[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[E. Provisions as Changing Existing Law; Provisions Affecting Executive Authority; Imposition of New Duties on Officials]
[Â§ 63. Other Agencies and Departments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6248-6269]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 63. Other Agencies and Departments

``No Funds Unless or Until Approved'' by

Sec. 63.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority, stating that no part of the funds shall 
    be used

[[Page 6249]]

    ``unless and until'' approved by the Director of the Bureau of the 
    Budget 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: . . .
        . . . 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. . . .''
        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) . . . It is clearly legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.2 To a provision in an appropriation bill restricting the use 
    of certain appropriations therein, an amendment limiting such use 
    ``unless the Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically 
    approves'' projects to be constructed and submits explanatory 
    reports to designated committees of Congress was conceded and held 
    to impose additional duties upon an official.

    On Mar. 20, 1952,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7072), a point of order was raised against an amendment to the 
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 2613-15, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and equipment: For expenses of the Commission in 
    connection with the construction of plant and the acquisition of 
    equipment and other expenses incidental thereto necessary in 
    carrying out the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 
    including purchase of land and interests in land, $371,741,000: 
    Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used--
        (A) to start any new construction project for which an estimate 
    was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year;
        (B) to start any new construction project the currently 
    estimated cost of

[[Page 6250]]

    which exceeds by 35 percent the estimated cost included therefor in 
    such budget. . . .
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 8, 
        lines 10 and 11, after ``estimated cost of which exceeds,'' 
        strike out ``35 percent of the estimated cost included therefor 
        in such budget'' and insert ``the estimated cost included 
        therefor in such budget:
            ``(C) to continue any community facility construction 
        project whenever the currently estimated cost thereof exceeds 
        the estimated cost included therefor in such budget; unless the 
        Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically approves the 
        start of such construction project or its continuation and a 
        detailed explanation thereof is submitted forthwith by the 
        Director to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the 
        House of Representatives and the Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy; the limitations contained in this proviso shall not 
        apply to any construction project the total estimated cost of 
        which does not exceed $500,000: and, as used herein, the term 
        `construction project' includes the purchase, alteration, or 
        improvement of buildings, and the term ``budget'' includes the 
        detailed justification supporting the budget estimates: 
        Provided further, That whenever the current estimate to 
        complete any construction project (except community facilities) 
        exceeds by 15 percent the estimated cost included therefor in 
        such budget or the estimated cost of a construction project 
        covered by clause (A) of the foregoing proviso which has been 
        approved by the Director, the Commission shall forthwith submit 
        a detailed explanation thereof to the Director of the Bureau of 
        the Budget and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives and the Joint Committee on 
        Atomic Energy: Provided further, That the two foregoing 
        provisos shall have no application with respect to technical 
        and production facilities (1) if the Commission certifies to 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that immediate 
        construction or immediate continuation of construction is 
        necessary to the national defense and security, and (2) if the 
        Director agrees that such certification is justified.''

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it places extra duties on the Director 
    of the Bureau of the Budget and that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: For the sake of time, I will concede 
    the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Requiring Subjective Determinations by Bureau of Public Roads

Sec. 63.3 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for federal 
    highways, an amendment specifying that no funds ``shall be used for 
    any

[[Page 6251]]

    highway program . . . which requires either the unjustified or 
    harmful nonconforming use of . . . land'' was held to be 
    legislative in nature since it imposed additional duties on the 
    Director of the Bureau of Public Roads.

