings of Mar. 15, 1939,(18) are discussed 
    in Sec. 76.8, supra. At

[[Page 6473]]

    issue was the amendment offered by Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 77. Treasury and Post Office

Mail Seizure

Sec. 77.1 An amendment to a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
    appropriation bill, providing that no funds therein may be used for 
    the seizure of mail (in connection with income tax investigations) 
    without a search warrant was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(19) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7060. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 6870, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: On 
    page 8, immediately before the period in line 11, insert the 
    following: ``: Provided, That no appropriation made by any 
    provision of this Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, may 
    be used for the seizure of mail without a search warrant authorized 
    by law in carrying out the activities of the United States in 
    connection with the seizure of property for collection of taxes due 
    to the United States''.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed:  Chairman, I renew my point of order against the 
    amendment because it is not a limitation on appropriations. It 
    requires actions by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which can be 
    authorized only by legislation.
        The Chairman: The language is a limitation here. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order. The point of order is not sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Subsequent rulings have cast some doubt on 
the applicability at present of the above ruling. On June 16, 1977, an 
amendment which prohibited the use of funds by OSHA for any inspection 
conducted by that agency without a search warrant based on probable 
cause as authorized by law was held out of order as legislation since 
it would impose new affirmative duties to make applications to courts, 
a procedure not required by statutory law or uniformly required by the 
federal courts. See 123 Cong. Rec. 19373, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. [H.R. 
7555]. If a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court had existed which 
required a probable cause warrant for inspections by OSHA, such ruling 
might, of course, have constituted a sufficient basis in law for the 
limitation as proposed to

[[Page 6474]]

be held in order. As it was, the Chair merely took into account (by 
judicial notice) the fact that federal court rulings had not been 
uniform or finally dispositive of constitutional requirements as to 
obtaining search warrants in such cases. The Chair did note in his 
ruling that the amendment would require such warrants even where 
inspection was voluntarily submitted to, whereas probable cause 
warrants are not ordinarily required under the case law when voluntary 
consent is given to the search.
    Again, on June 7, 1978, an amendment to a general appropriation 
bill denying use of funds for OSHA to conduct inspections of small 
businesses unless a warrant had been previously obtained was ruled out 
of order as legislation since existing law as interpreted by the 
Supreme Court required a warrant for such inspections only where the 
business under inspection insisted upon such a warrant. See 124 Cong. 
Rec. 16677, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. [H.R. 12929]. It may be noted that the 
ruling above, on Apr. 5, 1965, is arguably distinguishable from the 
later rulings, since the amendment held in order on that occasion did 
not include the term ``probable cause'' (which is a judicial finding) 
to define the necessary warrant, which could therefore be an 
administrative warrant. In the final analysis, however, whether the 
1965 amendment was a permissible limitation would depend on whether 
existing law at the time did require search warrants prior to the 
seizure of mail in connection with income tax investigations. If so, 
the amendment would merely be a restatement of existing law and 
therefore allowable. It would appear, however, that the Internal 
Revenue Service had a persuasive argument at the time that it had the 
authority to seize the mail of delinquent taxpayers without a warrant. 
Section 6331(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides the Secretary of 
the Treasury with authority to levy upon all property and upon rights 
to property of a delinquent taxpayer 10 days after notice and demand. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the only property which 
cannot be levied upon is defined in code Sec. 6334(c). In 1965, mail 
was not enumerated as an exception in code Sec. 6334. The Service 
relied on several Supreme Court cases to establish that mail was 
property (Searight v Stokes, 44 U.S. 151); that judicial seizures of 
mail did not violate constitutional guarantees (Ex parte Jackson, 96 
U.S. 721), and that statu

[[Page 6475]]

torily authorized levy procedures do not violate due process guarantees 
(Springer v U.S., 102 U.S. 586). An argument might be made that mail in 
the hands of the Post Office was not the property of the taxpayer-
addressee. But since it had been held that an addressee has a 
sufficient legal right to the mail to enable him to recover it from 
third parties (U.S. v Jones, 31 F2d 755, 3d Cir. 1929), it could be 
argued that the taxpayer had a sufficient property interest in it upon 
which the Service could levy.

Distribution of Funds to States

Sec. 77.2 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of the funds therein contained shall be 
    distributed to states on a per capita income basis was held to be a 
    proper limitation restricting the use of funds and in order.

    On Feb. 7, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10919, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. A point of order against an amendment to the bill 
was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 1679, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grants to States for public-health work: For the purpose of 
    assisting States, counties, health districts, and other political 
    subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate 
    public-health services, including the training of personnel for 
    State and local health work, as authorized in sections 601 and 602, 
    title VI, of the Social Security Act, approved August 14, 1935 (49 
    Stat. 634), $8,000,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: Page 36, line 19, after the 
        period, strike out the period, insert a comma and the 
        following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds appropriated 
        in this paragraph shall be distributed to States on a per-
        capita income basis.

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order. The basis for the point of order is that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it is purely a limitation. It 
    prohibits the expenditure for certain purposes.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    it is a limitation on an appropriation, and, therefore, overrules 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 602 of 49 Stat. 634 prescribed a 
broad allotment formula as follows:

        (a) The Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, with the 
    approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall, at the beginning 
    of each fiscal year, allot

[[Page 6476]]

    to the States the total of (1) the amount appropriated for such 
    year pursuant to section 601; and (2) the amounts of the allotments 
    under this section for the preceding fiscal year remaining unpaid 
    to the States at the end of such fiscal year. The amounts of such 
    allotments shall be determined on the basis of (1) the population; 
    (2) the special health problems; and (3) the financial needs; of 
    the respective States.

    This limitation did not change any stated element in the formula.

