[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[§ 27. Provisions Affecting or Affected by Funds in Other Acts]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 5692-5720]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
Sec. 27. Provisions Affecting or Affected by Funds in Other Acts
In General; Language Not Limited to Funds in Bill
Sec. 27.1 It is not in order, in the guise of a limitation on a general
appropriation bill, to deny the use of funds not contained in the
bill to pay salaries of persons connected with agencies not covered
by the bill.
On June 28, 1971,(3) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9271), a
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 117 Cong. Rec. 22442, 22443, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. William D. Ford: On page 36,
insert ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 508.'' in line 10; and
immediately below line 14 on page 36 insert the following:
``(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this or any
other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of
any officer or employee of the United States Postal Service, or
any officer or employee of the Government of the United States
outside the United States Postal Service, who--
``(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to
prohibit or prevent, any officer or employee of the United
States Postal Service from having any direct oral or written
communication or contact with any member or committee of
Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the
employment of such officer or employee or pertaining to the
United States Postal Service in any way, irrespective of
whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of
such officer or employee or in response to the request or
inquiry of such Member or committee; or
``(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes,
reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or
efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns,
transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any
employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or
condition of employment of, any officer or employee of the
United States Postal Service, or attempts or threatens to
commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such
officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact
of such officer or employee with any Member or committee of
Congress as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.''
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment, and I should like to be heard on the
point of order.
The Chairman: (4) At this point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bow: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page 5693]]
Mr. Chairman, this, it seems to me, is subject to a point of
order in several instances. First of all, there is paragraph (b) of
the amendment. There is a provision that no part of any
appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be available
for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the
U.S. Postal Service. It is not limited to this act but to any other
act, which I think makes it subject to a point of order.
Furthermore, under the next provision, which prohibits or
prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, that
puts such additional duties on the director of the Postal Service
that it becomes almost impossible for him to administer this,
particularly as to further threats in the future.
I believe it is very apparent from reading this that additional
duties are placed on the executive branch of the Government, on the
Postal Service, and in addition to any objections to part (b) or
the rest of the amendment, I believe it is sufficient to sustain
the point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. William D. Ford: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, it is not necessary to legislate with this
amendment, because the law that this amendment attempts to enforce
has been on the books and it has been the law of this country since
1912. We now have substantive law which now very substantially says
that you shall not do any of the things set forth in this act. What
this amendment proposes to do is withhold the expenditure of the
supplemental funds being appropriated by this bill to the operation
of the Postal Service from anyone who violates the law that has
been the law since 1912. The only determination that is necessary
to be made by anybody is not to violate the law. . . .
The Chairman: The . . . Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment does not impose additional
duties to the extent that is objectionable under the precedents
relating to limitations on appropriation bills. However, the Chair
also finds that the amendment does seek to cover matters beyond
those which are in the purview of this bill since it provides that
no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act
shall be available for certain purposes with respect to officers or
employees of the Government whether inside or outside the U.S.
Postal Service or agencies covered by this bill.
Therefore, this constitutes legislation on the pending
appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Restriction on Corporate Funds Other Than Those Appropriated
Sec. 27.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation which is applicable also to moneys appropriated in other
acts is legislation and not in order: an amendment to an
appropriation bill providing that no part of any appropriation
contained in this act, or of the funds available for ex
[[Page 5694]]
penditure by any corporation included in this act, shall be used
for a stated purpose was held to be legislation and not in order.
On May 10, 1950,(5) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 96 Cong. Rec. 6834, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 417, after line
14, insert a new section 1110, and appropriately renumber
succeeding sections. The new section to read as follows:
``Sec. 1110. No part of any appropriation contained in this
act, or of the funds available for expenditure by any
corporation included in this act, shall be used to pay the
salary or wages of any person who advocates, or practices the
denial to any citizen of the United States of the right to
apply for, hold or be promoted in any Government position or
office on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national
origin.''
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it goes beyond the scope
of the bill.
Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: (6) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, I point out that the provision which
I have suggested as an amendment will result in retrenchment
because it may result in withholding wages or salaries from
employees of the United States. That is all that this refers to. It
would affect the appropriations made under this act and therefore
comes within the rules of propriety as an amendment to an
appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from
New York [Mr. Javits] has offered an amendment which has been
reported. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] makes a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it goes beyond the
scope of the pending bill.
The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York, and is of the opinion that it does go beyond the
scope of the pending bill. The Chair invites attention to the fact
that it seeks to affect funds of corporations not necessarily
appropriated for in this bill.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
Sec. 27.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a
limitation providing that no funds available for expenditure by any
corporation or agency included in this act shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes was held to go to funds not in the
bill and therefore was legislation not in order.
[[Page 5695]]
On July 22, 1958,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13450, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 104 Cong. Rec. 14664, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 29,
after line 17, add the following new chapter and paragraph:
``chapter xiv
``No part of any appropriation contained in this act, or any
funds available for expenditure by any corporation or agency
included in this act, shall be used for publicity or propaganda
purposes designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
the Congress.''
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The gentleman's amendment refers to expenditure of funds not in
this bill. Therefore, it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. Gross: It is the same amendment I have offered to previous
appropriation bills. It is a limitation upon spending. It has been
accepted in other appropriation bills by the Chairman of the
Committee. It is simply a limitation, that they cannot spend money
for propaganda purposes for the promotion of legislation.
The Chairman: (8) It is a limitation on the funds
available for expenditure by any corporation or agency included in
this act. For that reason the Chair sustains the point of order
made by the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restriction on Future Funds
Sec. 27.4 An amendment to a general appropriation bill permanently
limiting amounts of farm program payments to producers, even though
the money for such payments was not carried in the pending bill,
and requiring certain determinations to be made by the Secretary of
Agriculture, was held to be legislation and was ruled out on a
point of order.