    On Oct. 4, 1966,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18119, a State, Justice, Commerce Departments, and 
related agencies appropriation bill. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 24975, 24976, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Federal-aid Highways (Trust Fund)

        For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
    Code, which are attributable to Federal-aid highways, to remain 
    available until expended, $3,968,400,000. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment:
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cleveland: On page 41, end of line 
        2, after the period, add the following: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated in this section shall be used for any highway 
        program or project which requires either the unjustified or 
        harmful non-conforming use of any land from a public park, 
        recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic 
        site.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire, but will reserve it at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. . . .
        This appropriation item entitled ``Federal-Aid highways (trust 
    funds)'' contains funds for the payment of contract authorizations, 
    many of which have already been entered into. . .
        . . . [I]t would call for additional duties on the part of the 
    Bureau of Public Roads to determine what is unjustified and what is 
    harmful.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York raises a point of order to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire on the ground that, in 
    effect, it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and also it 
    would impose additional duties on the Department. The gentleman 
    from New Hampshire opposes the point of order. He argues that the 
    amendment is in consonance with the precedents of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is constrained to find from the facts as related by 
    the gentleman from New York, the effect of the amendment would not 
    be a limitation, but would in effect be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The amendment does impose additional duties on 
    the Department in that a determination would have to be made as to 
    what is unjustified, harmful, or nonconforming.

        In a previous ruling in our precedents, in a matter where there 
    was only one qualifying word--a deter

[[Page 6252]]

    mination of the word ``incapacitated''--the ruling was that this 
    would impose additional duties.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Denying Funds ``Unless Subject to Audit by Comptroller General''

Sec. 63.4 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.

    On June 14, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 12935 
(legislative branch appropriations for fiscal 1979), proceedings 
occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 17650, 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, my amendment No. 2.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coughlin: 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.
            (b) For purposes of subsection (a), any provision in Title 
        I of this Act following the provision relating to 
        ``Compensation of Members'' and preceding the heading ``Joint 
        Items'' is a provision described in this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: 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

[[Page 6253]]

    mandate audits across the board of every Member at any particular 
    time. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        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 character of 
        legislation and is subject to a point of order.

        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Coughlin] is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . 
        .

        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: The Chair is ready to rule.
        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.

[[Page 6254]]

        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 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. In a ruling in 
1970,(5) now effectively overruled by the precedent above, a 
provision prohibiting the use of funds in an appropriation bill for 
programs which are not subject to audit by the Comptroller General had 
been held in order as a negative restriction on the availability of 
funds. The language objected to in the proceedings in 1970 was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 116 Cong. Rec. 18412, 18413, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        None of the funds herein appropriated for ``International 
    Financial Institutions'' shall be available to assist in the 
    financing of any project or activity the expenditures for which are 
    not subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United 
    States.

Denying Funds to College Not in Compliance With Existing Law

Sec. 63.5 To an appropriation bill providing funds for construction of 
    college housing, an amendment specifying that none of the funds may 
    be allocated to an institution unless it is in full compliance with 
    a law requiring the withholding of funds to students who are 
    convicted of engaging in campus disorders was held to be a 
    limitation (not requiring additional duties on the part of any 
    federal official) and in order.

    On June 24, 1969,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12307, an independent offices and Department of 
Housing and Urban Development appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 17085, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion 
        of this and related precedents, see Sec. 53, supra, 
        particularly the ``Note on Contrary Rulings,'' which follows 
        Sec. 53.6.

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

[[Page 6255]]

                              College Housing

        For payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
    Urban Development Act of 1968, $2,500,000: Provided, That the 
    limitation otherwise applicable to the total payments that may be 
    required in any fiscal year by all contracts entered into under 
    such section is increased by $5,500,000.
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Scherle: On page 35, at the end of 
        line 24, strike the period and insert the following: ``And 
        provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
        act for payments authorized by section 1705 of the Housing and 
        Urban Development Act of 1968, shall be used to formulate or 
        carry out any grant or loan to any institution of higher 
        education unless such institution shall be in full compliance 
        with section 504 of Public Law 90-575.''

