[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§ 49. Spending Conditioned on Congressional Approval]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6004-6019]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
   D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO 
                               CONDITIONS
 
Sec. 49. Spending Conditioned on Congressional Approval

Subsequent Congressional Finding of Impact on Public Debt

Sec. 49.1 To a bill appropriating funds for the Mutual Secu

[[Page 6005]]

    rity Act program, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    therein should be available for expenditure until Congress, in a 
    concurrent resolution, makes a finding that the expenditure will 
    not increase the public debt, was held to be legislation.

    On July 28, 1959,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the mutual security appropriation bill (H.R. 
8385), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 14520, 14521, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: On page 5, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
        shall be available for expenditure until the Congress has 
        adopted a concurrent resolution (1) which states in substance 
        that the Congress finds that the aggregate of the estimated net 
        budget receipts of the Government of the United States for the 
        fiscal year 1960 will exceed the aggregate of the estimated 
        expenditures for that fiscal year which will be made by the 
        Government of the United States for purposes other than those 
        contained in the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and 
        (2) which specifies the amount of such excess. Upon the 
        adoption of such a concurrent resolution, then each item of 
        appropriation contained in this title is automatically reduced 
        to an amount which bears the same ratio to such item as the 
        excess specified in such concurrent resolution bears to 
        $3,186,500,000.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        [After remarks by Mr. Flynt, the point of order was made by Mr. 
    Passman.]
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Flynt] has offered an amendment 
    to which the gentleman from Louisiana makes a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia and is of the opinion that 
    the amendment itself is beyond the usual limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, in that the amendment would place additional 
    responsibility and duties on the Congress and require additional 
    action by the Congress, which constitutes 
    legislation.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The ruling above, insofar as it requires future express 
        congressional action, is in conformity with the more recent 
        trend in the Chair's treatment of provisions such as that at 
        issue here. There have been rulings that have permitted 
        appropriations related to public debt levels without explicitly 
        requiring congressional action. See the ruling at 101 Cong. 
        Rec. 10246, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1955, wherein an 
        amendment denying funds if the effect of spending is to 
        increase public debt was held in order as a limitation. And see 
        105 Cong. Rec. 14521, 14522, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 
        1959, where the Chair ruled that, to a bill appropriating funds 
        for the mutual security program, an amendment providing that no 
        part of any appropriation in the bill shall be used in the 
        event the expenditure will increase the public debt was held to 
        be a limitation and in order. See, generally, Sec. Sec. 48.9 et 
        seq., supra, for discussion of provisions that seek to make 
        expenditures conditional upon a determination that aggregate 
        spending levels are not in excess of a certain amount.

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

[[Page 6006]]

By Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 49.2 An amendment offered in the form of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill providing that no part of the funds shall be 
    used for the enforcement of any order restricting sale of any 
    article or commodity, unless such order shall have been approved by 
    a concurrent resolution of the Congress, was held to be legislation 
    and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On June 30, 1942,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7319), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 5826, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cole of New York: Page 23, line 2, 
        after ``appropriation'', strike out the period and insert 
        semicolon, and add the following: ``: Provided further, That on 
        and after 60 days after enactment of this act, no part of the 
        funds herein appropriated shall be used for the administration 
        or enforcement of any order prohibiting, restricting, 
        rationing, or limiting by way of amount or number, the sale in 
        retail trade of any article or commodity unless such order 
        shall have been approved by a concurrent resolution of the 
        Congress.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    This changes the basic principles of the Price Control Act. Under 
    that act we set up a certain policy, and gave discretion to an 
    agency, and this seeks definitely to change the basic act.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is 
    definitely a limitation on the use of funds contained in this 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York offers an amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. 
    The

[[Page 6007]]