On May 26, 1969,(9) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 11612), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13759, 13760, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ancher] Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Conte]:
The Clerk read as follows:
Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Nelsen to the amendment
offered by Mr. Conte: On page 22, line 17, strike the period
and add a colon and the following: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of any
pro
[[Page 5696]]
ducer entitled to payments for any calendar year after 1969,
under price support or commodity program, the Incentive
payments, Diversion payments, Price support payments, and Wheat
marketing certificate payments to any single recipient,
exceeding in the aggregate the amount of $10,000, the amount of
such payments with respect to that year to which the producer
would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in accordance with
this subsection. If the aggregate amount of the payment is--
``(1) over $10,000 but not over $15,000, the reduction is
10 percent of the excess over $10,000
``(2) over $15,000 but not over $25,000, the reduction is
$500 plus 15 percent of the excess over $15,000
``(3) over $25,000 but not over $50,000, the reduction is
$2,000, plus 20 percent of the excess over $25,000
``(4) over $50,000 but not over $100,000, the reduction is
$7,000 plus 25 percent of the excess over $50,000
``(5) over $100,000 but not over $500,000, the reduction is
$19,500, plus 35 percent of the excess over $100,000
``(6) over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000, the reduction
is $159,500, plus 45 percent of the excess over $500,000
``(7) over $1,000,000, the reduction is $384,500 plus 55
percent of the excess over $1,000,000.
``For the purposes of this section, payments include the
dollar value (as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) of
any payments-in-kind made to a producer, but do not include the
amount of any price support loan made to a producer.''
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, this amendment, on its face, will
usurp completely the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.
It is not only legislation, but is rather complete, complex, and
lengthy. It is certainly not only legislation on an appropriation
bill, but it is a substitute on an appropriation bill in the nature
of legislation.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Nelsen: Mr. Chairman, I would submit to this body that if a
limitation as provided in the previous amendment is in order,
certainly this amendment would also be in order and I ask for a
ruling by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. This substitute
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nelsen) is clearly
distinguishable from the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) offered an
amendment which provided that no part of the funds appropriated by
this act should be used for certain specific purposes.
The substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Nelsen) goes much further than this. It does not constitute a
limitation upon this act but indeed applies to other acts and
amounts. Clearly in the opinion of the Chair it proposes
legislation such as is prohibited in an appropriation bill.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order against the
substitute.
[[Page 5697]]
Limitation Must Be Applicable Solely to Funds in Bill
Sec. 27.5 To a paragraph making appropriations for parity payments, an
amendment providing that total payments to any person under soil
conservation and parity payments shall not exceed $2,500 was held
to be not confined to funds in the bill and therefore legislation.
On Mar. 28, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 3446, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas to the
amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: At the end
of Mr. Cannon's amendment add the following: ``Provided, That total
payments to any person, firm, or corporation under soil
conservation and parity payments shall not exceed $2,500.''
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order
against the amendment that it is legislation on an appropriation
bill.
The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Kansas
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rees of Kansas: No, I do not believe I do, Mr. Chairman,
although I do not believe it is legislation.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this is a pure
limitation, as I understand it, limiting the amount that can be
paid out under the bill to any one person and therefore is clearly
in order.
The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is
entirely too broad in that it would not only include this
appropriation but other appropriations as well and the point of
order is therefore sustained.
Sec. 27.6 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that no
payments shall be made for soil conservation practices on land
respecting which such payments have been made within the past 10
years was held to restrict the use of funds not contained in the
pending bill and therefore to be legislation.
On Apr. 14, 1954,(13) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 8779), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 5175, 5176, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Karl C.] King of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Pennsylvania: On page 24,
in line 24, change the period to a colon and add the following:
``Provided further, That no payments or grants shall be made
for approved practices on land
[[Page 5698]]
which during any 1 of the previous 10 years has been the
location of a practice for which payments or grants were made
under this program.''
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order.
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Harris Ellsworth (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: In my opinion, this is clearly
legislation upon an appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. King] has offered an
amendment to which a point of order has been made by the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen].
The Chair has examined the amendment. In view of the fact that
the language of the amendment would seem to impose further duties
and apparently provide a restriction on the use of funds not
contained in the pending bill, the Chair sustains the point of
order.
Sec. 27.7 Limitations on appropriations must apply solely to the money
of the appropriation under consideration, and may not be made
applicable to money appropriated in other acts: to the Agriculture
Department appropriation bill for 1944 an amendment in the form of
a limitation limiting the payments for programs under the
Agriculture Act of 1938, but not limiting the money in the pending
bill was held as legislation on an appropriation bill and not in
order.
On Apr. 17, 1943,(15) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised and sustained against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 3525, 3526, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 65, line 2, after the word ``inclusive'', insert
``Provided, That no total payments for programs under the
Agricultural Act of 1938, and for soil conservation and water
conservation practices, for any year to any person, firm, or
corporation under this section shall exceed $500: Provided
further, That this limitation shall not be construed to deprive
any share renter of payments not exceeding $500 to which he
would otherwise be entitled.'' . . .
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Very well. Mr. Chairman,
I make the point of order that the amendment is in the nature of
legislation insofar that it involves the question of payments of
$500 or less, as I understood it, when it was read--I have not had
time to examine it. It does not show retrenchment upon its face.
While portions of it might be construed as limitations under the
Holman rule, the amendment as a whole does include
[[Page 5699]]
legislative provisions and for that reason is not in order. . . .
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the
amendment would apply to funds other than those covered by this
act. Consequently it would be legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Kansas
desire to be heard further on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rees of Kansas: The language of this amendment follows the
language of the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would
call attention to the fact that under the amendment cited by the
gentleman during the consideration of an appropriation bill in
1942, the language of that amendment was confined to the
appropriation then under consideration. The first two lines of that
amendment read as follows:
Provided, That no total payments for any year to any
person, firm, or corporation under this section shall exceed
$500.