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: I make a point of order on the ground that this 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Scherle: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in order because it 
    is in conformity with rule 21, clause 2, Jefferson's Manual in 
    pages 426-427, specifying that amendments to appropriation bills 
    are in order if they meet the qualifications of the ``Holman 
    Rule.''
        My amendment is germane, negative in nature, and shows 
    retrenchment on its face. It does not either impose any additional 
    or affirmative duties or amend existing law.
        Very simply, my amendment states that none of the funds 
    appropriated in this section will be given to institutions of 
    higher education if they do not comply with the present law, 
    section 504--Public Law 90-575--of the Higher Education Amendments 
    of 1968.
        In support of my amendment, I cite section 843 of the rules of 
    the House discussing the Holman rule under rule 21. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule and holds that the 
    amendment is a proper limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 504 of Public Law No. 90-575, 
referred to above, provided in part:

        (a) If an institution of higher education determines, after 
    affording notice and opportunity for hearing to an individual 
    attending, or employed by, such institution, that such individual 
    has been convicted by any court of record of any crime which was 
    committed after the date of enactment of this Act and which 
    involved the use of . . . force, disruption, or the seizure of 
    property under control of any institution of higher education to 
    prevent officials or students in such institution from engaging in 
    their duties or pursuing their studies, and that such crime was of 
    a serious nature and contributed to a substantial disruption of the 
    administration of the institution with respect to which such crime 
    was

[[Page 6256]]

    committed, then the institution which such individual attends, or 
    is employed by, shall deny for a period of two years any further 
    payment to, or for the direct benefit of, such individual under 
    [specified] programs. . . .
        (b) If an institution of higher education determines, after 
    affording notice and opportunity for hearing to an individual 
    attending, or employed by, such institution, that such individual 
    has willfully refused to obey a lawful regulation or order of such 
    institution after the date of enactment of this Act, and that such 
    refusal was of a serious nature and contributed to a substantial 
    disruption of the administration of such institution, then such 
    institution shall deny, for a period of two years, any further 
    payment to, or for the direct benefit of, such individual under 
    (specified) programs.

Export-Import Bank--Denial of Funding for Certain Countries

Sec. 63.6 To a supplemental appropriation bill including funds for the 
    Export-Import Bank, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    made available by the bill shall be used by the bank to guarantee 
    the payment of obligations incurred by Communist countries, or to 
    participate in extension of credit to any such country, was held in 
    order as a proper limitation merely defining noneligible recipients 
    of those funds.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18381. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    16, after line 3, add the following:
        ``Sec. 803. None of the funds made available because of the 
    provisions of this bill shall be used by the Export-Import Bank to 
    either guarantee the payment of any obligation hereafter incurred 
    by any Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) or any agency or 
    national thereof, or in any other way to participate in the 
    extension of credit to any such country, agency, or nation in 
    connection with the purchase of any product by such country, agency 
    or nation.''
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it appears, 
    although I have not had an opportunity to examine a copy of the 
    amendment submitted by the gentleman from Illinois, that the 
    amendment is subject to the point of order that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and seemingly requires additional duties. 
    . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is taken exactly from 
    the language of an amendment which was part of an appropriation 
    bill in 1963. I am sure many of the Members present today will 
    recall the Christmas Eve session which did extend to that late date 
    because of this amendment. The amendment itself does not impose any 
    burdens, duties, or obligations on the President. It is simply an 
    act of re

[[Page 6257]]

    trenchment and withholding and denial of funds for specific 
    purposes. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Findley] is in the nature of a limitation on an 
    appropriation and does not, in the opinion of the Chair, impose 
    extra burdens or administrative duties upon the administration in a 
    way that would subject it to a point of order. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

General Services Administration--``Buy-American'' Requirements

Sec. 63.7 A section in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for the purchase of foreign-made tools except 
    to the extent that the Administrator of the General Services 
    Administration determines that domestically produced tools are 
    unavailable for procurement, was held to impose additional duties 
    on that federal official and was ruled out as legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 22, 1972,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15585), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 22097, 22098, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall be available for the procurement of or for the 
        payment of the salary of any person engaged in the procurement 
        of any hand or measuring tool(s) not produced in the United 
        States or its possessions except to the extent that the 
        Administrator of General Services or his designee shall 
        determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity 
        of hand or measuring tools produced in the United States or its 
        possessions cannot be procured as and when needed from sources 
        in the United States and its possessions or except in 
        accordance with procedures prescribed by section 6-104.4(b) of 
        Armed Services Procurement Regulation dated January 1, 1969, as 
        such regulation existed on June 15, 1970. This section shall be 
        applicable to all solicitations for bids opened after its 
        enactment.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I make a point of order against the language to be 
    found on page 31, beginning on line 25, section 505, and running to 
    page 32 to and including line 14, as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I specifically refer, Mr. Chairman, to the 
    language found on page 32 which directs ``that the Administrator of 
    General Services or his designee shall determine that a 
    satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of hand or measuring 
    tools