Subversive Activities

Sec. 77.3 An amendment to an appropriation bill, offered as a separate 
    paragraph, prohibiting appropriations to pay the salary or expenses 
    of any persons against whom charges have been brought under House 
    Resolution 105 (relating to investigation of subversion) and not 
    disposed of, was held a proper limitation upon an appropriation 
    bill and in order.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1648, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation. A point of order was made and overruled as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 754, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Everett M.) Dirksen (of Illinois): On 
    page 52, after line 16, insert a new paragraph as follows:
        ``Section 303. No part of any appropriation or authorization in 
    this act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any persons 
    against whom charges have been brought under the terms of House 
    Resolution 105 (4) where such charges have not been 
    disposed of by action of the House exonerating such person or by 
    enactment into law of a bill or resolution making some other 
    disposition thereof.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 105 authorized the Committee on Appropriations to examine 
        charges against executive employees based on such employees' 
        membership in subversive organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. I take it the gentleman from 
    Illinois will concede the point of order?
        Mr. Dirksen: I do not concede it. I think it is a perfectly 
    proper limitation.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise to call the attention of the Chair on the point of order to 
    the fact that this attempted limitation requires affirmative 
    action, additional duties, on the part of some agency of the House 
    or someone else. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While not identical, of course, with amendments along the same 
    line and of the same general nature offered earlier in the debate, 
    the Chair is of the opinion that this amendment partakes of the 
    nature of those amendments offered earlier.

[[Page 6477]]

        The Chair is of the opinion that this does not require 
    affirmative action, that it does not get into the realm of 
    affirmative legislation, that it is a limitation, and, as the Chair 
    stated when the other amendments were under consideration, the 
    Congress, having the power to appropriate, would by the same token 
    have the right and the authority to limit the appropriation.
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the point is not well 
    taken. It is therefore overruled.

Silver Purchase

Sec. 77.4 An amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated in 
    a bill shall be used for carrying out the purchase of any silver, 
    except newly mined silver from the United States, was held in order 
    as a limitation on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 28, 1939,(6) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 2021-23, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses, mints and assay offices: For 
    compensation of officers and employees of the mints including 
    necessary personal services for carrying out the provisions of the 
    Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 . . . 
    $2,016,000. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 45, line 5, after 
        the comma, strike out ``$2,016,000'' and insert ``$1,916,000'' 
        and the following: ``Provided, That none of the funds 
        appropriated in this bill shall be used for carrying out the 
        purchase of any silver, except newly mined silver mined in the 
        United States.''. . .

        [Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, reserved a point of order, but 
    later withdrew such reservation, whereupon Mr. Abe Murdock, of 
    Utah, made a point of order as shown below. Prior to the point of 
    order, debate took place as follows:]
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I have offered this limitation, and it 
    is a pure limitation and clearly in order, to reduce the amount of 
    the appropriation on page 45 by $100,000. This is probably $25,000 
    less than the amount that should be saved as a result of the 
    operation of the amendment. I have offered the amendment for the 
    purpose of preventing the purchase of any silver by the United 
    States Government under any of the Silver Purchase Acts, with the 
    exception of newly mined silver mined in the United States. . . .
        Mr. [John A.] Martin of Colorado: Just how does shrinking the 
    appropriation by $100,000 prevent the purchase of the foreign 
    silver?
        Mr. Taber: It prevents the use of any of the funds appropriated 
    in this act for the purpose of such purchase. Without the 
    expenditures for the personnel involved in such purchase there can 
    be no purchase. Without the expenditures for carting and handling 
    the silver to the storage warehouse at

[[Page 6478]]

    West Point there can be no purchase of foreign silver.
        Mr. Martin of Colorado: If the gentleman will yield further, 
    the gentleman's amendment does not affect the power of the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to make such purchases inasmuch as the 
    Silver Purchase Act confers the power on him.
        Mr. Taber: My amendment prohibits the expenditure of any of the 
    funds for that purpose. Under this proviso, a limitation, it would 
    be absolutely impossible for the Secretary of the Treasury to spend 
    any of the funds appropriated in this act for the purpose of 
    carrying out the purchase of any silver, with the exception of 
    newly mined silver mined in the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Charles L.] Gifford [of Massachusetts]: Would the 
    gentleman tell the Committee the method of paying for this silver 
    by issuing silver certificates on the basis of $1.29 for 44 cents 
    and 64 cents silver and what this would eventually lead to?
        Mr. Taber: Well, it simply leads, eventually, to inflation, of 
    course, but what I want to do at this time is to bring the folks 
    from the silver territory to a realization of the fact that if they 
    are going to expect any consideration along the line of a subsidy 
    for silver--and that is what this is--they have got to get rid of 
    the burden of foreign-mined and foreign-stored silver. As a result 
    of this operation of handling this foreign-mined and foreign-stored 
    silver the United States will be paying for the operation of the 
    Chinese-Japanese war, and before we get through we will be paying 
    for the operation of the Spanish civil war that has been going on. 
    There must be some limitation somewhere upon these expenditures. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: The gentleman has 
    already said that this would prohibit the use of any of this money 
    for foreign-produced silver, and now the gentleman states 
    positively that there is nothing in his amendment that would 
    interfere with the purchase of domestically produced silver under 
    the Silver Purchase Act.
        Mr. Taber: It will not interfere with newly mined domestically 
    produced silver mined in the United States. It will interfere with 
    the purchase of stored silver in the United States.
        Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Taber: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Crawford: And one should also keep in mind that we have the 
    Thomas amendment and also the Silver Purchase Act and this 
    amendment which the gentleman proposes would not, under the Thomas 
    amendment of the Silver Purchase Act, interfere with the purchase 
    of domestically mined silver. . . .
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the amendment submitted by the gentleman from New York is in 
    violation of the Holman rule and constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7). . . The Chair simply desires to 
    call the attention of the Committee to a ruling that has been made 
    in the past on a question very similar to this one, and the Chair

[[Page 6479]]

    reads from a decision of the Honorable Nelson Dingley, of Maine, 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, on January 17, 1896, in 
    which he ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. Boehne (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The House in Committee of the Whole 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.

