[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[D. Provisions as Changing Existing Law: Appropriations Subject to Conditions]
[Â§ 47. Conditions Contrary to or Not Required by Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5979-5992]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 47. Conditions Contrary to or Not Required by Law


    The precedents in this section generally support the view that 
provisions in an appropriation bill which make funds available only 
after a specified condition has occurred will be ruled out as 
legislation, if the condition specifies actions or circumstances which 
are contrary to, or not contemplated in, existing law. Thus, provisions 
making an appropriation contingent upon actions not already required by 
law may be ruled out of order, while a contingency may be permitted 
provided the contingency itself has previously been authorized in law. 
Of course, a seeming ``condition'' may be in the nature of a 
permissible limitation, as where funds may be made available for use by 
or on behalf of designated beneficiaries only if such beneficiaries 
fulfill certain conditions or become qualified to receive the benefit 
of the funds in the manner prescribed,(9) if that prescribed 
manner is not shown to contravene existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the ``note on contrary rulings,'' following Sec. 53.6, infra, 
        especially the reference to the ruling of June 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative character of a condition may consist in imposing 
additional duties, not already required in law, on federal 
officials.(10) Similarly, a condition may be seen as 
amounting to legislation if it affects funds in other acts rather than 
being limited to funds contained in the bill. And in some cases, even 
where the point of order has been based on the legislative character of 
a provision, the ruling itself may in fact turn on issues of 
germaneness, as where an amendment attempting to make the availability 
of funds depend on an unrelated contingency is seen as beyond the scope 
of the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The imposition of duties on state or local officials raises various 
        issues which are discussed in Sec. 53, infra.
11. See, for example, Sec. 48.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to distinguish between precedents in which the 
whole appropriation is made contingent upon an event or circumstance 
and those in which the disbursement to a particular participant is 
conditioned on the occurrence of an event. In either case, the weight 
of precedent would disqualify such conditions as legislative in effect. 
Some of the decisions in this section, section 7, supra, and section 
48, infra, are similar in language but

[[Page 5980]]

are carried in a particular part of the chapter to illustrate the 
different approaches taken by the Chair in reaching the conclusion that 
the amendment is not strictly negative and 
limiting.                          -------------------

Action by Federal Official Disbursing Funds; ``No Funds Unless or 
    Until''

Sec. 47.1 An amendment forbidding expenditure of an appropriation 
    ``unless'' action contrary to existing law is taken is legislation 
    and not in order as a limitation: an amendment providing that funds 
    appropriated for International Information, Department of State, 
    shall not be available for any broadcast of information about the 
    United States until the radio script for such broadcast has been 
    approved by the Daughters of the American Revolution was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 26, 1951,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4740), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 8960, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John T.] Wood of Idaho: Page 15, line 
    25, before the period insert a colon and the following: ``Provided 
    further, That funds appropriated herein shall not be available for 
    any broadcast of any information about the United States until the 
    radio script for such broadcast has been submitted to and approved 
    by a committee of members of the Daughters of the American 
    Revolution, appointed by the president general of such 
    organization.''
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Idaho 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will only hear the gentleman on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is a 
    limitation and not legislation.
        The Chairman: Has the gentleman completed his statement on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Wood of Idaho: Yes.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    definitely provides for certain things to be done and invites 
    attention to a decision ren

[[Page 5981]]

    dered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener] 
    in which it is stated:

            An amendment withholding expenditures of appropriations 
        unless and until certain books were supplied free to the 
        National Library for the Blind is ruled out of order.