    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] makes the point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and goes further than a limitation. The Chair 
    has endeavored to analyze the amendment, and is of opinion that the 
    gentleman from Virginia has correctly stated the situation. The 
    amendment appears to go much further than a mere limitation and 
    provides that the existing law be in effect amended, and imposes 
    certain requirements as to further legislation. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It has been held in order, by way of a 
limitation on an appropriation bill, to make an appropriation 
contingent upon a future event, such as congressional action, so long 
as the contingency is germane to the appropriation and the restriction 
does not change existing law. But such a provision does change existing 
law if its effect is to require a subsequent authorization which, when 
enacted, will automatically make funds available for expenditure 
without further appropriations. Such a result is contrary to the 
process contemplated in Rule XXI whereby appropriations are dependent 
on prior authorization. While two recent rulings have upheld the 
admissibility of amendments making the availability of funds in a 
general appropriation bill contingent upon subsequent congressional 
action, where the contingency is germane and is not shown to change 
existing law (114 Cong. Rec. 16692, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1968 
[H.R. 17734]; 125 Cong. Rec. 23360, 23361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
6, 1979 [H.R. 4473]), the Chair in the latter ruling indicated he was 
following the earlier precedent only because there had been no argument 
advanced that the contingency changed existing law. In the ruling on 
June 11, 1968, it was held that, to a bill making supplemental 
appropriations for various government departments, including the 
Department of Defense, an amendment providing that no part of the 
appropriations therein shall be available, without the express 
authorization of Congress, for maintenance of more than 525,000 troops 
in Vietnam or for an invasion of North Vietnam was in order as a 
limitation. More recent rulings indicate that such an amendment would 
probably be ruled out in the current practice. On Nov. 18, 
1981,(1) a provision making the availability of certain 
funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action on legislative 
proposals resolving the policy issue was held to constitute legis

[[Page 6008]]

lation. More recently,(2) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill making the availability of funds therein contingent 
upon subsequent congressional enactment of legislation containing 
specified findings was ruled out as legislation requiring new 
legislative and executive branch policy determinations not required by 
law. And, in an earlier precedent not cited on Sept. 6, 1979, the Chair 
did rule (88 Cong. Rec. 5826, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1942 [H.R. 
7319]) that an amendment prohibiting the availability of funds to 
enforce certain executive orders, unless those orders were approved by 
a concurrent resolution of the Congress, could be viewed as 
legislation, imposing new requirements as to further legislative 
action. In any case, when a point of order is raised, the burden is on 
the proponent of the amendment to show that the contingency on which 
the availability of funds depends is one authorized by existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 28064, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some statutes expressly provide that there may be appropriated to 
carry out the functions of certain agencies only such sums as Congress 
may thereafter authorize by law, thus requiring specific subsequently 
enacted authorizations for the operations of such agencies and not 
permitting appropriations to be authorized by the ``organic statute'' 
creating the agency. (See, for example, 15 USC Sec. 57c). In the 
situation where a paragraph of a general appropriation bill is under 
consideration which contains an unauthorized appropriation, a 
perfecting amendment delaying availability of the unauthorized 
appropriation and making it contingent upon enactment of authorizing 
legislation may be germane (since existing law already links the 
authorization and appropriations processes and the contingency is 
therefore not unrelated), and may not add legislation, since it merely 
recites conditions already imposed by existing law and does not 
explicitly make the availability of appropriations contingent upon 
enactment of new policies.

Subsequent Approval of Congress

Sec. 49.3 To a section of an appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the federal aid airport program, an amendment 
    providing that the appropriation ``does not grant authority to the 
    Administrator of Civil Aeronautics to undertake [during a specified 
    period] any specific projects for the develop

[[Page 6009]]

    ment of . . . airports, unless express approval of Congress is 
    hereafter granted,'' was held to be legislation not in the form of 
    a limitation on the use of funds and not in order.

