[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§ 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5992-6004]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending

Requiring New Contractual Arrangements

Sec. 48.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment making the money 
    available on certain contingencies which would change the lawful 
    mode of payment is legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1952,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R.

[[Page 5993]]

7176), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 3064, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Morris [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language beginning on line 24, page 13, and 
    ending on line 12, page 14 inclusive as follows:

            Provided further, That until such time as a repayment 
        contract, covering the proper share of the cost of the 
        facilities hereinafter stated, shall have been entered into 
        between the United States and the prospective water users, no 
        part of this appropriation shall be available for the 
        initiation of construction of any dam or reservoir where the 
        dominant purpose thereof is storage of water for irrigation or 
        water supply, or any tunnel, canal or conduit for water, or 
        water distribution system related to such dam or reservoir: 
        Provided further, That funds appropriated in this act and 
        heretofore for all such structures now under construction, 
        shall not be available after January 1, 1954, unless such 
        repayment contracts shall have been entered into by the 
        prospective water users.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the language on 
    the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    that it seeks to change existing law.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman refers to the 
    proviso appearing in line 25, page 13, and the proviso starting at 
    line 8 on page 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morris: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: No, Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma has made a point of 
    order, as referred to by him, and the gentleman from Ohio concedes 
    the point of order. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Audit by Comptroller General

Sec. 48.2 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment requiring 
    the imposition of an auditing and reporting procedure before funds 
    can be expended was ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
10723), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7642, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Page 26, after 
        line 22 insert the following:
            ``Sec. 104. No funds appropriated in this Act for the House 
        of Representatives or the Architect of the Capitol shall be 
        used unless the expenditure of such funds is audited by the 
        Comptroller General at such times as he may deem appropriate. 
        For the purpose of conducting such audits, the provisions of 
        section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act (42 Stat. 26; 31 
        U.S.C. 54) shall be applicable to the legislative agencies 
        under audit. The Comptroller Gen

[[Page 5994]]

        eral shall report to the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives the results of each such audit relating to the 
        financial transactions of the House of Representatives, and 
        shall report also to the Architect of the Capitol the results 
        of the audit of his office. All such reports, including the 
        reports required by the Act of July 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 482), 
        shall be printed as House Documents.''

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    some reluctance that I must make a point of order against this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my 
    appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee for reserving the 
    point of order. I knew that a point of order would be made.
        Mr. Chairman, the purpose and intent of my amendment is clear. 
    Simply stated, the funds appropriated by H.R. 10723 would be 
    subject to the limitations of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 
    1950, as amended, with a view toward making the operations of the 
    House and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol subject to the 
    same objective auditing standards as are other Government 
    departments. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is high time we opened our books to the 
    public. Just like any executive agency, we are spending taxpayers' 
    money for our daily operating expenses. There is no logical reason 
    why we should not be subjected to a public audit. Who knows, maybe 
    a little fat can be trimmed right in our own backyard.
        The Chairman: (16) It is obvious on its face that 
    this amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On another occasion, an amendment to a 
legislative branch appropriation bill denying the obligation or 
expenditure of certain funds contained therein unless such funds were 
subject to audit by the Comptroller General was ruled out of order as 
legislation where it appeared that the amendment was intended by its 
proponents to extend and strengthen the authority of the Comptroller 
General under law to audit legislative accounts. The amendment in that 
instance was ruled out of order when it appeared that it was intended 
by its proponents to work a change in the law and to require audits, 
rather than simply state a condition precedent for obligation and 
expenditure of the funds. A subsequent amendment which denied the use 
of funds not subject to audit ``as provided by law'' was offered and 
adopted. See 124 Cong. Rec. 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1978 
[H.R. 12935].

Prior Approval by Bureau of Budget and Submission to Congress

Sec. 48.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority, stating that no part of the funds shall 
    be used ``unless and until'' approved by the Director of the Bureau 
    of the Budget and sub

[[Page 5995]]

    mitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, was 
    conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 22, 1956,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
        Third. Lines 13 to 22, the proviso reading: ``That no part of 
    funds available for expenditure by this agency shall be used, 
    directly or indirectly, to acquire a building for use as an 
    administrative office of the Tennessee Valley Authority unless and 
    until the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, following a study 
    of the advisability of the proposed acquisition, shall advise the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives and the Tennessee Valley Authority that the 
    acquisition has his approval: Provided further.''. . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    read by the gentleman is unquestionably legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and I therefore concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The gentleman from 
    Missouri, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, concedes the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill and the 
    point of order is sustained.