That is under the act then pending. The Chair would remind the
gentleman that under the amendment he now proposes, and I read from
that amendment:
Provided, That no total payments for programs under the
Agricultural Act of 1938, and for soil conservation and water
conservation practices, for any year to any person, firm or
corporation under this section shall exceed $500; and provided
that this limitation shall not be construed to deprive any
share renter of payments not exceeding $500 to which he would
otherwise be entitled.
It is clearly in violation of the rule, because it is not
limited to the appropriation under consideration. The Chair is
constrained to sustain the point of order, and the Chair sustains
the point of order.
Sec. 27.8 A limitation in an appropriation bill must apply solely to
the money of the appropriation under consideration and may not be
applicable to money appropriated in other acts: language in the
Agriculture Department appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation seeking to appropriate not to exceed $175,000 of the
permanent appropriation under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of
1933 to enable the Secretary to protect the interests of consumers
and maintain a stable supply of agriculture commodities at fair
prices, was held to be a limitation on the Act of 1933 rather than
a limitation on money in the pending bill and therefore legislation
on an appropriation bill and not in order.
On Apr. 19, 1943,(17) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was sus
[[Page 5700]]
tained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3583, 3584, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Consumers' Counsel Division
administrative expenses
Not to exceed $175,000 of the unobligated balance of the
appropriation made by section 12(a), title I, of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act, approved May 12, 1933, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 612), shall be available during the fiscal year 1944
to enable the Secretary to further perform the duty imposed
upon him under applicable laws to protect the interests of
consumers with due regard to the maintenance of a continuous
and stable supply of agricultural commodities adequate to meet
consumer demand at prices fair to both producers and consumers,
which sum shall be available for administrative expenses
(including not to exceed $37,200 for printing and binding) in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of the
aforesaid section 392.
Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pace: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
section just read on the ground that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill and seeks to appropriate funds not authorized by
law. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Pace: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Taber: Is it not a fact that that money was not available
for a Consumers' Counsel Division and this language that is in here
is not a reappropriation which would have to be made in order to
make the money available?
Mr. Pace: Not only that, but if this $100,000,000 appropriated
in 1933 is still available it does not have to be reappropriated.
It is just like the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] said, at
the time the matter was presented to the committee, and let me read
again his words:
This language is legislative in character because if you
are already authorized to do that you do not need it
That is, part of the $100,000,000 is still there.
If you are not authorized to do it, we cannot give you such
authorization in an appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is no more than an effort on the
part of the Department of Agriculture to secure an additional
$175,000 in excess of the 4 percent, which is a direct violation of
the law and is not authorized by law and is legislative in
character. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] makes a point of order
against the pending paragraph that it is legislation not authorized
by law. The paragraph undertakes to reappropriate $175,000 of the
permanent appropriation under an act of 1933 and to limit the
appropriation by the language of the pending paragraph to the
purpose set forth in the pending paragraph, and thus undertakes to
limit the reappropriation of $175,000 unallocated to the previous
appropriation by a limitation that would apply to that act rath
[[Page 5701]]
er than a limitation that would apply to an amount appropriated
under the terms of this bill.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Social Security Supplemental; Restriction on ``Funds Under This Head''
Sec. 27.9 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing that
not to exceed a sum certain ``available under this head for the
fiscal year . . . shall be expended for State and local
administration,'' was held to apply to funds not carried in the
bill and therefore not in order.
On Feb. 5, 1957,(19) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R 4249), a
point of order was raised and sustained against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 1549, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Social Security Administration
Grants to States for public assistance
For an additional amount for ``Grants to States for public
assistance,'' $275,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$99,000,000 of the funds available under this head for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, shall be expended for State
and local administration.
Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against that part of the chapter following the colon in
line 7 and reading: ``Provided, That not to exceed $99,000,000 of
the funds available under this head for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1957, shall be expended for State and local administration,''
on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Henderson L.] Lanham [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point
of order is conceded.
The Chairman: (20) The Chair has examined the
language and feels that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of order is sustained
Military Pay; Limitation Not on Funds But Total Compensation
Sec. 27.10 Language in an appropriation bill limiting, not funds in the
bill, but the percentages of military and civilian employees in the
Department of Defense, and not limiting the appropriation to those
carried in the bill, was held to be legislation and not in order.
On Apr. 9, 1952,(1) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7391, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 98 Cong. Rec. 3890, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 634. No pay, compensation, or allowances shall be paid for
commis
[[Page 5702]]
sioned officer personnel in excess of the following percentages of
total personnel of the Department concerned: [A table showing the
percentages was included at this point.]
Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that section 634 is legislation on an appropriation bill
and, therefore, subject to a point of order. . . .
Mr. [Glenn R.] Davis of Wisconsin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
concede the point of order against the section as now written.
The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from Wisconsin
concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority
Sec. 27.11 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that not to
exceed a specific amount of the funds available to the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall be used for personal services, but not
limiting it to funds in the bill, was held to be legislation and
not in order.
On Mar. 21, 1952,(3) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 98 Cong. Rec. 2673, 2674, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: On
page 35, line 24, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add
the following: ``and not to exceed $99,131,125 of the funds
available to the Tennessee Valley Authority shall be used for
personal services.''
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment but will reserve it to permit the
gentleman from New York to make his statement. . . .
The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has before him the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York on page 35, line 24, to which the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Thomas] makes a point of order. The amendment says not
to exceed so many dollars of funds available to the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall be used for personal services. As the Chair
reads the amendment it is not limited to funds contained in the
bill now before the Committee. The fact that the amendment may be
patterned after language in the bill would still not make the
amendment in order if it goes to funds beyond those contained in
the bill before the Committee, thus adding legislation
The Chair is not called upon to rule on the question of
legislative provisions allowed to remain in the bill, in view of
the rule adopted waiving points of order. The Chair is of the
opinion that this amendment applies a new restriction on funds not
contained in the bill thus adding legislation and therefore
sustains the point of order.]