    On May 15, 1947,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 5378, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: On 
    page 49, line 2, after ``appropriation'', insert the following: 
    ``Provided further, That the appropriation made herein does not 
    grant the authority to the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics to 
    undertake during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1947, any 
    specific projects for the development of class 4 and larger 
    airports, unless express approval of Congress is hereafter 
    granted.''
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this is a limitation upon the 
    appropriation, which is in order. The law as it is today provides 
    that the making of an appropriation shall be an approval of certain 
    specific projects, unless a contrary intent of Congress is 
    manifested. The purpose of this amendment is to manifest the 
    contrary intent of Congress.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, under the Federal Airport Act passed 
    by the Seventy-ninth Congress and approved on May 13, 1946, the 
    authority under which this appropriation is being considered today, 
    it is specifically provided in section 5(d) for the annual 
    appropriation of projects in the States.
        In section 6 it is specifically provided how the fund shall be 
    apportioned to the various States and it is also provided how the 
    Administrator shall proceed in making an annual report to the 
    Congress 60 days prior to the fiscal year under which the 
    appropriation would be made for class 4 and larger airports.
        In section 9(d) it is provided how the approval of these 
    airport projects may be made.
        I should like to read wherein that authorization provides: 
    ``that all such projects''--meaning class 4 and larger airports--
    ``shall be subject to the approval of the Administrator, which 
    approval shall be given only if at the time of the approval funds 
    are available for payment of the United States share of the 
    allowable cost and only if he is satisfied that the project will 
    contribute to the accomplishment of the purposes of the act,'' and 
    so forth.
        Under the authorization of this act the Administrator is given 
    certain authority, and if I understand the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman it will change the specific authorization as provided in 
    those sections just referred to.

[[Page 6010]]

        The Chairman: What is the basis of the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. Harris: It is legislation on an appropriation bill. It 
    changes the authorization of the Airport Act of May 13, 1946.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard 
    further on the point of order?
        Mr. Keating: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has failed to read section 8 of the 
    act which provides for the filing with the Congress 2 months in 
    advance of the beginning of the fiscal year of the list of 
    projects. Then, in the last sentence thereof, it says:

            In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated 
        to pay the United States' share of allowable project cost 
        during the next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider 
        such appropriation as granting the authority requested by law 
        unless a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the 
        Congress by law.

        This is the only time that the Congress can manifest its 
    intent, and if it passes this appropriation bill simply 
    appropriating the money and does not manifest the intent that is 
    there stated then they have approved of the action of the 
    Administrator.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from South 
    Dakota rise?
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: To make a brief 
    observation, if the Chairman will indulge me.
        Mr. Chairman, I have briefly examined the text of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Keating). While the 
    language submitted is not in the form of the customary limitation 
    on funds, it occurs to me that it is the equivalent of saying that 
    no part of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for the 
    construction of class 4 airports. If it were stated in that way it 
    would clearly be a limitation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that this is not merely a 
    limitation but that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Sec. 49.4 To a section of an appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the federal-aid airport program, an amendment 
    providing that ``no part of the appropriation . . . shall be used 
    for the development of class 4 and larger airports unless approval 
    of Congress is hereafter granted'' was held to be a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill restricting the availability of funds and in 
    order where the Chair apparently took the view that existing law 
    permitted inclusion of language making the appropriation contingent 
    upon subsequent congressional approval.

    On May 15, 1947,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6011]]

ering H.R. 3311, a Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 5379, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating (of New York): On 
    page 49, line 2, after the word ``appropriation'', insert the 
    following: Provided further, That no part of the appropriation made 
    herein shall be used for the development of class 4 and larger 
    airports unless approval of Congress is hereafter granted.'' . . .
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this amendment as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It seems to me that the argument with reference to the 
    other point of order would apply here. The Administrator, on 
    February 19, 1947, has complied with the requirement of law and has 
    made the required report to Congress.
        In reading section 8 of the act, the distinguished gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Keating], in commenting on the point of order 
    made against the other amendment, it seems to me did not properly 
    interpret the last part of section 8 of the act, and that the 
    amendment actually would change the law by action on an 
    appropriation bill, when the act specifically says:

            In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated 
        to pay the United States' share of allowable project costs 
        during the next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider 
        such appropriation as granting the authority requested, unless 
        a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the Congress by 
        a law or by concurrent resolution.

