[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 37. Grant or Restriction of Contract Authority]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5862-5879]
 
                               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.