Sec. 27.12 A limitation to be in order on an appropriation
[[Page 5703]]
bill must apply solely to the funds made available by the pending
bill; thus, an amendment providing that ``none of the funds herein
or elsewhere made available'' shall be used for a certain purpose
was held to be legislation and not a limitation.
On June 21, 1935,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 79 Cong. Rec. 9854, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: On page
48, line 16, strike out ``$34,675,192'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$23,675,192''; page 48, line 16, strike out the period, insert a
colon and the following: ``Provided, That none of the funds herein
or elsewhere made available to the Tennessee Valley Authority or
the Tennessee Valley fund shall be used for the construction of any
new dam or power lines until further action by Congress.''
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it is additional
legislation on an appropriation bill and changes existing law, for
it broadens the language of the pending bill by use of the words
``or elsewhere.''
The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from New York
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I desire to be heard briefly, if the Chair please.
The first portion of the amendment to the effect that none of the
funds shall be available for the construction of any new dam or
power lines until further action by Congress, is purely a
limitation and strictly within the Holman rule.
Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, the word ``elsewhere'' used in the
amendment constitutes additional legislation.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
In the opinion of the Chair, while the amendment is in the form
of a limitation, yet the words ``or elsewhere'' contained in the
amendment apply to other appropriations, and is therefore
legislation; and for this reason the point of order is sustained.
Trade With Cuba; Restriction on Authorization, Not Appropriation
Sec. 27.13 Language in a general appropriation bill prohibiting aid
under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any country which
furnishes or permits ships under its registry to carry certain
strategic materials to Cuba was ruled out as legislation, since the
provision was a permanent restriction on the authorization rather
than upon the funds carried in the pending bill.
On June 4, 1970,(7) during consideration in the
Committee of the
[[Page 5704]]
Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill (H.R. 17867), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 107. (a) No assistance shall be furnished under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country
which sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry
to carry to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the Castro
regime, in addition to those items contained on the list
maintained by the Administrator pursuant to title I of the
Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, as amended, any
arms, ammunition, implements of war, atomic energy materials,
or any other articles, materials or supplies of primary
strategic significance used in the production of arms,
ammunition, and implements of war or of strategic significance
to the conduct of war, including petroleum products.
Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman,
I make a point of order against section 107(a) on the ground that
it is legislation in an appropriations bill. . . . Mr. Chairman,
section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act contains similar
restrictions, but they are much more detailed, specific, and
restricted than those contained in the provision which I am seeking
to strike from the appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Louisiana
care to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, your
committee felt that the language contained a very definite
limitation. The language itself states--
No assistance shall be furnished under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country which sells,
furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry to carry to
Cuba--
That provision has stood up over the years as being a
limitation. We feel that it is, and we ask the Chair for a ruling.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. As the gentleman from
New Jersey has pointed out, the language is similar but it is not
identical with the provisions of section 620 of the Foreign
Assistance Act as amended. In addition, it relates to provisions
other than those contained in this bill, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Ratios of U.S. Contribution to International Organizations to Total
Sec. 27.14 To a provision in a general appropriation bill, an amendment
providing that in no case shall the United States contribution to
any international organization exceed one-third of the estimated
total annual cost was held to change existing law and, therefore,
to be legislation on an appropriation bill.
On July 25, 1951,(9) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a
point of order
[[Page 5705]]
was raised and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 8881, 8885, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John Bell] Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment which is at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Page 6,
line 6, after the period add a new proviso to read: ``Provided
further, That in no case shall the United States contribution
to any international organization exceed one-third of the
estimated total annual cost.''
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am
constrained to insist upon the point of order that this is
legislation on an appropriation bill. We already have basic
legislation setting a ceiling on these contributions to
international organizations.
The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from
Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to
say except that I insist it is a limitation of appropriations. The
amendment speaks for itself.
The Chairman: The amendment certainly goes far beyond being a
limitation.
The gentleman from Mississippi has offered an amendment; the
gentleman from New York has made a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation
bill. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment
provides for changes in existing law with respect to international
organizations and, of course, is legislation and not in order on an
appropriation bill.
The Chair sustains the point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The ruling would also be justified on grounds that the language at
issue was not limited to funds in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds From Any Other Source
Sec. 27.15 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill, an amendment
providing that no additional funds from ``any other source'' shall
be expended for these purposes was held to go beyond the scope of
the bill, not germane to it, and legislation on an appropriation
bill.
On Apr. 24, 1951,(12) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation
bill (H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 4300, 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Boyd] Tackett [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: Page 4, line 3, after the
word ``granted'', strike out the period, insert a semicolon and
the following: ``And no additional funds from any other source
shall be expended for these purposes.''
Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arkansas
[[Page 5706]]
(Mr. Tackett) on the ground the amendment is not germane and that
it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I make the further
point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it goes beyond the scope of the
bill as presented at this time. . . .
The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] offers an amendment
to line 3, page 4, of the bill. The provision of the bill sought to
be amended has to do with construction by the Southwestern Power
Administration. The bill before the House provides an appropriation
of a specific amount of money for this purpose. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has reference
to funds from sources other than those contained in the bill before
the committee; therefore it goes beyond the scope and the purposes
of the bill presently before the committee.
The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Jackson] makes a point of
order against the amendment. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Limitation on Any Appropriation for Department
Sec. 27.16 To be in order, a limitation must relate to the particular
appropriation to which the words of limitation apply, and may not
be applicable to funds not covered by the pending bill; thus, a
provision in a general appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation providing that no part of ``any appropriation'' for a
department shall be expended for a specific purpose was held to be
legislation since not confined solely to funds in the bill.
On Feb. 18, 1938,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9544, a State, Justice, Commerce, and Labor
Departments appropriation. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 2172-74, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No part of any appropriation for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall be expended for any expense incident
to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for the admission to
any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the United States
for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for readmission to
the United States, or for the salary of any employee charged with
any duty in connection with the readmission to the United States of
any such alien without visa. . . .
Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the language appearing on page 105 in lines 1
to 9 is legislation on an appropriation bill, which changes
statutory law and creates new regulations without properly being
before any committee or properly being passed upon by the Congress.
. . .
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is
precedent to
[[Page 5707]]
the effect that a limitation must not give affirmative direction,
and must not affect the discretion of an official of the executive
branch of the Government; that the limitation must relate to the
particular appropriation with reference to which the words of
limitation apply.
The burden of proof is on the Committee on Appropriations to
show that this is a limitation upon existing law. If any part of
the limitation does not apply to existing law, although the greater
part of the limitation might apply, then the point of order should
be sustained. . . .
The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]he Chair sustains the point of order on the ground the
Chair has just suggested, that the use of the words ``any
appropriation'' in the bill makes this legislation on an
appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of
order against the entire paragraph.
No Appropriation After Date of Enactment
Sec. 27.17 A limitation stating that no part of any appropriation shall
be obligated for printing the Yearbook of Agriculture for 1942 was
held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.
On Mar. 18, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6802, a legislative branch appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2676, 2677, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions of
section 73 of the act of January 12, 1895 (44 U.S.C. 241), no part
of the foregoing sum of $3,985,000 shall be used for printing and
binding part 2 of the annual report of the Secretary of Agriculture
(known as the Yearbook of Agriculture) and no part of any
appropriation shall be obligated after the date of the enactment of
this act for printing the Yearbook of Agriculture for 1942. . . .
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language contained in the proviso
beginning on line 21, page 44, and ending with line 3 on page 45,
and particularly to that portion of the proviso which reads as
follows:
And no part of any appropriation shall be obligated after
the date of the enactment of this act for printing the Yearbook
of Agriculture for 1942. . . .
The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Kentucky
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William R. Thom (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, we are
perfectly willing to concede the point of order to the second part
of the proviso. If the Chair holds that the entire proviso must be
stricken, then I will offer an amendment to take care of the
situation.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order on the
ground that if part of a proviso is faulty the entire proviso
falls.
[[Page 5708]]
The point of order is sustained.
Limitation on ``Any'' Appropriation
Sec. 27.18 Language in an appropriation bill placing a limitation on
funds not carried in the bill was held to be legislation: language
in an appropriation bill providing that no part of ``any
appropriation'' shall be used for a specified purpose was held to
apply to funds not carried in the bill and therefore not in order.
On Mar. 30, 1955,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill
(H.R. 5240), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 4077, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill against
the following language appearing on page 28, lines 15 through 19:
Provided further, That no part of any appropriation shall
be used to pay educational institutions for reports and
certifications of attendance at such institutions an allowance
at a rate in excess of $1 per month for each eligible veteran
enrolled in and attending such institution.
Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe that language is subject to a point of order. It is a
limitation. It permits the spending of $1 instead of the previous
amount of $1.50. This has been contemplated by the Veterans'
Administration in setting up its budget. This has been in for 2
years.
The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to the fact that
in line 15 the words ``no part of any appropriation'' are used.
That goes beyond this appropriation bill. This is legislation on an
appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
No Fund in This or Any Other Act
Sec. 27.19 In an appropriation bill a provision in the form of a
limitation that no funds in this or any other act shall be
available for payment of grants for development of a project for
predominantly residential uses unless incidental uses are
restricted to those normally essential for residential uses was
conceded to be legislation.
On Mar. 30, 1954,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 4108, 4109, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: For
an addi
[[Page 5709]]
tional amount for payment of capital grants as authorized by title
I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C 1453, 1456),
$39,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That no
funds in this or any other act shall be available for payment of
capital grants under any contract involving the development or
redevelopment of a project for predominantly residential uses
unless incidental uses are restricted to those normally essential
for residential uses. . . .
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the proviso appearing on page 28, lines 13
to 18, on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from California
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman. I think
we are compelled to concede the point of order and I submit an
amendment to replace it.
Sec. 27.20 Language in an appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation providing no part of the appropriation contained in this
or any other act shall be used for a certain purpose is legislation
and not in order.
On Feb. 8, 1939,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3743, an independent offices appropriation. The Clerk
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 84 Cong. Rec. 1263, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6. No part of any appropriation contained in this or any
other act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, shall be
available for the payment of enlistment allowance to enlisted men
for reenlistment within a period of 3 months from date of discharge
as to reenlistments made during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1940, notwithstanding the applicable provisions of sections 9 and
10 of the act entitled ``An act to readjust the pay and allowances
of the commissioned and enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public
Health Service,'' approved June 10, 1922 (37 U.S.C. 13, 16).
Mr. [Edouard V.M.] Izac [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the inclusion of this section in the bill.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: I concede the point of
order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: (3) The point of order is well taken.
. . . The Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Appropriations
Sec. 27.21 A limitation, to be in order, may not apply to money already
appropriated: an amendment in the guise of a limitation providing
that ``No appropriation heretofore made'' shall be used for a
certain purpose was held to
[[Page 5710]]
embody legislation and therefore not in order on a general
appropriation bill.
On Jan. 24, 1936,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R
10464), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 989, 74th Cong. 2d Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
the following substitute, which I send to the desk and ask to have
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen: Page 16,
line 6, strike out all of lines 6 to 12, inclusive, and insert
in lieu thereof the following: ``No appropriation heretofore
made or contained in this bill shall be used for the
enforcement of the provisions of the Potato Act of 1935,
approved August 24, 1935.''
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that that is legislation on an appropriation
bill and is not germane to the amendment to which it is offered. It
undertakes to put a limitation on money heretofore appropriated and
not covered in this bill.