        This, it would seem to me, would be by amendment to an 
    appropriation bill rather than by a law or by a concurrent 
    resolution, and it would appear that the amendment is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, as indicated by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case], this is clearly simply a limitation upon 
    the amount of an appropriation, and it seems to me to be clearly in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a limitation, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair apparently took the view that 
existing law [60 Stat. 174, Sec. 8 of which was referred to by Mr. 
Priest, above] permitted inclusion of the language making the 
appropriation contingent upon subsequent congressional approval. But 
the implication of the two precedents above, considered together, is 
that where a law can be read to permit contingent restriction or 
approval of the use of funds, the appropriation language still must be 
phrased as a traditional limitation. A more fundamental question for 
future application of these precedents, particularly Sec. 49.4, is 
whether the authorizing law in fact permitted the type of restriction 
stated in the amendment, or whether the language in the amendment 
departed from the

[[Page 6012]]

course authorized by the statute. The law (cited above) stated:

        In granting any funds that thereafter may be appropriated to 
    pay the United States share of allowable project costs during the 
    next fiscal year, the Administrator may consider such appropriation 
    as granting the authority requested (to develop class 4 airports) 
    unless a contrary intent shall have been manifested by the Congress 
    by law or by concurrent resolution, and no such grants shall be 
    made unless so authorized.

    A proper limitation pursuant to such law would bar the use of funds 
in accordance with whatever ``law'' or ``concurrent resolution'' 
``shall have'' manifested the intent of Congress. The language in the 
amendment does something quite different: it bars the use of funds for 
the purposes described unless Congress subsequently gives its approval.
    Such law as that cited should not be read as generally permitting 
appropriations to be made contingent upon future authorization or 
congressional approval. The precedent in Sec. 49.4 can be justified 
only in the context of the provisions of 60 Stat. 174, and even then 
only if the statute can be read as giving flexibility to the process of 
congressional approval or disapproval so as to permit Congress to 
withhold availability of funds pending future release of the funds upon 
adoption of a concurrent resolution.

Prior Approval by Congressional Committees

Sec. 49.5 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``he 
    contracts about to be entered into shall have been authorized by 
    the appropriate legislative committees and in amount by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 20, 1957,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6070), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 4048, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Payments, public buildings purchase contracts: For payments 
        of principal, interest, taxes, and any other obligations under 
        contracts entered into pursuant to the Public Buildings 
        Purchase Contract Act of 1954 (40 U.S.C. 356), $1,331,100: 
        Provided, That the Administrator of General Services may enter 
        into contracts during the fiscal year 1958 for which the 
        aggregate of annual payments for amortization of principal and 
        interest thereon shall not exceed $9,000,000, in addition to 
        the unused portion of the $12,000,000 limitation applicable 
        prior to July 1, 1957,

[[Page 6013]]

        under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1957 (70 Stat. 
        343): Provided further, That the contracts about to be entered 
        into shall have been authorized by the appropriate legislative 
        committees and in amount by the Committees on Appropriations of 
        the Senate and House of Representatives.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in the bill beginning on page 10, line 
    21, which reads as follows:

            Provided further, That the contracts about to be entered 
        into shall have been authorized by the appropriate legislative 
        committees and in amount by the Committees on Appropriations of 
        the Senate and House of Representatives.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, therefore in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: (8) The point of order is well taken. 
    The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 49.6 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    funds in the bill shall be used to meet any obligation under any 
    contract for certain material, if the contract exceeds $1 million, 
    unless the contract is approved by the Committees on Armed Services 
    of the two Houses, was conceded to be legislation and held not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7391), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 3888, 3889, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Dwight L.) Rogers of Florida: 
        Page 33, after line 23, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 601. No funds appropriated by this act shall be used 
        to meet any obligation incurred under any contract for 
        procurement, maintenance, or production of supplies or 
        equipment for any of the military departments, if the contract 
        exceeds $1,000,000 in total amount and is entered into after 
        the date of enactment of this act, unless, before the contract 
        is entered into, the Secretary of the military department 
        concerned or his designee comes into agreement with the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of 
        Representatives with respect to the terms of the contract.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there is 
    phraseology in

[[Page 6014]]

    there that would possibly be legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order?
        Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 49.7 In a paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for the Commission on Government Procurement, a proviso 
    withholding a portion of those funds until submission of a program 
    and financial plan by the commission and approval thereof by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate was conceded 
    to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On May 12, 1970,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17548), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 15174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Commission on Government Procurement