[[Page 6258]]

    produced in the United States'' and so on and so forth.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, this proviso 
    has been in the legislation for a great many years. At this date 
    and time it imposes no function on the GSA it is not already doing. 
    So we think it is a very regular part of the bill, and I think by 
    precedent it is entitled to remain.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The fact that the provision has been carried in prior 
    appropriation bills is not conclusive in connection with the point 
    of order that is raised at this time. The provision does add 
    additional requirements and duties. In the opinion of the Chair 
    this is legislation on an appropriation bill, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Steed did make the point that since 
this provision had been carried for several years, the Administrator of 
the General Services Administration was in fact already performing the 
``extra duties'' which were required by the amendment.
    The extra duties which may invalidate an amendment as being 
``legislation'' are duties not now required by law for the fiscal year 
in question. The fact that they may be presently in effect, as required 
for present and prior years in annual appropriation acts would not 
protect an amendment from a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

Denying Housing Funds--Availability Contingent on New Analysis of Need

Sec. 63.8 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    funds in the bill be used for expenses of preparing housing market 
    analyses which do not include a breakdown of the housing needs of 
    the various segments of the population was held to be legislation 
    imposing new duties to provide information, where no law was cited 
    authorizing the type of analysis required by the amendment.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
[H.R. 8583], a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 4267, 4268, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    another amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Page 65, line 11, after the 
        colon and

[[Page 6259]]

        following the words ``(12 U.S.C. 1701)'', insert the following: 
        ``That no part of any appropriation or fund in this act shall 
        be used for administrative expenses in connection with the 
        preparation of any housing market analyses which do not include 
        a breakdown of the housing needs of the various segments of the 
        population including those segments which are unable to obtain 
        adequate housing under established home-financing programs.''

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order that I did to the other amendment. It is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill and requires additional 
    duties and responsibilities of an administrative agency.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, in response to that, let me say this 
    is certainly a proper limitation upon an appropriation. Funds are 
    provided right now for the preparation of such housing market 
    analyses. All this would do would be to limit the funds to certain 
    types of housing market analyses and I submit, therefore, the 
    amendment is proper.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Up to the word ``analyses,'' in the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment is all right. Following that, the amendment is an 
    infringement upon the duties of an executive and imposes additional 
    duties. In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order should be 
    sustained and is sustained.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Denial of Funds for 
    U.S.-Soviet Joint Venture

Sec. 63.9 To a general appropriation bill, including funds for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an amendment 
    providing that no part of the funds therein shall be used for 
    expenses of a joint United States-Russian manned lunar landing was 
    held a proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and 
    in order.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8747, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 19258-60, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: 
    Page 37, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``No part of any appropriation made available to the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act shall be used for 
    expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried 
    out jointly by the United States and any Communist, Communist-
    controlled, or Communist-dominated country, or for expenses of any 
    aeronautical and space activities [as defined in sec. 103(1) of the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958]

[[Page 6260]]

    which are primarily designed to facilitate or prepare for 
    participation in such a joint manned lunar landing, except pursuant 
    to an agreement hereafter made by the President by and with the 
    advice and consent of the Senate as provided by section 205 of the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Washington a question. What is the reason for the 
    inclusion of language at the end of the amendment reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the 
        President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as 
        provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Act of 1958.

        The Chair, to make it clear why he is asking the question, has 
    examined section 205 of that act. That says:

                           international cooperation

            Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy 
        guidance of the President, may engage in a program of 
        international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, 
        and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, 
        pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate.