        Because of this decision the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Air Carriage of Foreign Mails

Sec. 77.5 An amendment providing that no part of an appropriation for 
    transportation of foreign mails by aircraft shall be paid to any 
    corporation which shall directly or indirectly purchase insurance 
    from any official or employee of the United States was held in 
    order as a limitation on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 28, 1939,(8) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 2034, 2035, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Foreign air-mail transportation: For transportation of foreign 
    mails by aircraft, as authorized by law $10,200,000.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Page 64, 
        line 14, after the period, insert: ``Provided, That no part of 
        the funds herein appropriated shall be paid to any corporation 
        which shall directly or indirectly purchase insurance from any 
        official or employee of the United States or any member of 
        their immediate family.''

        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. Boehne (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ludlow: I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: I wish to be heard briefly, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        This is a limitation. My amendment applies to a paragraph of 
    the bill which makes an appropriation of $10,200,000 as a subsidy 
    to aviation corporations which are engaged in the transportation of 
    foreign air mail. In view of the fact that administrative branches 
    of the Government determine what corporations are to receive these 
    large subsidies, it is necessary to include the language of the 
    amendment in order that private personal interests of Government 
    officials and employees and their families might not conflict with 
    the public interest with a resulting increased cost to the 
    taxpayers' Treasury. This amendment is a limitation with a purpose 
    of reducing the cost of

[[Page 6480]]

    government, and I submit it is in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that this is definitely a limitation and, therefore, the 
    point of order is overruled.

Pay for Services Related to Investigations

Sec. 77.6 A provision that no part of an appropriation shall be used to 
    pay any person detailed or loaned for service in connection with 
    any congressional investigation was held to be in order as a proper 
    limitation.

    On Feb. 19, 1937,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4720, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read the following provision of the bill 
against which a point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 1445, 1446, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. No part of the appropriations contained in this act 
    shall be used to pay the compensation of any person detailed or 
    loaned for service in connection with any investigation or inquiry 
    undertaken by any committee of either House of Congress under 
    special resolution thereof.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 5 on the ground it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (11) . . . The question raised is 
    whether this is a proper limitation to be placed on an 
    appropriation bill. If it be a proper limitation, then the point of 
    order cannot be sustained. It is a question whether any law is 
    changed by this section. If special committees desire to employ any 
    employee from a department, they can still employ them by making 
    proper arrangements and paying for them out of the appropriations 
    that have been made for the special committees, but this is an 
    appropriation bill for the Treasury and Post Office Departments, 
    and the question arises whether the House in Committee of the Whole 
    can place a limitation not only that will save money, but will 
    direct to whom that money will be paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are many decisions defining limitations on appropriation 
    bills, but one of the best that the Chair has found is one given by 
    Chairman Nelson Dingley, of Maine, on January 13, 1896, which is 
    found on page 47 of Cannon's Procedure of the House of 
    Representatives. The ruling of the Chairman at that time was as 
    follows:

            The House in Committee of the Whole 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. . . .

        Again, on December 8, 1922, the Treasury Department 
    appropriation

[[Page 6481]]

    bill was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, when the paragraph providing an 
    appropriation for the enforcement of the National Prohibition Act 
    was reached Mr. Tinkham, of Massachusetts, proposed this amendment:

            Add a new provision, as follows: ``Provided That no part of 
        this appropriation shall be used for the payment of a salary of 
        any employee who shall not have been appointed after a 
        competitive examination and certification by the Civil Service 
        Commission.''

        Mr. Madden made a point of order against this amendment and 
    cited the section of the law which permitted the Commissioner of 
    Internal Revenue and the Attorney General to select certain 
    employees to help enforce the law.
        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole at that time was the 
    gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Sanders; and the Chair reads his 
    decision:

            The Committee on Appropriations, of course, have no 
        legislative powers except such as are prescribed by the rules, 
        and an amendment cannot be offered which proposes legislation 
        unless it comes within the rules. However, there is a very long 
        line of decisions which permits limitations upon 
        appropriations. An appropriation shall be paid to any certain 
        class of employees, and the Chair knows of no reason why an 
        amendment which provides that no part of this appropriation 
        shall be paid to employees unless they have certain 
        qualifications is not a proper limitation. The Chair therefore 
        overrules the point of order.

        That decision may be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, 
    section 1593.
        The Chair thinks that the section of the bill against which the 
    point of order is made is a proper limitation upon the use of the 
    appropriation contained in the bill. It does not necessarily have 
    to reduce the amount that shall be paid. It can direct to whom it 
    shall be paid. The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that the 
    section is clearly within the power of the Committee of the Whole 
    to place a limitation upon an appropriation; and the Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Compensation of Named Persons

Sec. 77.7 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of the money contained in the act shall be 
    paid as compensation to several persons, naming them, was held 
    germane and a proper limitation upon an appropriation bill.

        On Feb. 5, 1943,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 1648, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
    appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 645, 646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Expenses of loans: The indefinite appropriation ``Expenses of 
    loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended and extended'' (31 
    U.S.C. 760, 761), shall not be used during the fiscal year 1944 to 
    supplement the appropriations otherwise provided for the current 
    work of the Bureau of the Public Debt. . . .

[[Page 6482]]

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hendricks: Page 12, line 22, after 
        the word ``Treasury'', strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: ``Provided further, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the 
        compensation of William Pickens, Frederick L. Schuman  . . . 
        and Edward Scheunemann.''