Mr. Ellenbogen: The appropriation contained on page 16 of the
deficiency appropriation bill is for the purpose of enforcing the
provisions of the Potato Act. Therefore, any amendment that seeks
to limit or prevent the Department from enforcing that act is a
proper amendment.
The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in the
opinion of the Chair, goes further than indicated by the
gentleman's statement in support of his amendment. The amendment,
in the opinion of the Chair, very clearly embraces legislation
which is not in order on an appropriation bill. The Chair,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvement of Capitol Limitation on ``Funds Provided''
Sec. 27.22 To an appropriation bill providing for necessary
expenditures for the Capitol Building, including minor
improvements, an amendment to prohibit use of funds appropriated in
a previous appropriation act for extension of the East Front of the
Capitol, and an amendment providing that none of the funds provided
shall be used for prosecuting the project of lifting out the front
of the Capitol, were held to be legislation since not explicitly
confined to funds provided in the bill.
On May 21, 1957,(6) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7599, a legislative branch appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 103 Cong. Rec. 7326, 7327, 85th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5711]]
Capitol Buildings and Grounds
Capitol Buildings: For necessary expenditures for the Capitol
Building and electrical substations of the Senate and House Office
Buildings, under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol,
including minor improvements, maintenance, repair, equipment,
supplies, material, fuel, oil, waste, and appurtenances;
furnishings and office equipment; special and protective clothing
for workmen; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by the
act of September 1, 1954, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2131); personal and
other services; cleaning and repairing works of art, without regard
to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended; purchase or
exchange, maintenance and operation of passenger motor vehicle; not
to exceed $300 for the purchase of necessary reference books and
periodicals; not to exceed $500 for expenses of attendance, when
specifically authorized by the Architect of the Capitol, at
meetings or conventions in connection with subjects related to work
under the Architect of the Capitol; $897,100. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]:
On page 14, immediately after line 2, insert the following:
``Provided, That no funds provided in this section and no funds
heretofore appropriated shall be expended to carry out the
extension, reconstruction and replacement of the central portion of
the United States Capitol authorized by the paragraph of the
legislative appropriation act, 1956, which is under the heading
`Capitol Buildings and Grounds' and which begins with the words
`Extension of the Capitol'.''
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not
germane to this bill. It refers to funds which are not included in
this bill, and further it is legislation upon an appropriation
bill. . . .
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Rooney] makes the point of order that the amendment is not in
order. The amendment very definitely relates to an appropriation
heretofore made. Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the
amendment is legislation and therefore subject to the point of
order. The Chair sustains the point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at
the Clerk's desk
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hiestand: On page 14, line 2,
after the period, insert ``None of the funds provided shall be
used for prosecuting the project of lifting out the front of
the Capitol.'' (8) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Chair apparently construed this language to apply arguably to
funds previously appropriated, as well as funds in the present
bill. If the language had referred more explicitly only to
funds in the bill it might have been allowed as a limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order against
the amendment, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the same
objection applies to this amendment as applied to the last
amendment, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
[[Page 5712]]
Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that point?
May I suggest that the amendment just submitted deals with
$897,100, which has just been read this morning? I submit it is in
order because it could not have been applied to any other fund. The
first amendment did apply to previous appropriations.
The Chairman: But the Chair would call attention to the fact
that there is nothing in this paragraph, as the Chair understands
it, that relates to that particular project or work.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will
hear me just a moment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Taber: Beginning on line 8, page 13, it reads:
For necessary expenditures for the Capitol Building and
electrical substations of the Senate and House Office
Buildings, under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the
Capitol.
That means that money is available for all sorts of activities
of the Architect of the Capitol, relating to the entire group of
buildings.
The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman conveniently stops at
the comma on line 11 and did not read up to the next comma,
``including minor improvements.''
By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered a
minor improvement.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Termination of Existing Revolving Fund
Sec. 27.23 Language in an appropriation bill amounting to a limitation
and providing that after June 30, 1959, unobligated funds in the
revolving fund, Defense Production Act, be covered into the
Treasury was held to be legislation and not in order
On Mar. 31, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10589, a bill making appropriations for the Executive
Office of the President, among other things. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 104 Cong. Rec. 5817, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in Balances
Revolving fund, Defense Production Act: The unobligated
balances available in the fund as of June 30, 1959, shall be
withdrawn and covered into the Treasury as of the close of business
June 30, 1959.
Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the section beginning on line 9, page 5, and ending
in line 13, page 5, as legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Alabama
desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
[[Page 5713]]
Rescission; Disaster Relief
Sec. 27.24 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing a
rescission of funds for ``Disaster Relief'' appropriated in other
acts was held to be not germane and to be legislation on an
appropriation bill.
On Mar. 19, 1952,(11) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill
(H.R. 7072), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 Cong. Rec. 2543, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett: On page 3, after line 14,
insert a new heading and the following language:
Disaster Relief
``The unobligated balances at the end of June 30, 1952, of
appropriations heretofore made for Disaster Relief under the
act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 875); the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act of 1952; act of July 18, 1951 (Public
Law 80); and the act of October 24, 1951 (Public Law 202),
shall to the extent that they exceed in the aggregate
$5,000,000, not be available for obligation after June 30,
1952, and shall be recovered to the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.''
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order, first, that the amendment is not germane to the
bill. It has no relation to any item in the bill.
Second, it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
On both counts, or on either count, it is subject to a point of
order.
The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Pickett] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pickett: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that this is a
limitation of an appropriation. Its effect certainly is to recover
into the Treasury moneys which are just floating around, and
apparently serving no purpose at this time. It never occurred to
me, of course, notwithstanding whatever the rule might be, that we
would avoid trying to save money here just by raising points of
order. It seems to me that we might save a little money by even
legislating some time. I hope the point of order will be overruled.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Pickett] has offered an amendment. The gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon] makes a point of order against the amendment
on the ground it is not germane to the bill before the Committee
and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has
had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the gentleman
from Texas. The amendment does not, as the Chair understands, apply
to funds contained in the pending bill H.R. 7072, but has reference
to funds which have been made available by the Congress in other
legislation. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and is clearly
legislation on an appropriation
[[Page 5714]]
bill. The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
Words of Permanency; Funds ``Hereafter'' Appropriated
Sec. 27.25 An amendment to an appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation but containing the word ``hereafter'' was held to be
legislation and not in order.