        The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need 
    to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some 
    way it changes existing law?
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I would say that it does not change 
    existing law but simply follows it. But, in order to clarify this 
    matter I ask unanimous consent to strike from the amendment the 
    words from ``except pursuant to an agreement'' to the end.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?
        Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That partially cures it, but it 
    does not cure it by any means. I read:

            Or for expenses of any aeronautical and space activities 
        (as defined in section 103(1) of the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Act of 1958) which are primarily designed to facilitate 
        or prepare for participation in such a joint manned lunar 
        landing.

        Somebody is going to have to spend a whole lot of time on this.
        You are placing a tremendous burden upon somebody to do what? 
    ``To primarily decide or prepare for participation in a joint moon 
    landing.''
        Mr. Chairman, there are four or five conditions contained in 
    this. It is extra duty. Somebody is going to have to make that 
    decision. It is purely legislation . . . and I said to my 
    distinguished friend from Washington a while ago, we will take it 
    to conference and I know the gentleman will give us the liberty of 
    throwing it out if we get in trouble and get too far into foreign 
    affairs. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and the Chair is of the 
    opinion that it is a proper limitation. Therefore, the point of 
    order is overruled.

[[Page 6261]]

Imposing Delay on Expenditure

Sec. 63.10 To a bill appropriating funds for the National Aeronautics 
    and Space Administration (which had authority by law to use 
    appropriations for capital expenditures providing that the 
    Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House was notified) an 
    amendment specifying that no funds therein appropriated could be 
    used for capital items until 14 days after the notification 
    required by law, was held to be a limitation upon the expenditure 
    of funds, not imposing additional duties and in order.

    On June 29, 1959,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 12126, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. For another 
        precedent involving the issues raised by an attempt to regulate 
        the rate or timing of expenditures, see Sec. 80.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 4, 
    line 16, after ``expended'' insert: ``Provided, That no part of the 
    foregoing appropriation shall be available for other items of a 
    capital nature which exceed $250,000 until 14 days have elapsed 
    after notification as required by law to the Committee on Science 
    and Astronautics of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
    on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate.'' . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it changes 
    existing law and requires additional duties on the part of the 
    Space Agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to that portion of subsection (b) of 
    Public Law 86-45 approved June 15, 1959, with reference to 
    expenditures in excess of $250,000 and notice to the legislative 
    committees. In addition thereto, the amendment contains a period of 
    notice of 14 days. However, this does not impose a new duty, 
    because it is a limitation upon the expenditure of the funds within 
    a period of 14 days.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Denial of Research and Development Funds Under Certain Types of 
    Contracts

Sec. 63.11 An amendment providing that none of the funds appropriated 
    in the bill may be used to enter into research or development 
    contracts under which new inventions or patents, conceived in the 
    process of per

[[Page 6262]]

    forming the contract, do not become the property of the United 
    States was held to be a limitation merely describing contracts 
    which may not be funded and imposing only incidental additional 
    duties on the executive branch and therefore in order.

    On May 5, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11998, a Department of Defense appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 9624-27, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            An issue that might be addressed more directly today is 
        whether, under existing law, the Department of Defense is given 
        discretion with regard to entering into contracts of the type 
        described. The effect of provisions which affect the 
        discretionary authority of officials that is conferred by law 
        is discussed in Sec. 51, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Emergency Fund, Department of Defense

        For transfer by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of 
    the Bureau of the Budget, to any appropriation for military 
    functions under the Department of Defense available for research . 
    . . and evaluation, or procurement or production related thereto, 
    to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
    for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
    transferred, $150,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [Harris B.] McDowell [Jr., of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDowell: On page 29, after line 
        13, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated in this act 
        shall be available for making payments on any research or 
        development contract under which any invention, improvement, or 
        discovery conceived or first actually reduced to practice in 
        the course of performance of such contract or any subcontract 
        thereof, or under which any patent based on such invention, 
        improvement, or discovery, does not become the property of the 
        United States.''
            And renumber the following sections accordingly.