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment provides for the refusal of 
    payment of salaries to individuals whose salaries are not provided 
    for in this appropriation bill and, therefore, that the amendment 
    is not germane. Further, I make the point of order that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) With respect to the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio], 
    amendments of this character have been inserted in appropriation 
    bills heretofore. The amendment simply limits the appropriation. If 
    Congress has the right to appropriate, Congress, by the same token, 
    has the right to limit the appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulk Rates for Political Committees

Sec. 77.8 An amendment reducing an amount in a general appropriation 
    bill for the postal service and providing that no funds therein be 
    used to implement special bulk third-class rates for political 
    committees was held in order either as a negative limitation not 
    specifically requiring new determinations or as a retrenchment of 
    expenditures under the Holman rule even assuming its legislative 
    effect, since the reduction of the amount in the bill would 
    directly accomplish the legislative result.

    On July 13, 1979,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4393 (Treasury Department, Postal 
Service, and general government appropriation bill) a point of order 
against an amendment was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 18453-55, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For payment to the Postal Service Fund for public service 
        costs and for revenue foregone on free and reduced rate mail, 
        pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2401 (b) and (c), and for meeting the 
        liabilities of the former Post Office Department to the 
        Employees' Compensation Fund and to postal employees for earned 
        and unused annual leave as of June 30, 1971, pursuant to 39 
        U.S.C. 2004, $1,697,558,000.

[[Page 6483]]

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: On page 9, line 3, 
        delete ``$1,697,558,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,672,810,000: Provided That no funds appropriated herein 
        shall be available for implementing special bulk third-class 
        rates for `qualified political committees' authorized by Public 
        Law 95-593.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: My point of order [which 
    had previously been reserved] is that the amendment places a burden 
    on the Postal Department which would not exist but for this 
    amendment. . . . [I]f the amendment is passed, it does not merely 
    withhold funds, but it requires the Postal Department to adjust the 
    rates of the Postal Department in order to comply with the 
    limitation contained in this amendment. Therefore, this is not a 
    mere limitation on an appropriation but it is a limitation which 
    requires the Postal Department, as the gentleman has stated in his 
    letter, to adjust all rates, determine which rates need 
    adjustments, which ones qualify or would not qualify under the 
    provision, and, thus, reduce those rates to the figures that would 
    permit the reduction in revenue. Therefore, it seems clear to me 
    that this affords an extremely heavy burden on the Postal 
    Department which would not otherwise exist but for the passage of 
    the amendment. If this were not true, the situation would create an 
    anomalous condition which I had pointed out in my initial question 
    to the gentleman in the well and the author of the amendment. It 
    would create a situation in which the benefits provided under 
    section 3626 of title 39 would still be enjoyed by qualifying 
    political committees, and yet the Postal Department would not be 
    able to receive the adjustment due to the additional costs. It 
    seems to me that in effect if the gentleman is correct and if 
    adjustments are made in the rate, there is another change in 
    substantive law occasioned by the adjustment in rates. That is, the 
    adjustment in rates substantively changes Public Law 95-593 so as 
    to deprive qualified political committees, including the Democratic 
    Committee and the Republican Committee, and all others that 
    qualify, of the benefits that we have enacted in another piece of 
    legislation, not one that deals with the Postal Department but 
    deals generally with the rates of political parties with respect to 
    the use of the mails.
        Mr. Glickman: . . . The amendment is strictly one of 
    limitation. It reduces funding by $25 million and limits the use of 
    that funding with respect to the charging of postal rates. I would 
    state for the gentleman and for the Chair that section 3627 of 
    title 39, United States Code is discretionary authority to adjust 
    rates if the appropriation fails and is not mandatory authority 
    and, therefore, I do believe that the amendment is merely a 
    limitation and is germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment constitutes a 
    negative limitation on how funds in the bill are spent rather than 
    being legislation on an appopriations bill. No new determinations 
    are required. Even if the amendment should be considered as 
    constituting legislation, it constitutes a retrenchment because it 
    cuts the

[[Page 6484]]

    amounts in the bills and the legislative effect directly 
    contributes to that reduction.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

No Funds to Administer Customs Service Reductions

Sec. 77.9 While a limitation on a general appropriation bill may not 
    involve changes of existing law or affirmatively restrict executive 
    discretion, it may by a simple denial of the use of funds change 
    administrative policy and be in order; thus, a point of order 
    against a provision prohibiting the use of funds for any reduction 
    in Customs Service regions or for any consolidation of Customs 
    Service offices was overruled.

        On June 27, 1984,(16) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Treasury Department and Postal 
    Service appropriation bill (H.R. 5798), a point of order against a 
    provision in the bill was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 617. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
        be used to plan, implement, or administer (1) any reduction in 
        the number of regions, districts or entry processing locations 
        of the United States Customs Service; or (2) any consolidation 
        or centralization of duty assessment or appraisement functions 
        of any offices of the United States Customs Service.

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 617. . . .
        . . . Section 617 prohibits the use of funds in this 
    appropriation for a reduction in the number of Customs entry 
    processing points and any consolidation of duty assessment or 
    appraisement functions in any of the offices of the Customs 
    Service.
        This negates Public Law 91-271 which gives the President the 
    authority to rearrange or make consolidations at points of entry at 
    the District Offices or at headquarters.
        In addition, in my judgment the language is so broad as to 
    interfere with existing administrative authority to carry out its 
    appraisement functions as required by law. Section 617 goes beyond 
    the limitation of funds which are the subject of this appropriation 
    and constitutes an effort to change existing law under the guise of 
    a limitation. There seems to be in section 617 almost a complete 
    prohibition of executive discretion to make any changes to help the 
    Customs Service carry out its duties. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California] Mr. Chairman, section 
    617 is a simple limitation again on an appropriation bill. It does 
    not change the application of existing law. It merely prohibits the 
    use of funds to pay for any Government employee who tries to 
    prevent the law from being enforced. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 6485]]

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the section does not 
    mandate spending but rather limits the use of funds to consolidate 
    Customs regions and is as such a negative limitation on the use of 
    funds. And the Chair would cite Mr. Cannons volume 7 of Precedents, 
    section 1694:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive discretion, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in 
        order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694 is discussed in Sec. 51, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore it is the ruling of the Chair that the gentleman's 
    point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent must be distinguished from 
cases where an amendment, by double negative or otherwise, can be 
interpreted to require the spending of more money--for example, an 
amendment prohibiting the use of funds to keep less than a certain 
number of people employed. (A ``floor'' on employment levels would be 
tantamount to an affirmative direction to hire no fewer than a 
specified number of employees.)