Prior Approval by Public Housing Commissioner

Sec. 48.4 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds 
    for the Housing and Home Finance Agency and containing a proviso 
    that no funds appropriated therein or funds available for 
    expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the Housing Act shall be 
    available for certain expenditures unless made in accordance with a 
    budget approved by the Public Housing Commissioner was conceded to 
    be legislation and held not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Housing and Home Finance Agency

                       Public Housing Administration

                            Annual Contributions

        For an additional amount, fiscal year 1960, for ``Annual 
    contributions'', $9

[[Page 5996]]

    million, and in addition $3 million to be derived from funds 
    collected as fixed fees from local public housing authorities as 
    required by law: Provided, That no funds appropriated herein, or 
    funds available for expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the 
    United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, shall be available 
    for the payment of contributions with respect to any local public 
    agency expenditures for any project year ending after June 30, 
    1960, which are not made in accordance with a budget approved by 
    the Public Housing Commissioner as reasonable, necessary, and 
    consistent with economical operating policies.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language contained on page 8, lines 7 through 15, is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: We concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Requiring State and Local Cost Sharing for Investigations

Sec. 48.5 Language in the Interior Department appropriation bill under 
    the heading ``General Investigations'' providing that ``the 
    expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for investigations 
    of any nature requested by States, municipalities, or other 
    interests shall be upon the basis of the State, municipality, or 
    other interest advancing at least 50 percent of the estimated cost 
    of such investigations'' was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and held not in order.

        On Apr. 25, 1947,(1) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill (H.R. 3123), a point of order was raised against the following 
    provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             General Investigations

            General investigations: For engineering and economic 
        investigations of proposed Federal reclamation projects and 
        surveys, investigations, and other activities relating to 
        reconstruction, rehabilitation, extensions, or financial 
        adjustments of existing projects, and studies of water 
        conservation and development plans, such investigations, 
        surveys, and studies to be carried on by said Bureau either 
        independently, or in cooperation with State agencies and other 
        Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, and the 
        Federal Power Commission, $125,000, which may be used to 
        execute detailed surveys, and to prepare construction plans and 
        specifications: Provided,

[[Page 5997]]

        That the expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for 
        investigations of any nature requested by States, 
        municipalities, or other interests shall be upon the basis of 
        the State, municipality, or other interest advancing at least 
        50 percent of the estimated cost of such investigations. . . .

        Mr. [J. Edgar] Chenoweth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chenoweth: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the language contained in line 13 beginning with the word 
    ``Provided'' down through line 18 to the colon, page 34, for the 
    reason it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jones] desire 
    to be heard on the point of order? The point of order is that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Requiring Cost Sharing for Cooperative Range Improvements

Sec. 48.6 Language in an appropriation bill providing that no part of 
    the appropriation for ``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be 
    expended in any national forest until contributions at least equal 
    to such expenditures are made available by States or other local 
    public or private sources, was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not in order.

    On May 10, 1951,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 5224, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the following language beginning in line 18 on 
    page 26 and including the proviso in lines 18 to 25 inclusive as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.

            Provided, That hereafter no part of the appropriation for 
        ``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be expended in any 
        national forest until funds or other contributions at least 
        equal to such expenditures are made available by States or 
        other local public or private sources, except that claims 
        recognized by the act of December 19, 1950, shall be accepted 
        as contributions for the purposes of this section.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: In view of the fact that a point of order has been 
    made to

[[Page 5998]]

    the last half of the paragraph I make a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph. I do not think it can be argued that it is not 
    subject to a point of order. A point of order having been made to 
    half of the paragraph, I make a point of order against the entire 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does any Member desire to be heard on the point 
    of order?
        The Chair sustains the point of order to the entire paragraph.

Providing Cost Sharing for Road Construction

Sec. 48.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds for 
    the construction of an additional Washington airport in Virginia 
    shall be available for an access road (a federal project) provided 
    the State of Virginia makes available the balance of funds 
    necessary for the construction of the road was conceded to be 
    legislation and held not in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Federal Aviation Agency

          Construction and development, additional Washington airport

            For an additional amount for ``Construction and 
        development, additional Washington airport'', $22,470,000, to 
        remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
        $400,000 shall be available for an access road to the north 
        from the airport provided the State of Virginia makes available 
        the balance of funds necessary for the construction of said 
        road.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language of the bill on page 3, line 6, beginning 
    with the words ``of which'' and running through line 10, on the 
    ground that this language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Thomas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Delaying Obligation Until Other Funds Have Been Spent

Sec. 48.8 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the rent-
    supplement program, an amendment to withhold obligation of those 
    funds until funds previously