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state it. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: The point of order is that 
    this proposed amendment would imply additional duties beyond the 
    scope of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to reread the language of the 
    amendment and to refer to the precedents applicable, in the opinion 
    of the Chair, thereto. It is the opinion of this occupant of the 
    chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware is, 
    in fact, a limitation on the appropriations appropriated in this 
    act, and while it may be argued that the limitation imposed causes 
    or results in additional burdens on the executive branch, in the 
    opinion of this occupant of the chair, that is normal and 
    reasonable to

[[Page 6263]]

    expect in the carrying out of the limitation.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Setting Affirmative Policy

Sec. 63.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    the Patent Office for issuance of certain publications and 
    providing that ``such other papers when reproduced for sale to be 
    sold at such prices as determined by the Commissioner'' was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.

    On May 15, 1947,(20) 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 provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 5383, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Patent Office

        Salaries and expenses: For necessary expenses, including 
    personal services in the District of Columbia and the salary of the 
    Commissioner at $10,000 per annum . . . production by 
    photolithographic process of copies of weekly issue of drawings of 
    patents and designs, reproduction of copies and drawings and 
    specifications of exhausted patents, designs, trade-marks, foreign 
    patent drawings, and other papers, such other papers when 
    reproduced for sale to be sold at such prices as determined by the 
    Commissioner; photo prints of pending application drawings; and 
    other contingent and miscellaneous expenses of the Patent Office: 
    Provided, That the headings of the drawings for patented cases may 
    be multigraphed in the Patent Office for the purpose of 
    photolithography; $8,000,000.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Church: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 53, lines 10 and 11, as follows:

            Such other papers when reproduced for sale to be sold at 
        such prices as determined by the Commissioner--

        That sentence is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    unauthorized by law. . . .
        I cannot, Mr. Chairman, withdraw my point of order. I insist on 
    my point of order.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: We concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office--Denial of Funds for Seizure of Mail

Sec. 63.13 An amendment to a Treasury and Post Office De

[[Page 6264]]

    partments appropriation bill, providing that no funds therein may 
    be used for the seizure of mail (in connection with income tax 
    investigations) without a search warrant authorized by law, was 
    held to be a limitation not imposing additional duties and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 6870, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: On 
    page 8, immediately before the period in line 11, insert the 
    following: ``: Provided, That no appropriation made by any 
    provision of this Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, may 
    be used for the seizure of mail without a search warrant authorized 
    by law in carrying out the activities of the United States in 
    connection with the seizure of property for collection of taxes due 
    to the United States.''
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order against the 
    amendment because it is not a limitation on appropriations. It 
    requires actions by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which can be 
    authorized only by legislation.
        The Chairman: The language is a limitation here. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order. The point of order is not sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: But see the proceedings of June 16, 1977 
(discussed in the Parliamentarian's Note following Sec. 77.1, infra), 
where a requirement for a search warrant ``based on probable cause as 
authorized by law'' was ruled out as legislation imposing new 
affirmative duties to make applications to courts, a procedure not 
uniformly required by the federal courts.

Treasury Department to Determine Rates of Exchange

Sec. 63.14 Language in an appropriation bill providing for purchase of 
    foreign currencies at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury 
    Department was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Aug. 7, 1957,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9131), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 13797, 13911, 13912, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Activities

            For expenses to carry out the provisions of section 1011(d) 
        of the

[[Page 6265]]

        United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, 
        as amended (22 U.S.C. 1442(d)), $3,525,000: Provided, That this 
        amount shall be used for purchase of foreign currencies from 
        the special account for the informational media guaranty 
        program, at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury 
        Department, and the amounts of any such purchases shall be 
        covered into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. . . .