Enforcement of Internal Revenue Service Policies

Sec. 77.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to carry out any ruling of the Internal 
    Revenue Service which rules that taxpayers are not entitled to 
    certain charitable deductions was held in order as a limitation, 
    since the amendment was merely descriptive of an existing ruling 
    already promulgated by that agency and did not require new 
    determinations as to the applicability of the limitation to other 
    categories of taxpayers.

    On July 16, 1979,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4393 (Treasury Department, Postal 
Service, and general government appropriation bill), a point of order 
against an amendment was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 18808-10, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of 
        California]: Page 39, after line 18, add the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 613. None of the funds available under this Act may be 
        used to carry out any revenue ruling of the Internal Revenue 
        Service which rules that a taxpayer is not entitled to a 
        charitable deduction for general purpose contributions which 
        are used for educational purposes by a religious organization 
        which is an exempt organization as described in section 
        170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. . . .

[[Page 6486]]

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I want to insist 
    upon my point of order.
        Regardless of the merit of the subject matter here, this 
    obviously is not a limitation on an appropriation. It is evident by 
    the author's own statement that many things will be involved if 
    this amendment is adopted, that would be forced upon the agency, 
    that are not otherwise involved. It is in direct violation of 
    clause 2, rule XXI, because it does create legislative action.
        This is obviously a matter that only the legislative committee 
    can cope with, and so because it is a violation of that rule I 
    insist that the point of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: . . . I can assure the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Steed) that I checked out this amendment with the Parliamentarian's 
    Office, and I was told that the amendment was in order as a 
    limitation on an appropriations bill. There is no additional burden 
    imposed on Federal executive offices. IRS officials already perform 
    the simple ministerial requirement of analyzing our tax returns. 
    The amendment is negative in nature. It shows retrenchment on its 
    face. It is germane. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the 
    gentleman, if he desires, I will read some relevant excerpts from 
    Cannon's Precedents which demonstrate that the amendment is in 
    order. . . .
        . . . [I]n section 1515:

            An amendment prohibiting payment of fees to officials under 
        certain contingencies was held to retrench expenditures and to 
        come within the exception to the rule against admission of 
        legislation on appropriation bills. . . .

        Section 1491:

            If the obvious effect of an amendment is to reduce 
        expenditures, it is not necessary that it provide for such 
        reduction in definite terms and amount in order to come within 
        the exception.

        Section 1493, and I will conclude with this one--

            A cessation of Government activities was held to involve a 
        retrenchment of expenditures. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment obviously adds a burden to the IRS to establish a 
    different standard from that which would be applicable under 
    existing law. If it did not, the amendment would be of no effect. 
    What is attempted to be done here is to provide a different rule of 
    law and impose that on the IRS by what is called a retrenchment in 
    an appropriations bill. If this may be done in the name of 
    retrenchment of expenditures, then any law of this Nation may be 
    changed. Funds may not be permitted to go to any agency which makes 
    a determination of an administrative sort unless that determination 
    is different from that which the law would permit to apply under 
    the circumstances. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. The Chair is of the opinion that retrenchment 
    precedents under the Holman rule do not apply in this situation 
    since no certain reduction in funds is involved. The Chair is of 
    the opinion that there are no precedents directly in point and the 
    Chair is not aware that the gentleman has sought the advice of the 
    Chair's advisers on this particular amendment but on a somewhat 
    similar amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that what is involved in the 
    amendment is

[[Page 6487]]

    a particular ruling which applied to a single case and that, 
    therefore, no new determination has to be made by the IRS. It does 
    not require the IRS to make new rulings or determinations. The 
    amendment does not describe a situation where the IRS must look at 
    every religious contribution to determine if it applies. The 
    amendment is somewhat analogous to that in Deschler's (Procedure), 
    chapter 25, section 10.16, which was held in order.
        Therefore, the Chair thinks the amendment is in order, and the 
    point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rulings such as that cited above would now 
be affected by Rule XXI clause 5(b),(21) which provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846b (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure 
    shall be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to 
    report tax and tariff measures, nor shall an amendment in the House 
    or proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure be in 
    order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
    reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of 
    order on a tax or tariff measure in any such bill, joint 
    resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any time.

    An otherwise valid limitation on the use of funds contained in a 
general appropriation bill may be held to violate this clause where it 
is shown that the imposition of the restriction on Internal Revenue 
Service funding for the fiscal year would effectively and inevitably 
preclude the IRS from collecting revenues otherwise due and owing by 
law or require collection of revenue not legally due or owing. See, for 
example, the ruling of Aug. 1, 1986, during consideration of H.R. 5294, 
Treasury Department and Postal Service appropriation bill for fiscal 
1987.

Sec. 77.11 The Chair held that an amendment to a general appropriation 
    bill denying the use of funds therein for the Internal Revenue 
    Service to carry out certain published tax procedures did not 
    impose new duties or determinations on the executive branch and did 
    not constitute legislation.

    In a ruling on Aug. 19, 1980,(1) the Chair indicated 
that it is in order on a general appropriation bill to deny the use of 
funds to carry out an existing regulation, and the fact that the 
regulation for which funds are denied may have been promulgated 
pursuant to court order and pursuant to constitutional provisions is an 
argument on the merits of the amendment and does not render it 
legislative in nature. The pro

[[Page 6488]]

ceedings are discussed in Sec. 64.28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 21981, 21983, 21984, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulations as to Sureties on Customs Bonds

Sec. 77.12 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use 
    of funds therein to eliminate an existing legal requirement for 
    sureties on customs bonds was held in order as a valid limitation 
    merely denying funds to change existing law and regulations.