                           salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Commission on Government 
    Procurement, $1,500,000, to remain available until June 30, 1972: 
    Provided, That $1,250,000 of the foregoing amount shall not become 
    available without submission of a program and financial plan by the 
    Commission and approval thereof by the Committees on Appropriations 
    of the Senate and House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso beginning on line 19, page 5 and 
    extending through line 23 on page 5 on the ground that it is 
    legislation in a general appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
    (Mr. Evins) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank Annunzio (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, we recognize 
    the point that the gentleman has raised.
        We only wanted the Commission to advise us as to how they were 
    to use the funds for this program. We have been assured by the 
    distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Holifield) and other members of the Commission, members in whom we 
    have great confidence, that they will keep the committee and the 
    Congress informed as they proceed with this new commission.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 49.8 Language in an appropriation bill, making the availability of 
    a portion of

[[Page 6015]]

    the funds appropriated therein contingent upon submission of plans 
    by a commission and approval thereof by the Committees on 
    Appropriations of both Houses, was ruled out as legislation 
    imposing additional duties on an executive officer notwithstanding 
    the fact that the law establishing the commission required it to 
    submit periodic reports to the President and Congress.

    On May 7, 1970,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
17399), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.116 Cong. Rec. 14561, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

                           salaries and expenses

        For expenses necessary for the Commission on Population Growth 
    and the American Future, including services as authorized by 5 U.S. 
    3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $965,000, to remain 
    available until expended: Provided, That $700,000 of the foregoing 
    amount shall not become available without submission of a program 
    and financial plan by the Commission and approval thereof by the 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [George H.W.] Bush [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained in lines 8 through 12 on 
    page 5 of the pending legislation on the ground that it fails to 
    comply with the provisions of clause 2 rule XXI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives, wherein paragraph 2 states:

            Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
        thereto changing existing law be in order. . . .

        I realize, Mr. Chairman, that substantive legislation can in 
    practice be added to an appropriation bill if it fits within the 
    applicable framework of the Holman Rule but does not impose any 
    additional or affirmative duties. The language--submission of a 
    program and financial plan by the Commission--does in fact impose 
    additional duties on the Commission.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Tennessee (Mr. Evins) will speak to the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: This is a limitation on 
    expenditures and we think it is acceptable.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that the language cited on page 5, lines 8 
    through 12, in the opinion of the Chair constitutes legislation in 
    an appropriation bill and the point of order is therefore sustained 
    and the proviso is stricken from the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Public Law No. 91-213, Mar. 16, 1970, 84 
Stat. 67, relating to the Com

[[Page 6016]]

mission on Population Growth and the American Future, provided (in 
section 8):

        In order that the President and the Congress may be kept 
    advised of the progress of its work, the Commission shall, from 
    time to time, report to the President and the Congress such 
    significant findings and recommendations as it deems advisable. The 
    Commission shall submit an interim report to the President and the 
    Congress one year after it is established and shall submit its 
    final report two years after the enactment of this Act (Mar. 16, 
    1970). The Commission shall cease to exist sixty days after the 
    date of the submission of its final report.

    If the language had said, in effect, that no funds would be 
expended unless and until the interim report required by law during 
this fiscal year is submitted, an argument might have been advanced 
that the provision was in order, under the theory that a mere 
reiteration of existing law, without change, is not precluded. However, 
the requirement of submission of a ``program and financial plan'' was 
regarded as an impermissible departure from the existing law, and the 
requirement of subsequent committee approval made the provision in the 
bill subject to a point of order.

Sec. 49.9 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    public works, and including funds for the Panama Canal Corporation, 
    an amendment prohibiting the corporation from disposing of real 
    property unless approved by the appropriate legislative committees 
    of the House and Senate was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 16, 1964,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the public works appropriation bill (H.R. 
11579), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 13973, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor Kretzer] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Sullivan: Page 9, line 5. After 
        the word ``use'', change the period to a colon and add:
            ``Provided, That no real property or rights to the use of 
        real property, or activity shall be disposed of or transferred 
        by license, lease, or otherwise except to another agency of the 
        United States Government unless specifically approved by the 
        appropriate legislative committees of the House and Senate.''