        The amendment very clearly contains legislation which is sought 
    to be offered to an appropriation bill in violation of the rules of 
    the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Condition on Disbursement to Recipient

Sec. 47.2 An amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill, making the 
    payment of certain contractual obligations of the United States 
    contingent upon the adoption of a compromise agreement or upon 
    litigation resolving the dispute, was held to impose a condition on 
    disbursement of funds not required by existing law and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On May 11, 1971,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8190), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 14468, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                Bureau of Mines

                                  helium fund

            The Secretary is authorized to borrow from the Treasury for 
        payment to the helium production fund pursuant to section 12(a) 
        of the Helium Act, to carry out the provisions of the Act and 
        contractual obligations thereunder, including helium purchases, 
        to remain available without fiscal year limitation, 
        $15,077,000, in addition to amounts heretofore authorized to be 
        borrowed.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: Page 6, line 9, after the 
        word ``borrowed'' strike out the period, insert a comma 
        ``provided, however, that none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act will be disbursed to any individual contractor until 
        the claims of that contractor have been determined either by 
        agreement or by litigation.''

        Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Mr. Chairman, on this 
    amendment I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentlewoman will state her 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Hansen of Washington: The wording is ``until the claims of 
    that contractor have been determined either by agreement or by 
    litigation.''
        That is legislation on an appropriation bill and extends the 
    act beyond the intention.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been well established 
    in this

[[Page 5982]]

    Chamber that a limitation on expenditures is a perfectly valid 
    amendment to an appropriation bill.
        I might say, Mr. Chairman, the amendment should read, ``full 
    claims of the contractors have been determined.''
        I believe it has been well established that this type of 
    amendment is in order on this kind of bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The language of the amendment does constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and in this particular situation provides for a 
    condition subsequent.
        Therefore, the Chair will have to sustain the point of order.

Contingent Upon Enactment of Authorization

Sec. 47.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    projects not yet authorized by law is legislation and not in order.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9033), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 18179, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Title V--Peace Corps

                      Funds Appropriated to the President

                                  Peace Corps

            For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
        the provisions of the Peace Corps Act, including purchase of 
        not to exceed sixteen passenger motor vehicles for use outside 
        the United States, $20,000,000: Provided, That this paragraph 
        shall be effective only upon enactment into law of S. 2000 or 
        H.R. 7500, Eighty-seventh Congress, or similar legislation to 
        provide for a Peace Corps.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Title V, which has just been read, has not yet 
    been authorized and therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order and the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hiestand).

    Parliamentarian's Note: A conditional appropriation based on 
enactment of authorization is a concession on the face of the language 
that no prior authorization exists. See Sec. 7, supra, for further 
discussion of the necessity of prior authorization for appropriations.

Sec. 47.4 In a supplemental appropriation bill, a paragraph making an 
    appropriation

[[Page 5983]]

    contingent upon the subsequent enactment of authorizing language is 
    in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 3, 1967,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9481), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 11589, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See Parliamentarian's 
        Note in Sec. 47.3, supra, as to appropriations conditioned on 
        subsequent authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Chapter VIII

                             Military Construction

                                 Family Housing

                      homeowners assistance fund, defense

            For the Homeowners Assistance Fund, established pursuant to 
        section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
        Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754, approved November 
        3, 1966), $5,500,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 1216, Ninetieth Congress, or similar 
        legislation.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point of order asking 
    the Chair to strike chapter 8 of the second supplemental 
    appropriation bill, to be found on page 17, lines 6 through 16 
    thereof, for the reason there has been no authorization of this 
    appropriation and that it is contrary to rule XXI (2) of this body. 
    Consideration of S. 1216 is now before this body's Committee on 
    Rules, it is controversial, it has mixed jurisdictional parentage, 
    and it came out of the Committee on Armed Services with eight or 
    more opposing votes. It can be defeated on the floor.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Florida seek to be heard 
    on this point of order?
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, as the bill states and as the report states, 
    there is a requirement for the enactment of authorizing 
    legislation. The bill which is before the House clearly requires 
    that appropriations for the acquisition of properties must be 
    authorized by a military construction authorization act, and that 
    no moneys in the fund may be used except as may be provided in an 
    appropriation act, and it would clearly protect the Congress and 
    fulfill the requirements of the law.
        What we are seeking to do is to put into operation an immediate 
    program. If we do not provide funds now for people who need money 
    for losses in their property as a result of base closures, it is 
    going to be some months before it can be done, probably, in the 
    regular appropriation bill.
        Of course, the language is subject to a point of order. We 
    concede that. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, that 
    is the story, but the homeowners will be the ones who suffer 
    unnecessarily.