    The Chair held on June 27, 1984,(2) that, while an 
agency may have authority to promulgate new regulations which would 
change existing regulations, it is in order in a general appropriation 
bill to deny the use of funds therein for agency proceedings relating 
to changes in regulations. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 51.16, 
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excepting Certain Political Committees From Limitation Affecting Mail 
    Rates

Sec. 77.13 To an amendment to a general appropriation bill limiting the 
    use of funds for the Postal Service to implement special mail rates 
    for qualified political committees as authorized by law, an 
    amendment lessening the amount of the reduction of funds in the 
    original amendment and also excepting from the limitation certain 
    congressional political committees as defined in law was held in 
    order either as an exception from a valid limitation which did not 
    add legislation (since the determinations as to which political 
    committees fit those descriptions were already required by law of 
    the Postal Service) or as perfecting a retrenchment amendment while 
    still reducing funds in the bill.

    The ruling of the Chair on July 13, 1979,(3) as that to 
an amendment retrenching expenditures in a general appropriation bill 
by reducing amounts therein and prohibiting their availability to 
particular recipients, an amendment lessening the amount of the 
reduction and also providing an exception from the limitation may be in 
order as a perfection of the retrenchment if funds contained in the 
bill remain reduced thereby. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 4.8, 
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 18456, 18457, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 6489]]


 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 78. Veterans' Administration

Service-connected Dental Assistance

Sec. Sec. 78.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    part of an appropriation for the Veterans' Administration shall be 
    available for dental treatment, under specified conditions, was 
    held in order as a limitation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against an amendment and overruled as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 4262, 4263, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: On 
    page 47, line 11, after ``$76,744,000'', insert ``Provided, That no 
    part of this appropriation shall be available for outpatient dental 
    services and treatment, or related dental appliances with respect 
    to a service-connected dental disability which is not compensable 
    in degree where such condition or disability is not shown to have 
    been in existence at time of discharge and application for 
    treatment is made within 1 year after discharge or by July 27, 
    1954, whichever is later.
        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; furthermore, that it changes existing law.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: This is strictly a limitation under the rules. It 
    saves money.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter of opinion. 
    Furthermore, might I say that even if it were not a limitation on 
    an appropriation, it imposes additional duties.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that it is a 
    limitation. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Medical Care for Nonveterans

Sec. 78.2 An amendment providing that ``no part of this appropriation 
    can be used for hospitalization or examination of persons other 
    than veterans, unless a reciprocal schedule of pay is in effect 
    with the agency or department involved'' was held to be a proper 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order on a 
    general appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 18, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation. An amend

[[Page 6490]]

ment was offered and a point of order against it was overruled as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 509-11, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of 
    Pennsylvania]: On page 77, line 6, after the period, insert: 
    ``Provided further, That no part of this appropriation can be used 
    for hospitalization or examination of persons other than veterans, 
    unless a reciprocal schedule of pay is in effect with the agency or 
    department involved.''
        [Mr. James M. Fitzpatrick, of New York, reserved a point of 
    order.]
        Mr. Van Zandt: During the general debate on this bill, I called 
    to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] the 
    fact that the employees of several Federal agencies, including the 
    Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, the 
    Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, and the 
    Unemployment Compensation Commission, also beneficiaries of the 
    Railroad Retirement Board, are being examined by the medical staffs 
    of the Veterans' Administration facilities scattered throughout the 
    country. In many cases the employees of these Federal agencies are 
    hospitalized and spend many weeks in veterans' facilities. I 
    further pointed out at that time that all of the agencies referred 
    to reimburse the Veterans' Administration at the rate of $3.75 a 
    day for each person receiving medical service, with the exception 
    of the Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, and 
    the Unemployment Compensation Commission. These three agencies 
    enjoy a special privilege that is charged to the expenses chalked 
    up for the veterans of our wars. Since that discussion of this 
    subject on the floor of this House, I have made special inquiry 
    into this entire matter and I find that the position I took at that 
    time was sound and correct in every detail.
        [The point of order having been made, the ruling thereon was as 
    follows:]
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from New York has 
    made a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is in the nature 
    of a limitation, and therefore, overrules the point of order.

Area and Regional Offices

Sec. 78.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``no part of 
    this appropriation [for the Veterans' Administration] may be used 
    for expenses of any area medical or regional representative 
    offices'' was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On May 11, 1965,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7997, an independent offices appropriation bill. A 
point of order against the following provision in the bill was 
overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 10168, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for administration of the medical, 
    hospital, domi

[[Page 6491]]

    ciliary, construction and supply, research, employee education and 
    training activities, as authorized by law, $12,596,000: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation may be used for expenses of any 
    area medical or regional representative offices.
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 40, line 8, beginning 
    with the word ``Provided'' through line 10, as being legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, that is purely a 
    limitation on the use of funds. We cannot admit that point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: . . . The language is clearly a limitation on the 
    use of funds. The point of order is overruled.