        Mr. [Homer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained in lines 1 through 10, page 
    18, the point of order being that it is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill giving affirmative direction and, further, that 
    it imposes new duties on the Treasury Department. I think the 
    language obviously imposes a new duty on the Treasury Department 
    and also there is obviously a proviso which is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney: Yes, Mr. Chairman; but before referring 
    to the basic law I should like to point out that the language 
    presently contained at page 18 of the bill was submitted to the 
    committee by the Department of State, through Deputy Assistant 
    Secretary Wilkinson and Special Assistant to the Assistant 
    Secretary Bernard Katzen. The department drafted it.
        Section 1442, subdivision (d), of title 22 of the United States 
    Code is entitled ``Sale of Foreign Currencies--Special Account--
    Availability.'' This provides that--

            Foreign currencies available after June 30, 1955, from 
        conversions made pursuant to the obligation of informational 
        media guarantees may be sold, in accordance with Treasury 
        Department regulations, for dollars which shall be deposited in 
        the special account and shall be available for payments under 
        new guaranties. Such currencies shall be available as may be 
        provided for the Congress in appropriation acts, for use for 
        educational, scientific, and cultural purposes which are in the 
        national interest of the United States, and for such other 
        purposes of mutual interest as may be agreed to by the 
        governments of the United States and the country from which the 
        currencies derive.

        Now, the proviso beginning on line 5 of page 18 of the pending 
    bill states:

            Provided, That this amount shall be used for purchase of 
        foreign currencies from the special account for the 
        informational media guaranty program, at rates of exchange 
        determined by the Treasury Department, and the amounts of any 
        such purchases shall be covered into miscellaneous receipts of 
        the Treasury.

        The purpose of this language is to provide that the 
    appropriation of $3,525,000 referred to in lines 1 to 5 on that 
    page of the bill shall be used to purchase from the United States 
    Treasury Israeli pounds in that amount and with which this 
    appropriation is connected so that they will be covered into 
    miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.
        The Chairman: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman from New 
    York if the section of the code from which he read refers to 
    purchases as well as sales?
        Mr. Rooney: I assume from the language contained in that 
    section of the

[[Page 6266]]

    code that it refers to both purchases and sales. This proviso makes 
    it clear and certain that the money appropriated would not come 
    from the general fund.
        The Chairman: Then, the gentleman from New York states it as a 
    fact that the section of the code from which he read uses only the 
    word ``sale'' or ``sold'' rather than ``purchase''?

        Mr. Rooney: I must concede that only the ``sold'' is contained 
    in the section, Mr. Chairman.
        However, I should like to add that when this section of the 
    code refers to a sale it is certainly implied that it also means a 
    purchase. There cannot be a sale without a purchase.
        Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman from New York has not addressed himself to the language 
    ``at rates of exchange determined by the Treasury Department,'' 
    which language obviously gives the Treasury Department additional 
    duties which are not in the original act. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Budge] has made a point of order 
    against that portion of the bill appearing on lines 1 through 10 on 
    page 18 on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] has cited the 
    language contained in title 22, United States Code, section 
    1442(d), and that the reference to that section indicates that 
    authority and duty in connection with the sale of foreign 
    currencies is imposed, whereas the language in the bill imposes the 
    duty in connection with purchases of foreign currencies.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the language constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and sustains the point of 
    order.

Indian Affairs; Travel Expenses of Tribal Councils

Sec. 63.15 Appropriations for expenses of tribal councils for travel, 
    including supplies and equipment, $5 per day in lieu of 
    subsistence, and 5 cents per mile for use of automobiles (including 
    visits to Washington, D.C.) when authorized and approved by the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs, was held not authorized by law and 
    to include legislation.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. When the 
following amendment was offered, a point of order was raised against 
certain of its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2646, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 63, line 8, 
    insert:
        ``Expenses of tribal councils or committees thereof (tribal 
    funds): For traveling and other expenses of members of tribal 
    councils, business committees, or other tribal organizations, when 
    engaged on business of the tribes, including supplies and 
    equipment, not to exceed $5 per diem in lieu of subsistance,