[[Page 5984]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As the gentleman 
    from Florida has conceded, the language objected to by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is subject to a point of order in that no 
    authorization has been enacted into law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 47.5 An item of appropriation providing for an expenditure not 
    previously authorized by law is not in order; and delaying the 
    availability of the appropriation pending enactment of an 
    authorization does not protect the item of appropriation against a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14582), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Federal Railroad Administration

               grants to national railroad passenger corporation

            To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as authorized by 
        section 601 of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, as 
        amended, $170,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall be available only upon 
        the enactment into law of authorizing legislation by the 
        Ninety-second Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the $170 million appropriation for Amtrak.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, the authorization has not yet been 
    made. The fact that the authorization passed the House of 
    Representatives would not make the appropriation valid. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the House has 
    passed the authorization bill. It has not been enacted into law. I 
    think the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Mahon: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that the chairman of the 
    committee concedes the point of order. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

Requiring Application of Standards not Demonstrably Required by Law

Sec. 47.6 It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    require, as a condition to the availability of funds, the 
    imposition of standards of quality or performance not required by 
    law, whether or

[[Page 5985]]

    not such standards are applicable by law to other programs or 
    activities.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(2) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to procure 
foreign-made items unless their inspection for quality assurance ``uses 
the same standards'' which would be required for domestic products by 
the Department of Defense was ruled out as legislation imposing 
additional duties absent any showing that existing law already required 
such inspection of items produced in foreign countries. The proceedings 
during consideration of the defense appropriation bill,(3) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 28076, 28077, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 4995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jim] Dunn [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dunn: Page 68 after line 15, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 792. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
        available for the procurement of any item manufactured in a 
        foreign country unless, during manufacture, the inspection of 
        such item for quality assurance uses the same standards of 
        inspection during manufacture which would be required by the 
        Department of Defense if such item were manufactured 
        domestically.

        Mr. Dunn (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzell [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Frenzel) on his point of order.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the amendment is 
    contrary to rule XXI, clause 2, which provides that no amendment 
    changing existing law can be made on an appropriation bill. The 
    amendment clearly gives the Secretary additional duties, to 
    determine what kind of quality assurance or inspection is required 
    under the terms of the amendment and, therefore, the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Dunn: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, is incorrect. 
    The Secretary already has that discretion. We are simply, in this 
    amendment, trying to make certain that the powers that he uses for 
    national companies are the same as for international companies. He 
    already has that power. It does not change his power.
        The Chairman: As the Chair reads the amendment, there is 
    clearly a mandatory authority imposing additional duties, absent 
    any showing that

[[Page 5986]]

    existing law already requires such inspection of items produced in 
    foreign countries, the Chair sustains the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).

    Parliamentarian's Note: This decision effectively overrules the 
ruling of the Chair on July 28, 1959,(5) wherein an 
amendment denying use of funds to finance construction projects abroad 
that had not met the criteria used in determining the feasibility of 
flood control projects in the United States was held a proper 
limitation, despite any lack of showing that existing law required 
domestic standards to be applied to foreign construction projects. It 
should be noted that it is not just the imposition of new standards 
that constitutes legislation rendering language subject to a point of 
order, but the requirement of new procedures or duties involved in 
making the standards applicable in a setting not contemplated in the 
existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14522, 14524, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential Appointment to be Made

Sec. 47.7 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing that no part 
    of the appropriation therein be paid to any commissioned officer or 
    any civilian employee in the office of the Judge Advocate, unless 
    such officer or employee is subject to the authority of a general 
    counsel appointed by the President, who shall be the chief legal 
    officer, was conceded to be legislation and therefore held not in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1955,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6042), a point of order was raised against an amendment as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 6245, 6246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 41.2, 
        supra, for the language of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious 
    that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and subject to a 
    point of order and I make the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Funds Made Subject to Audit

Sec. 47.8 An amendment to a legislative branch appropria

[[Page 5987]]

    tion bill denying the obligation or expenditure of certain funds 
    contained therein unless such funds were subject to audit by the 
    Comptroller General was ruled out of order as legislation where it 
    appeared that the amendment was intended by its proponents to 
    extend and strengthen the authority of the Comptroller General 
    under law to audit legislative accounts.