On Jan. 31, 1936,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10630, an Interior Department appropriation. At one
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 1300, 1305, 1306, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For reimbursable loans to Indians for the payment of tuition
and other expenses in recognized vocational and trade schools,
including colleges and universities offering recognized vocational,
trade, and professional courses, in accordance with the provision
of the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 986), the unexpended
balance of the appropriation for the fiscal year 1936 is continued
available until June 30, 1937: Provided, That no more than $50,000
of such unexpended balance shall be available for loans to Indian
students pursuing liberal-arts courses in high schools and
colleges. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. [Byron N.] Scott [of California]: On
page 48, line 13, after the word ``Interior'', add: ``Provided,
That hereafter no part of any appropriation for these Indian
schools shall be available for the salary of any person teaching or
advocating the legislative program of the American Liberty
League.''
Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an
appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule. The
word ``hereafter'' in the amendment makes the provision permanent
legislation. Permanent legislation on an appropriation bill would
not be in order. The language of the amendment here offered not
only applies to the appropriations of this bill but it would apply
to subsequent appropriations. Therefore, the amendment contains
legislation; and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of Prior Limitation
Sec. 27.26 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to change a
limitation on a previous appropriation bill was held to be
legislation and not in order.
On Dec. 6, 1944,(15) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 5587),
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 8940, 8941, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: On
page 19, line 3, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
[[Page 5715]]
``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources
``The limitation on expenditures under the 1944 program of
soil-building practices and soil- and water-conservation practices
established in the fourth proviso clause of appropriation
`Conservation and use of agricultural land resources,' in the
Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1944, is hereby
increased from $300,000,000 to $313,000,000 (exclusive of the
$12,500,000 provided in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation
Act, 1945, for additional seed payments).''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. The
change of a limitation is a change of existing law, and it has been
so held repeatedly.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act authorizes the promulgation of programs to cost not
in excess of $500,000,000 annually. In the Agricultural
Appropriation Act of 1944 the Congress undertook to impose a
limitation of $300,000,000 upon the administrative authorities in
the promulgation of the over-all program for the calendar year
1944, which program included not only payments and grants for soil-
conservation and water-conservation practices, but the furnishing
in advance of seeds, limes, fertilizers, trees and other
agricultural materials to be used in soil-conservation work and to
be charged against the benefits accruing to the farmers in
subsequent crop years.
I think that a correct understanding of the amendment which I
have proposed involves reference to the Budget document in which it
was submitted to the Congress, House Document 793, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, in which this identical language was
recommended by the Budget, and in the explanation of the language
it is clearly pointed out that it does not involve the expenditure
of any additional moneys. In other words, this amendment, if
adopted, does not appropriate or make available to the
administrative authorities one single dollar of moneys which are
not already available to them but it simply authorizes the use by
them of moneys which have been allocated to the seed, fertilizer,
lime, and tree program for the discharge of liabilities incurred
under the program for the payments and grants for soil and water-
conservation practices. It is, therefore, in effect a reallocation
of the funds which have already been appropriated by Congress.
I may say that that original allocation of funds was not made
by the Congress in the enactment of the Agricultural Appropriation
Act of 1944, but was made by departmental authorities without
mandatory instructions from the Congress to make such allocations,
although it probably was a matter within their administrative
discretion. So I insist that the Congress by the imposition of the
limitation in the Agricultural Appropriation Act of 1944 did not so
tie its hands as to make it impossible for the same Congress or for
a subsequent Congress to appropriate funds or to review and revise
the allocation of funds already appropriated for the purposes
outlined in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, so
long as it does not exceed the limitation for maximum appropriation
provided in that act, which, as I have pointed out, is
$500,000,000.
[[Page 5716]]
I respectfully insist, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in
order and the point of order should be overruled.
The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from New York
insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The point of order raised by the gentleman from
New York is correct, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Acquisition of Property by Gift ``Hereafter'' Contingent Upon Prior
Appropriation for Maintenance.
Sec. 27.27 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``hereafter
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior . . . to acquire by
gift on behalf of the United States any historic site, building,
object, and antiquity of national significance, shall not be
effective until an appropriation has been made for the operation
and maintenance thereof subsequently to such proposed
acquisition,'' was held to be a change in law and legislation on an
appropriation bill.
On Mar. 20, 1939,(17) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 4852), a point of order was sustained against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3000, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Historic sites and buildings: For carrying out the
provisions of the act entitled ``An act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes,'' approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666), including
personal services in the District of Columbia, $24,000:
Provided, That hereafter the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior contained in such act, to acquire by gift on behalf of
the United States any historic site, building, object, and
antiquity of national significance, shall not be effective
until an appropriation has been made for the operation and
maintenance thereof subsequently to such proposed acquisition.
Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to make a point of order against the proviso, commencing with the
word ``Provided,'' line 17, page 119, down to the end of the
paragraph, in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
According to the report, it expressly changes the language of the
act.
The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Johnson] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jed] Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
[[Page 5717]]
Restriction on ``Contribution to U.N.''
Sec. 27.28 A provision in a general appropriation bill directing the
President to ``assure that no contribution to the United Nations
Development Program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 . . . shall be used for projects for economic or technical
assistance to the Government of Cuba, so long as Cuba is governed
by the Castro regime,'' was ruled out as legislation [constituting
a directive to the President and not confined to the funds carried
in the bill].