[[Page 6267]]

    and not to exceed 5 cents per mile for use of personally owned 
    automobiles, and including visits to Washington, D.C., when duly 
    authorized or approved in advance by the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs, $50,000, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of 
    the particular tribe interested: Provided, That except for the 
    Navajo Tribe, not more than $5,000 shall be expended from the funds 
    of any one tribe or band of Indians for the purposes herein 
    specified.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law and 
    that it creates additional duties for the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs and, generally, that the entire matter is unauthorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is authorized 
    under the Snyder Act, and I call attention to title 25, section 13, 
    which clearly authorizes this expenditure. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The item to which attention has been called in the last 
    paragraph of section 13, title 25, United States Code, includes the 
    following language:

            And for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It does not seem to the Chair that this language is sufficient 
    to include the various items that are included in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the Chair therefore 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

Denying Salary to Postal Service Officer Who Undertakes Certain Actions

Sec. 63.16 Where an amendment to an appropriation bill denied the 
    availability of funds for payment of the salary of any officer of 
    the Postal Service who took certain actions with respect to 
    employees who communicated with Members of Congress concerning the 
    Postal Service, the Chair found that such provision did not impose 
    additional duties on federal officers, but ruled the amendment out 
    of order on other grounds.

    On June 28, 1971,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9271), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 22442, 22443, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. William D. Ford: On page 36, 
        insert ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 508.'' in line 10; and 
        immediately below line 14 on page 36 insert the following:
            ``(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this or any 
        other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
        any officer or employee

[[Page 6268]]

        of the United States Postal Service, or any officer or employee 
        of the Government of the United States outside the United 
        States Postal Service, who--
            ``(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
        prohibit or prevent, any officer or employee of the United 
        States Postal Service from having any direct oral or written 
        communication or contact with any member or committee of 
        Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the 
        employment of such officer or employee or pertaining to the 
        United States Postal Service in any way, irrespective of 
        whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of 
        such officer or employee or in response to the request or 
        inquiry of such Member or committee; or
            ``(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
        reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or 
        efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
        transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
        employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
        condition of employment of, any officer or employee of the 
        United States Postal Service, or attempts or threatens to 
        commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such 
        officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact 
        of such officer or employee with any Member or committee of 
        Congress as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.''

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, and I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (9) At this point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this, it seems to me, is subject to a point of 
    order in several instances. First of all, there is paragraph (b) of 
    the amendment. There is a provision that no part of any 
    appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be available 
    for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the 
    U.S. Postal Service. It is not limited to this act but to any other 
    act, which I think makes it subject to a point of order.
        Furthermore, under the next provision, which prohibits or 
    prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, that 
    puts such additional duties on the director of the Postal Service 
    that it becomes almost impossible for him to administer this, 
    particularly as to further threats in the future.
        I believe it is very apparent from reading this that additional 
    duties are placed on the executive branch of the Government, on the 
    Postal Service, and in addition to any objections to part (b) or 
    the rest of the amendment, I believe it is sufficient to sustain 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. William D. Ford: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, it is not necessary to legislate with this 
    amendment, because the law that this amendment attempts to enforce 
    has been on the books and it has been the law of this country since 
    1912. We now have substantive law which now very substantially says 
    that you shall not do any of the things set forth in this act. What 
    this amendment proposes to do is withhold the expenditure of the 
    supplemental funds being appropriated by this bill to the operation 
    of the Postal Service from anyone

[[Page 6269]]

    who violates the law that has been the law since 1912. The only 
    determination that is necessary to be made by anybody is not to 
    violate the law. . . .
        The Chairman: The . . . Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that this amendment does not impose additional 
    duties to the extent that is objectionable under the precedents 
    relating to limitations on appropriation bills. However, the Chair 
    also finds that the amendment does seek to cover matters beyond 
    those which are in the purview of this bill since it provides that 
    no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act 
    shall be available for certain purposes with respect to officers or 
    employees of the Government whether inside or outside the U.S. 
    Postal Service or agencies covered by this bill.
        Therefore, this constitutes legislation on the pending 
    appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the point of order.