    On June 14, 1978,(8) H.R. 12935, making appropriations 
for the legislative branch, was under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole. The following amendment was offered and discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 17650, 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of 
    Pennsylvania]: On page 6, after line 23, insert the following new 
    section:

            Sec. 102. (a) None of the funds appropriated by any 
        provision described in subsection (b) shall be expended or 
        obligated for any purpose specified in such provision unless 
        such funds so expended or obligated are subject to audit by the 
        Comptroller General of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment.
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, this is identical to an amendment 
    offered last year by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. 
    Heckler) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Chisholm) to 
    provide for a GAO audit of Members and committee accounts. It is 
    the identical amendment that was raised at that time. It was not 
    objected to on a point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, once again on my own behalf and for my distinguished 
    colleague from New York (Mrs. Chisholm) I offer an amendment to the 
    legislative branch appropriations to make all tax-funded accounts 
    of Members subject to an audit by the General Accounting Office.
        I offer this amendment with a twofold purpose in mind. First, 
    the amendment will bring Congress in line with other Federal 
    agencies and give us, as Members, protection from accounting 
    mistakes that happen--sometimes too easily--when there are no 
    guidelines or procedures as is currently the case. Second, the 
    amendment will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in 
    the Congress by creating an accounting system for public money 
    expended by Congress for its own operation.

        I do not believe any Member of Congress has the time to 
    maintain these accounts. Indeed, this function is always delegated. 
    In my own case, my office manager handles the accounts, and, in 
    addition, I have hired an outside accountant to oversee the 
    process. Nonetheless, questions remain. I believe it is time to get 
    the professionals to give us the answers.
        When errors are made--for whatever reason--the Member of 
    Congress is

[[Page 5988]]

    held accountable. In my judgment, a uniform, organized system of 
    audits would not be an adversary to the Congress, rather, it would 
    be a protection against the innumerable uncertainties of 
    interpretation and variables which can make even the most carefully 
    managed accounts vulnerable to public criticism.
        The GAO audit would make public accountability a reality for 
    the Congress.
        Congress has never hesitated to require audits of other 
    agencies. I believe the time has come when Congress should submit 
    to an audit itself. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the operations of the Comptroller General under 
    this amendment would continue as under existing circumstances in 
    that site at the Capitol where the office is presently located. The 
    authority would provide an audit of Members' accounts and committee 
    accounts. It would provide that authority to be utilized by the 
    GAO.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    does it extend in any way the present audit system that we have now 
    in the House?
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mrs. Heckler: Mr. Chairman, it extends the authority that now 
    exists in law but is not necessarily a change in existing law. It 
    affirms the authority of the GAO which presently exists in the 
    House; however, I do not believe that the GAO is able to examine 
    Members' accounts and this amendment clarifies that authority. 
    However, it does not mandate audits across the board of every 
    Member at any particular time.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman answer another 
    question for me again. I am not quite clear in my own mind what 
    exactly would this amendment require the Comptroller General to do 
    specifically?
        Mrs. Heckler: I believe that this amendment would provide an 
    expansion of the number of accounts which the GAO is presently 
    auditing including the tax-funded accounts of Members of Congress 
    and our legislative committees, as covered by the general 
    legislative appropriation bill. We are in this bill dealing with an 
    appropriation of $992 million. I believe that these public funds 
    should be subject to audit. This amendment merely affirms the legal 
    authority to the GAO to conduct such audits. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: . . . Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment and 
    make a point of order against it on the grounds that it imposes 
    additional duties on the Comptroller General and, as such, is in 
    violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House. The additional duties 
    implied by the amendment might involve the Comptroller General 
    insisting that time and attendance reporting systems be set up in 
    Members and committee offices and may require setting up annual and 
    sick leave systems and involve examination of Members' personal 
    diaries, perhaps even their personal financial records. These are 
    duties and procedures clearly beyond the offices of the Comptroller 
    General's present audit authority. Under paragraph 842 of clause 2, 
    rule XXI:

            An amendment may not impose additional duties, not required 
        by law, or make the appropriation contingent upon the 
        performance of such duties . . . then it assumes the

[[Page 5989]]

        character of legislation and is subject to a point of order. . 
        . .

        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, let me say that the amendment 
    imposes no additional duties on the General Accounting Office. It 
    proposes that these accounts be subject to audit by the GAO.
        Title 31, section 67, of the United States Code annotated says 
    as follows:

            . . . the financial transactions of each executive, 
        legislative, and judicial agency, including but not limited to 
        the accounts of accountable officers, shall be audited by the 
        General Accounting Office in accordance with such principles 
        and procedures and under such rules and regulations as may be 
        prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States.

        In a memorandum to the Comptroller General from the general 
    counsel of the General Accounting Office, the following language 
    appeared:

            Our authority under the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, to 
        investigate all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, 
        and application of public funds also extends to the Congress.

        I continue to quote from the memorandum, as follows:

            Similarly, our authority in the Accounting and Auditing Act 
        of 1950 to audit all financial transactions, not limited to 
        accountable officer transactions, extends to legislative 
        agencies . . .

        Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the General Accounting 
    Office already has the authority and the duty to audit the accounts 
    of the legislative branch, and this amendment in no way expands or 
    extends that authority. The General Accounting Office has taken a 
    position that it is interested in having an expression of the will 
    of the legislative branch as to whether it wishes the General 
    Accounting Office to carry out that function. This amendment would 
    be an expression of that will.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment would in no way expand the 
    authority of the General Accounting Office or impose additional 
    duties on the General Accounting Office; it would only make these 
    accounts subject to audit. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair certainly agrees that the language in the amendment 
    is ambiguous. The Chair takes into account, however, the debate, 
    and the debate as observed by the Chair indicates the amendment 
    certainly does extend the authority of the Comptroller General and 
    is subject to a point of order.
        The Chair does recognize that there are conflicting 
    interpretations of the amendment under discussion. However, the 
    Chair has a duty under the precedents to construe the rule against 
    legislation strictly where there is an ambiguity. The Chair feels 
    he must sustain the point of order based on the interpretations 
    given the amendment during the debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment in this instance was ruled 
out of order because it appeared that it was intended by its proponents 
to work a change in the law and to require audits, rather than simply 
state a condition precedent for obligation and expenditure of the 
funds. (A sub

[[Page 5990]]

sequent amendment which denied the use of funds not subject to audit 
``as provided by law'' was offered and adopted.)
    It should be noted that the June 14, 1978, ruling above effectively 
overrules an earlier ruling (see 116 Cong. Rec. 18412, 91st Cong. 2d 
Sess., June 4, 1970), in which it had been held that language in a 
general appropriation bill, providing that no funds in the bill for 
``International Financial Institutions'' shall be available for 
activities which are not subject to audit by the Comptroller General, 
was in order as a limitation on the use of funds in the bill.

Barring Funds for Enforcement of Current Law or Regulations

Sec. 47.9 It is not in order in a general appropriation bill to deny 
    the use of funds for an executive agency to formulate or carry out 
    regulations except for regulations in effect on a prior date, which 
    are no longer permitted to be formulated or enforced under the 
    current state of the law.

    On Aug. 19, 1980,(10) the following amendment was 
offered to H.R. 7583 (Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriations for fiscal 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 21978-80, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: On page 
    8, after line 22, insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 103. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
    provisions of this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out any 
    rule, policy, procedure, guideline, regulation, standard, or 
    measure which would cause the loss of tax-exempt status to private, 
    religious, or church-operated schools under section 501(c)(3) of 
    the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 unless in effect prior to August 
    22, 1978.''