[[Page 5999]]

    appropriated (in another bill) for military housing construction 
    are obligated, which placed an unrelated contingency on the use of 
    funds in the bill, was ruled out as legislation.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14012), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: 
    On page 4, line 22, after ``program'' and before the period add, 
    ``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be obligated 
    until funds made available for the construction of family housing 
    for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense agencies 
    in Public Law 89-202, have been obligated.''
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order comes too late. The Chair was about to state the question.
        The Chairman [James G. O'Hara, of Michigan]: The question had 
    not yet been put. The Chair was about to state the question, but 
    the question had not yet been put. The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it relates to funds 
    previously appropriated and which are not carried in this bill and 
    interferes with executive discretion given to the President under 
    existing law to do what he wishes with the funds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Michigan 
    briefly on the point of order.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to try to be 
    sure that our military families are given an equal opportunity to 
    have family housing that has been deferred. This matter has 
    adequately been discussed in the debate previous to this time. I 
    had hoped possibly out of the generousness of the hearts of the 
    gentlemen on the Democratic side that they would not raise a point 
    of order and therefore obviously deny our military service families 
    the right to have these houses that they so desperately need.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan places an 
    unrelated contingency upon the use of funds provided in this 
    paragraph, and as such is legislation in an appropriation bill, and 
    not germane to the paragraph.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Provisions that seek to control the timing 
of expenditure of funds may sometimes be ruled out as legislation, 
inasmuch as such provisions may interfere with executive discretion as 
to such expenditure.

[[Page 6000]]

See the proceedings at 126 Cong. Rec. 16815-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., 
June 25, 1980; for discussion of provisions affecting executive 
discretion generally, see Sec. 51, infra. More precisely, it may be 
stated that, if a proposed limitation on the use of funds goes beyond 
the traditionally permissible objects of a limitation, as, for example, 
by restricting discretion in the timing of expenditure of funds rather 
than restricting their use for a specific object or purpose, such 
provision may be ruled out as legislation in the absence of a 
convincing argument by the proponent showing that the provision does 
not change existing law.
    In some instances, a provision of the type described above may be 
allowed, even though legislative in effect, if it can be viewed as 
falling within the Holman rule exception. See Sec. 4, supra, for 
general discussion of the Holman rule. As long as an amendment calls 
for an obvious reduction at some point in time during the fiscal year, 
the amendment is in order under the ``Holman Rule'' even if the 
reduction takes place in the future in an amount actually determined 
when the reduction takes place (for example, by formula). See, for 
example, 126 Cong. Rec. 20499-503, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1980.
    It should be noted here that on one occasion, in 1965, language in 
a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds for the rent 
supplement program and specifying that ``no part of the . . . 
appropriation or contract authority shall be used'' in any project not 
part of a ``workable program for community improvement'' (as defined in 
the Housing Act of 1949) or which is without local official approval 
was held to be a proper limitation and in order. The 1965 ruling would 
probably not be followed in current practice; that ruling is discussed 
further, with related precedents, in the ``note on contrary rulings'' 
following Sec. 53.6, infra.

Funds Available to Extent Aggregate Expenditures Do Not Exceed 
    Specified Amount

Sec. 48.9 On a general appropriation bill a limitation applying to 
    funds other than those provided in the pending bill is not in 
    order. But rulings differ in the application of this principle to 
    provisions making funds available ``only to the extent that 
    expenditure thereof shall not raise total aggregate expenditures 
    of'' agencies provided for in the bill.

[[Page 6001]]

    On Mar. 3, 1952,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 6854), the Chair ruled out of order an 
amendment as described above, on the basis that the proposed limitation 
would affect appropriations not carried in the bill. A point of order 
was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 1781, 1782, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 27, 
        supra, discussing provisions that affect funds in other acts, 
        generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
        York]: Page 15, line 11 insert a new section 403:
            ``Sec. 403. Money appropriated in this act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1953, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        raise total aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for 
        herein beyond the total sum of $7,060,000,000: Provided 
        further, That this limitation shall not apply to expenditures 
        from the postal revenues; to refunds of internal revenue 
        collections, to refunds and draw-backs in the Customs Service, 
        and to refunds of moneys erroneously received and covered.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order on the ground that 
    this amendment goes beyond the scope of this bill and deals with 
    expenditures which are not included in this bill.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from New York is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not go beyond the 
    scope of the bill in its limitation on expenditures. The limitation 
    is that the total expended including the amounts in this bill shall 
    not exceed the $7,060,000,000 over and above the total expenditures 
    for the postal revenues, the refunds on internal revenue 
    collection, and the refunds and drawbacks in the customs service, 
    and the refunds of money erroneously received. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the brief time the 
    Chair has had to study the amendment, the Chair is of the opinion 
    that the limitation which the gentleman from New York desires to 
    place in the bill would operate to limit expenditures of 
    appropriations which are not carried in the bill, and therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

    A seemingly different result was reached on Mar. 21, 
1952,(10) on which day the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropria

[[Page 6002]]

tion. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 2694, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also the ruling at 99 
        Cong. Rec. 9559, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1953, on a 
        similarly worded amendment to H.R. 6391, the Mutual Security 
        Administration appropriation bill, discussed at Sec. 80.2, 
        infra. And see Sec. Sec. 80.3 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Coudert: On page 64, after line 21, 
    add a new section 405 as follows:
        ``Sec. 405. Money appropriated in this act shall be available 
    for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, only to 
    the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond 
    the total sum of $6,900,000,000.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It changes figures heretofore voted upon in the House in 
    the last 3 days. Therefore, that is legislation. It puts duties on 
    the various agencies not otherwise called for in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Coudert: This clearly does not touch the funds of prior 
    years; therefore, it does not appropriate with respect to them. It 
    only places a limitation upon the use to which the funds requested 
    in this bill, the new obligational authority, may be put. It limits 
    the freedom of expenditure and nothing else.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair appreciates the fact that the author of the amendment 
    afforded the Chair an opportunity earlier in the day to read the 
    amendment and gave the Chair some time to study the language of the 
    amendment.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a limitation 
    upon the funds which are contained in the bill H.R. 7072, presently 
    before the Committee; that it is nothing more than a limitation on 
    those funds. The Chair is, therefore, constrained to overrule the 
    point of order and holds the amendment in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Mar. 3, 1952, ruling cited above seems 
to support the better principle, that, where an attempted limitation 
has the effect of delaying the expenditure of funds until 
determinations are made as to aggregate expenditures at the end of a 
fiscal year, it is not in order. However, if the reduction is certain, 
such an amendment can be supported under the Holman rule. See the note 
in Sec. 48.8, supra. And see Sec. Sec. 4 and 5, supra, for general 
discussion of the Holman rule.

Ceiling by Reference to President's Budget

Sec. 48.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    availability for expenditure of all funds therein to the aggregate 
    level provided in the President's budget for that fiscal year for 
    the agencies covered in the bill was held to constitute a valid 
    limitation on the total amount covered by the bill.

[[Page 6003]]

    On June 15, 1972,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1973 (H.R. 15417), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 21137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 40, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 409. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1973, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 100 per centum of the total 
        aggregate net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 
        1973 (H. Doc. 215).''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an appropriation bill--
    period.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the Chair that the 
    language of this amendment with the exception of the percentage 
    figure and the House document reference is identical to the so-
    called Bow amendment which was offered on many occasions in past 
    years and which has been challenged on previous occasions and which 
    has been sustained being in order of an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendment and will 
    rule that it is in order. It is, in effect, the ``Bow'' amendment 
    with a very slight variation. It is a restriction on the 
    appropriations in this bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the Mar. 21, 1952, 
ruling cited in Sec. 48.9, supra, are subject to the same criticism. 
Arguably, implementation of this amendment would require withholding of 
all obligations until the end of the year, since an agency's budget 
situation might not be subject to a final tabulation until all other 
funds--those in the pipeline as well as those funded in other 
appropriation acts--are taken into account. There is no disclosure on 
the face of the amendment that there is a certain reduction to qualify 
under the Holman rule exception.

Pending Balanced Budget

Sec. 48.11 To a bill making appropriations for foreign aid, an 
    amendment specifying that no funds made available therein may be 
    expended until total governmental tax receipts exceed total expend

[[Page 6004]]

    itures was ruled out as legislation.

    On July 1, 1964,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R. 
11812), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 15582, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 49.1, 
        infra, in which the Chair ruled out of order an amendment 
        making the availability of funds conditional on a congressional 
        finding that expenditures would not increase the public debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edgar F.] Foreman [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foreman: On page 18, immediately 
        after line 24, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 404. Limitation on Appropriations for Economic 
        Assistance.--Notwithstanding any provision of this or any other 
        Act, no provision of this Act appropriating funds to carry out 
        any program of assistance under this Act (other than a 
        provision for military assistance as described in this Act and 
        in the amount of $1,055,000,000) shall become effective until 
        the tax receipts of the United States Government for the 
        preceding fiscal year are equal to or greater than the 
        expenditures of the Government for such fiscal year.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the bill on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Foreman: Mr. Chairman, I feel like any time we are 
    appropriating the taxpayers' dollars, we certainly should take into 
    consideration the question as to whether or not we are putting the 
    people further in debt. This is a very important question. It is a 
    legal question, a legislative question, and even more importantly, 
    a moral question.
        Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes to the question of spending or 
    not spending of these funds, the limiting of making funds 
    available.
        It does not legislate as to how they are going to be spent, or 
    not be spent, the bill itself does not even do that.
        But as suggested earlier in our debate, perhaps this amendment 
    is indeed too sensible and entirely too practical to be applied to 
    our foreign aid giveaway program. Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps fiscal 
    responsibility, at this point and in this day in time, may be out 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the face of it, this amendment appears to go far beyond the 
    scope of the bill.
        The subject of the amendment is not covered or referred to in 
    the proposed legislation and, therefore, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.