 
                               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]]



 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
           G. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED BY BILL
 
Sec. 80. Generally


Effect on Total Expenditures

Sec. 80.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    appropriations in the bill shall be available for expenditure only 
    to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    expenditures of agencies provided for in the bill beyond a 
    specified amount was held to be in order as a limitation upon funds 
    in the bill.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation. An 
amendment was offered to which a point of order was made and overruled, 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 2694, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
    York]: On page 64, after line 21, add a new section 405 as follows:
        ``Sec. 405. Money appropriated in this act shall be available 
    for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, only to 
    the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond 
    the total sum of $6,900,000,000.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It changes figures heretofore voted upon in the House in 
    the last 3 days. Therefore, that is legislation. It puts duties on 
    the various agencies not otherwise called for in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Coudert: This clearly does not touch the funds of prior 
    years; therefore, it does not appropriate with respect to them. It 
    only places a limitation upon the use to which the funds requested 
    in this bill, the new obligational authority, may be put. It limits 
    the freedom of expenditure and nothing else.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair appreciates the fact that the author of the amendment 
    afforded the Chair an opportunity earlier in the day to read the 
    amendment and gave the Chair some time to study the language of the 
    amendment.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a limitation 
    upon the funds which are contained in the bill H.R. 7072, presently 
    before the Committee; that it is nothing more than a limitation on 
    those funds. The Chair is, therefore, constrained to overrule the 
    point of order and hold the amendment in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A similar amendment had been ruled out of 
order on Mar. 3, 1952, on

[[Page 6501]]

the ground that it affected appropriations not carried in the bill. See 
98 Cong. Rec. 1781, 1782, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., discussed in Sec. Sec. 4 
[the Holman rule] and 48.9 (conditions precedent to spending), supra. 
Generally, amendments of this type are not, strictly speaking, 
limitations if the committee report shows the amount stated in the 
amendment to be less than the total covered by the bill; in such case, 
the amendment would constitute a retrenchment and thus be governed by 
the Holman rule.

Total Expenditure Ceiling

Sec. 80.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that ``Money 
    . . . in this bill shall be available for expenditure in the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1954, only to the extent that expenditures 
    thereof shall not result in total aggregate net expenditures of all 
    agencies provided for herein beyond the total of $5,500,000,000'' 
    was held to be a proper limitation only restricting the 
    availability of funds in the bill and in order.

    On July 22, 1953,(11) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6391, a Mutual Security Administration appropriation 
bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 99 Cong. Rec. 9559, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
    York]: On page 6, after line 1, insert a new section as follows:
        ``Money appropriated in this bill shall be available for 
    expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, only to the 
    extent that expenditures thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate net expenditures of all agencies provided for herein 
    beyond the total of $5,500,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make the point of order that the amendment imposes 
    additional duties to determine whether or not the expenditures of 
    all agencies provided for therein exceed $5,500,000,000.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Coudert: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me point out that this 
    amendment is in the very same language as the Smith amendment that 
    was adopted a year ago on the military appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes that it is a proper limitation 
    and overrules the point of order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also the discussion in Sec. 4 (the Holman rule) and 48.9-48.11] 
        (conditions precedent to spending), supra.

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

[[Page 6502]]

        Ceiling by Reference to President's Budget

Sec. 80.3 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    availability for expenditure of all funds therein to the aggregate 
    level provided in the President's budget for that fiscal year for 
    the agencies covered in the bill was held to constitute a valid 
    limitation on the total amount covered by the bill.

    On June 15, 1972,(14) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1973 (H.R. 15417), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 21137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 40, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 409. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1973, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 100 per centum of the total 
        aggregate net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 
        1973 (H. Doc. 215).''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an appropriation bill--
    period.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the Chair that the 
    language of this amendment with the exception of the percentage 
    figure and the House document reference is identical to the so-
    called Bow amendment which was offered on many occasions in past 
    years and which has been challenged on previous occasions and which 
    has been sustained being in order on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendment and will 
    rule that it is in order. It is, in effect, the ``Bow'' amendment 
    with a very slight variation. It is a restriction on the 
    appropriations in this bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

Ceiling Notwithstanding Appropriation

Sec. 80.4 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that, 
    notwithstanding any other provisions carried in the bill for 
    printing and binding, the total amount to be expended for printing 
    and binding and related activities shall not exceed a specified 
    sum, was held to be a

[[Page 6503]]

    proper limitation applying only to appropriations in the pending 
    bill.

    On Mar. 27, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6845, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 3096, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: On page 
    141, after line 3, insert a new section, as follows:

            ``Notwithstanding any other provisions carried in this bill 
        for printing and binding the total amount to be expended for 
        printing, binding, duplicating, mimeographing, lithographing, 
        or reproduction in any other form or by any other device, and 
        including the purchase of reprints of scientific and technical 
        articles published in periodicals and journals shall not exceed 
        for every such purpose included in this bill the sum of 
        $450,000, and that the amounts estimated therefor and not 
        expended within this limitation shall be recovered into the 
        Treasury of the United States.''

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio. Although, as indicated by the gentleman from Oklahoma, 
    it does provide, ``notwithstanding any other provisions carried in 
    this bill,' it relates to appropriations in the pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that it is a limitation and is in 
    order. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Restriction on Obligations in Last Two Months of Fiscal Period

Sec. 80.5 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, providing that 
    no more than a certain percentage of funds therein for any agency 
    and apportioned to such agency by the Office of Management and 
    Budget pursuant to law, may be obligated during the last two months 
    of the fiscal year, was ruled out as legislation, where the 
    proponent of the amendment could not show that because it was not 
    in the form of a limitation permitted by the precedents which 
    negatively restricted the object, purpose, or amount of the 
    appropriation, it did not change existing law.

    On July 28, 1980,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Housing and Urban Development and independent 
agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 7631), an amendment

[[Page 6504]]

was offered and ruled upon as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 19924, 19925, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: Page 45, after line 23, insert 
    the following:

            Sec. 413. No more than an amount equal to 20 percent of the 
        total funds appropriated under this Act for any agency for any 
        fiscal year and apportioned to such agency pursuant to section 
        3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C. 
        665) may be obligated during the last two months of such fiscal 
        year. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Indiana 
    (Mr. Myers) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered an amendment to limit 
    the appropriations to a specific time; but I respectfully suggest 
    that the fact the gentleman has added the words, ``No more than'' 
    is still not, in fact, a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are limiting here, not 
    directing, but limiting the authority to the last 2 months how much 
    may be spent takes away the discretionary authority of the 
    Executive which might be needed in this case. It clearly is more 
    than an administrative detail when you limit and you take away the 
    right of the Executive to use the funds prudently, to take 
    advantage of saving money for the Executive, which we all should be 
    interested in, and I certainly am, too; but Mr. Chairman, rule 843 
    provides that you cannot take away that discretionary authority of 
    the Executive.
        This attempt in this amendment does take that discretionary 
    authority to save money, to wisely allocate money prudently and it 
    takes away, I think, authority that we rightfully should keep with 
    the Executive, that you can accumulate funds and spend them in the 
    last quarter if it is to the advantage of the taxpayer and the 
    Executive. . . .
        Mr. Harris: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me first address the last 
    point, probably because it is the weakest that the gentleman has 
    made with respect to his point of order.
        With respect to the discretion that we are in any way limiting 
    the President, we cannot limit the discretion which we have not 
    given the President directly through legislation. There is no 
    discretion with regard to legislation that we have overtly 
    legislated and given to the President.
        Mr. Chairman, section 665(c)(3) of title 31 of the United 
    States Code, which states the following:

            Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed as may be deemed appropriate by the officers 
        designated in subsection (d) of this section to make 
        apportionments and reapportionments.

        Clearly grants agency budget officers the discretionary 
    authority to apportion the funds in a manner they deem appropriate. 
    My amendment would not interfere with this authority to apportion 
    funds. On the contrary, my amendment reaffirms this section of the 
    United States Code, as Deschler's

[[Page 6505]]

    Procedures, in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 26, 
    section 1.8, states:

            The provision of the rule forbidding in any general 
        appropriation bill a ``provision changing existing law'' is 
        construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists, or a 
        proposition for repeal of existing law. Existing law may be 
        repeated verbatim in an appropriation bill, but the slightest 
        change of the text causes it to be ruled out.

        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, 
    specifically restates by reference the existing law, which in no 
    way gives discretion as to spending, but gives discretion as to 
    apportionment.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the budget execution cycle 
    has many steps. Whereas the Chair's earlier ruling related to the 
    executive branch authority to apportion, my amendment addresses the 
    obligation rate of funds appropriated under the fact. As OMB 
    circular No. A-34 (July 15, 1976) titled ``Budget Execution'' 
    explains:

            Apportionment is a distribution made by OMB.
            Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts 
        awarded, services received, and similar transactions.

        Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes some additional duties, but 
    only a very minimal additional duty upon the executive branch.
        Deschler's chapter 26, section 11.1 says:

            The application of any limitation on an appropriation bill 
        places some minimal extra duties on Federal officials, who, if 
        nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds 
        falls within that prohibited by the limitation. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . In the first instance, the Chair would 
    observe that it is not the duty of the Chair or the authority of 
    the Chair to rule on the wisdom or the legislative effect of 
    amendments.
        Second, the Chair will observe that the gentleman from 
    Virginia, in the way in which his amendment has been drafted, 
    satisfies the requirements of the Apportionment Act, which was the 
    subject of a prior ruling of the Chair in connection with another 
    piece of legislation.
        The Chair agrees with the basic characterization made by the 
    gentleman from Indiana that the precedents of the House relating to 
    limitations on general appropriation bills stand for the 
    proposition that a limitation to be in order must apply to a 
    specific purpose, or object, or amount of appropriation. The 
    doctrine of limitations on a general appropriation bill has emerged 
    over the years from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the 
    Whole, and is not stated in clause 2, rule XXI itself as an 
    exception from the prohibition against inclusion of provisions 
    which ``change existing law.'' Thus the Chair must be guided by the 
    most persuasive body of precedent made known to him in determining 
    whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris) ``changes existing law.'' Under the precedents in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 26, section 1.12, the proponent of an 
    amendment has the burden of proving that the amendment does not 
    change existing law.
        The Chair feels that the basic question addressed by the point 
    of order is as follows: Does the absence in the precedents of the 
    House of any ruling

[[Page 6506]]

    holding in order an amendment which attempts to restrict not the 
    purpose or object or amount of appropriation, but to limit the 
    timing of the availability of funds within the period otherwise 
    covered by the bill require the Chair to conclude that such an 
    amendment is not within the permissible class of amendments held in 
    order as limitations? The precedents require the Chair to strictly 
    interpret clause 2, rule XXI, and where language is susceptible to 
    more than one interpretation, it is incumbent upon proponent of the 
    language to show that it is not in violation of the rule 
    (Deschler's chapter 25, section 6.3).
        In essence, the Chair is reluctant, based upon arguments 
    submitted to him, to expand the doctrine of limitations on general 
    appropriation bills to permit negative restrictions on the use of 
    funds which go beyond the amount, purpose, or object of an 
    appropriation, and the Chair therefore and accordingly sustains the 
    point of order.

President Given Authority to Make Reductions

Sec. 80.6 An amendment adding a new section to a general appropriation 
    bill authorizing the President to reduce each appropriation in the 
    bill by not more than 10 percent was conceded to be legislation 
    (conferring new authority on the President) and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2(c).

    On May 31, 1984,(20) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 5172), a point of order was sustained 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of 
        Pennsylvania]: On page 57, after line 3, insert the following 
        new section:
            Sec. 611. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        the President may reduce any appropriation in this Act by not 
        more than ten percent. . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, [the amendment] 
    proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
    . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Chairman, this is the same language that 
    I offered yesterday which was debated in the House and which we did 
    consider in the House.
        It does provide a mini-line item veto for the President. This 
    would end up reducing the amount of money in the bill by $1.1 
    billion.
        But the gentleman from Iowa is correct that this does 
    constitute a violation of rule XXI, clause 2, and I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The point of order is conceded, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 6507]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The proposed amendment would not have been 
permitted under the Holman rule because the proposed reductions were 
not certain on the face of the amendment as is required under the 
Holman rule. A similar amendment offered by Mr. Walker on June 6, 
1984,(2) as also conceded to be out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. ---- , 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