    A point of order against the amendment was sustained. See the 
proceedings discussed in full in Sec. 22.28, supra.

Sec. 47.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying use of 
    the funds therein for the Treasury Department to apply certain 
    provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than under audit 
    practices, interpretations, regulations, and court decisions in 
    effect on a prior date was ruled out of order as legislation since 
    admittedly requiring the executive branch to follow laws no longer 
    in effect in order to make the appropriation available.

[[Page 5991]]

    On June 7, 1978,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Treasury and Postal 
Service appropriation bill (H.R. 12930), a point of order raised 
against an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 16655, 16656, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 30, after line 24, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 510. None of the funds available under this Act shall 
        be used by the Treasury Department to make or apply any 
        determination as to whether any individual is an employee for 
        purposes of chapter 21 (relating to Federal Insurance 
        Contributions Act), 23 (relating to Federal Unemployment Tax 
        Act), or 24 (relating to collection of income tax at source on 
        wages) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 other than under 
        the audit practices, interpretations, regulations, and federal 
        court decisions in effect on December 31, 1975. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed amendment, because it is 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, in violation of clause 2 of 
    rule XXI. This amendment would impose new duties on an executive 
    officer.
        The Commissioner and employees of IRS would be required to make 
    a determination as to whether or not a ``certain audit, 
    interpretation, regulation, or Federal appellate court decision'' 
    is ``inconsistent with audit practices, interpretations, 
    regulations, and Federal court decisions in effect on December 31, 
    1975.''

        The executive officer would be required by this amendment to 
    interpret Federal appellate court decisions in 1975, interpret 
    court decisions now, and make a decision as to whether or not they 
    are inconsistent. This clearly imposes new duties on an executive 
    officer and is clearly in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. This 
    can be found in section 843, page 572 of the current rules of the 
    House of Representatives.
        As further precedent, Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite the 
    following from Cannon's Procedures in the House of Representatives, 
    section 843 on page 64:

            In construing an amendment offered as a limitation the 
        practice of the House relating thereto should be construed 
        strictly in order to avoid incorporation of legislation in 
        appropriation bills under guise of limitations.

        That is in volume VII, Cannon's Precedents, section 1720.
        Further quoting:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        Executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        That is in volume VII, Cannon's Precedents, section 1691.
        Further quoting:

            Legislation may not be proposed under the form of a 
        limitation.

        That is section 1607.

[[Page 5992]]

        Further quoting, this time from volume VII, Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1628:

            And a provision which under the guise of limitation repeals 
        or modifies existing law is legislation and is not in order on 
        an appropriation bill.

        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that this 
    amendment would impose additional duties on an executive officer 
    and, therefore, clearly is subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Panetta: Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of order, I 
    just make two points.
        One, the fact that this is a limitation on an expenditure of 
    funds, this is permitted under the House rules, that is, it is 
    permitted where it involves small administrative detail, and that 
    is essentially what we are dealing with here. We are not dealing 
    with reinterpretation. We are not requiring new interpretation by 
    the Internal Revenue Service, but what we are doing is telling them 
    to abide by those procedures that were in effect in 1975.
        Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I think the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) If the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Panetta) would permit the Chair to direct a question to the 
    gentleman for clarification, as the Chair understood the statement 
    of the gentleman's colleague from California in the concluding 
    remarks, the amendment does, in fact, does it not, require going 
    back to the law as it was prior to December 31, 1975, rather than 
    the law as it exists today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Panetta: Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the candor of the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Panetta) in answer to the question. The Chair 
    will state that he certainly did not mean to put the gentleman in 
    this position purposely, but in view of the Chair's understanding 
    of the language contained herein, he felt constrained to ask the 
    question.
        The statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) 
    would indicate that in fact the amendment would require a return to 
    the law as it existed prior to December 31, 1975, and, therefore, 
    the amendment does change existing law and constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.