On June 4, 1970,(19) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 17867), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 18395, 18396, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical assistance: For necessary expenses as authorized by
law $310,000,000, distributed as follows:
(1) World-wide, $151,000,000 (section 212);
(2) Alliance for Progress, $75,000,000 (section 252(a)); and
(3) Multilateral organizations, $85,000,000 (section 302(a)),
of which not less than $13,000,000 shall be available only for the
United Nations Children's Fund: Provided, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to initiate any project or activity
which has not been justified to the Congress, except projects or
activities relating to the reduction of population growth; Provided
further, That the President shall seek to assure that no
contribution to the United Nations Development Program authorized
by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used
for projects for economic or technical assistance to the Government
of Cuba, so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair will hear the
gentleman from Wisconsin on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
entire proviso beginning on line 20 and ending on line 25 of page 2
is legislation in an appropriation. I am for its objectives, but in
effect it simply says that the President should try to enforce
existing law. The provisions in existing law, section 620 of the
Foreign Assistance Act are stronger and there is no sense in this
useless repetition in an appropriation
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman
The
[[Page 5718]]
proviso was added by the Committee on Appropriations in the foreign
assistance appropriation bill for fiscal year 1965 in order to
insure that no U.S. contribution to the UNDP would be used to give
any type of economical or technical assistance to Cuba as long as
Cuba is governed by the Castro regime.
I would like to interpret this as a limitation on an
appropriation bill and ask for a ruling.
The Chairman: The language in question is as follows: Line 20,
page 2:
Provided further, That the President shall seek to assure.
. . .
And so forth.
That is obviously a directive to the President of the United
States, it is not limited in application to the funds appropriated
in this bill or any section thereof, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Restricting ``Amounts for Education Grants''
Sec. 27.29 In a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing
funds for higher education assistance, language restricting the
availability of ``amounts for basic opportunity grants'' to full-
time students in the first three years of college was held not to
be confined to funds in the bill and was ruled out as legislation
affecting amounts appropriated under other acts.
On June 27, 1974,(1) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, the proceedings as indicated
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21670, 21671, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, titles
I, III, IV, section 745 of title VII, and parts A, B, C, and D of
title IX, and section 1203 of the Higher Education Act . . .
Provided, That amounts for basic opportunity grants shall be
available only for full-time students at institutions of higher
education who are not enrolled as regular students (as defined by
the Commissioner of Education) at such institutions prior to April
1, 1973. . . .
Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language which occurs on page 18, beginning on
line 7 and continuing through line 11 as legislation on an
appropriation bill. The law at the present time, the general law
says that the basic opportunity grants should be available to all
students in freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior years and
students in the 5th year, part-time students, and last year we had
restricted it to apply to freshmen and sophomores. This language
further changes the law by saying basic opportunity grants shall be
available only to freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, and therefore
it is legislation on an appropriation bill changing the intent of
the original law.
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I believe this
language in
[[Page 5719]]
question is clearly conditioned on the use of funds in the bill and
therefore not subject to a point of order.
It is a well-established principle and I quote:
The House in the Committee of the Whole has the right to
refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part
even though the object is authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, in this case we are very simply eliminating the
payments for these basic opportunity grants to students who are
enrolled at institutions of higher learning after April 1, 1973,
and excluding, expressly excluding students who were enrolled prior
to April 1, 1973. . . .
The Chairman: (2) . . . The gentleman from
Pennsylvania makes some interesting and indeed some valid points
with respect to what has been in the past and is uniformly accepted
as a limitation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair must observe, however, that there is one
distinguishing characteristic with regard to this proviso as it is
presently written which differentiates it from valid limitations.
The proviso as presently written does not specify that it is a
limitation upon amounts appropriated in this bill. This, indeed,
may have been the intention of those who drafted the bill, but the
proviso is not drafted negatively and the Chair observes that the
proviso as presently drafted would stipulate that amounts for basic
opportunity grants shall be made available only to certain
students.
If the Chair is correctly advised, the Chair believes that the
language, literally read, could subject this proviso to the
interpretation of being a limitation upon amounts previously
appropriated under other acts in that it does not stipulate that
its application would be intended specifically to funds provided in
this bill or in this paragraph.
For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order of the
gentlewoman from Oregon.
Disapproval of Deferral
Sec. 27.30 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing
congressional disapproval of a deferral of budget authority
proposed by the President pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act
is legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
On July 29, 1982,(3) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6863 (supplemental appropriation bill),
a point of order was sustained against the following provision in the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 18625, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The Congress disapproves $100,000 of the proposed deferral
D82-225 relating to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, ``Periodic censuses and programs'' as set forth in the
message of February 5, 1982, which was transmitted to the
Congress by the President. This disapproval shall be effective
upon enactment into law of this bill and the amount of the
proposed deferral
[[Page 5720]]
disapproved herein shall be made available for obligation.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise
a point of order against this section of the bill. . . .
[I]n clause 2 of rule XXI, it states that legislation in an
appropriation bill is not appropriate. This is a disapproval of a
deferral, which is legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore,
I think, Mr. Chairman, it is subject to a point of order against it
under clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I will point out that
there are three or four deferrals in here, and obviously, that is
true. We could report separate bills and take up the time of the
House, but all we are doing here is avoiding that. The committee is
in full agreement on both sides of the aisle. This is just avoiding
taking up the time of the House with a number of separate bills. So
there is no need for it. We just put that in here to do it in an
easier way.
Mr. Walker: . . . The point that this gentleman from
Pennsylvania is making is that they are inappropriate in a bill
which makes appropriations under the rules of the House, and I am
simply trying to sustain the rules.
The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While the Impoundment Control Act (Public
Law No. 93-344, title X) provided a procedure for privileged
consideration of resolutions of disapproval of Presidential deferrals
of budget authority, and while the Committee on Appropriations is an
appropriate committee for referral of such resolutions, such provisions
when included in general appropriation bills are nevertheless
legislation changing the procedure for congressional disapproval.