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    From the reading of the amendment, the Chair feels that the

[[Page 6017]]

    language is purely legislation. It has no bearing upon the 
    appropriation and falls within the prohibition of legislating on an 
    appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Adoption of Joint Resolution in Prescribed Form

Sec. 49.10 An amendment to the Defense Department appropriation 
    (general) bill denying the use of funds therein for continued 
    deployment of land-based U.S. Armed Forces participating in the 
    multinational force in Lebanon after Mar. 1, 1984, unless the 
    Congress adopts a joint resolution containing certain findings 
    (requiring the President to define the mission of U.S. forces in 
    Lebanon and to establish a set of achievable policy goals there as 
    well as upgrading security arrangements in the area) was ruled out 
    as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, requiring new 
    duties to be imposed on both the Congress (to pass the joint 
    resolution) and on the President (to make certain findings and to 
    sign the joint resolution) not presently required by law.

    On Nov. 2, 1983,(17) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4185), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland:
            Page 80, after line 2, insert the following:

                                    Title IX

                     united states armed forces in lebanon

            Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
        obligated or expended for the continued deployment of land-
        based United States Armed Forces participating in the 
        Multinational Force in Lebanon after March 1, 1984, unless the 
        Congress of the United States adopts a joint resolution which 
        contains the following findings:
            (a) That the President of the United States has defined a 
        clear and realistic mission for U.S. forces in Lebanon.
            (b) That the President has established a set of policy 
        goals in Lebanon that are achievable and has a clear agenda for 
        achieving those goals.
            (c) That security arrangements for American forces in the 
        area have been upgraded to the maximum extent possible. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment because it constitutes 
    legislation in an

[[Page 6018]]

    appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        The gentleman's amendment prohibits the use of funds to support 
    U.S. Armed Forces in Lebanon after March 1, 1984, unless Congress 
    adopts a concurrent resolution which contains certain Presidential 
    findings. Not only is this a contingent event which in itself is 
    legislation, but substantial additional duties will be required to 
    have the President submit findings to the Congress regarding 
    definition of mission establishment of policy goals, and upgrading 
    of security arrangements in Lebanon. Currently, the President is 
    not required to submit such findings to the Congress, and this 
    amendment will institute a new requirement on the President to 
    submit such findings prior to March 1, 1984, or face a cutoff of 
    funds. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I would like, 
    if I could, to contest the point of order on at least the one 
    ground raised by the gentleman because the gentleman indicated that 
    this amendment requires the President to establish a number of 
    additional findings.
        That is not what the amendment does. The amendment says, and I 
    would repeat, the amendment says that:

            None of the funds . . . may be obligated or expended for 
        the continued deployment of land-based Armed Forces 
        participating in Lebanon after March 1 unless the Congress of 
        the United States adopts a joint resolution containing the 
        following:

        So we are not asking an administrative agency of the Government 
    to establish findings. Those duties would fall on the Congress 
    itself. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I do want to 
    associate myself with the point of order that was made by the 
    gentleman from Alabama.
        Also, I would add that section 842 of the House Rules and 
    Manual states that:

            An amendment making an appropriation contingent upon a 
        recommendation or action not specifically required by law is 
        legislation. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment clearly requires that additional duties will be 
    imposed upon the Congress and upon the President since a joint 
    resolution would have to be signed by the President and there must 
    be some findings made by the President.
        For all of these reasons, the point of order is sustained.

Consideration of Legislative Proposal Regarding Schools for Military 
    Dependents

Sec. 49.11 A provision in an appropriation bill making the availability 
    of certain funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action on 
    legislative proposals was conceded to constitute legislation and 
    was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 6019]]

the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 4995), 
a point of order was sustained against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 28064, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will inquire, are there 
    any points of order against any portion of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David E.] Benior of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 784 . . . which legislate[s] under an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The portion of the bill to which the [point] of order relate[s] 
    is as follows:

            Sec. 784. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
        obligated or expended to transfer the Defense Departments' 
        Schools to the Department of Education, or to fund the 
        activities of the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education 
        until legislative proposals to repeal such transfer of the 
        dependents' schools are considered and acted upon by Congress.

    Mr. Joseph P. Addabbo, of New York, conceded and the Chair 
sustained the point of order.