[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 69. Commerce and Public Works]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6397-6409]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 69. Commerce and Public Works

Maritime Commission; Limiting Funds for Vessel Construction

Sec. 69.1 To a paragraph of a bill providing money for construction of 
    ships by the Maritime Commission, an amendment prohibiting such 
    appropriation for the construction of any vessel for use as a naval 
    auxiliary that is not constructed on a reimbursable basis from 
    funds appropriated to the Navy Department pursuant to an act as 
    specified, was held a proper limitation on an appropriation bill 
    and in order.

    On Feb. 26, 1943, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
1974, a deficiency appropriation bill. Under consideration was the 
following provision: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 1359, 1360, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Construction fund, United States Maritime Commission: To 
    increase the construction fund established by the Merchant Marine 
    act, 1936, $4,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount of contract 
    authorizations contained in prior acts for ship construction and 
    facilities incident thereto is hereby increased by $5,250,000,000 
    (toward which $3,076,280,455 is included to the amount appropriated 
    herein): Provided further, That without regard to the limitations 
    imposed thereon in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1943, 
    the Commission is hereby authorized to incur obligations for 
    administrative expenses, including the objects specified in such 
    Appropriation Act, during the fiscal year 1943, of not to exceed 
    $16,625,000.

    An amendment was offered, against which a point of order was made: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 1362, 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Vinson of Georgia: Page 11, 
    line 4, before the word ``Provided'', insert the following: 
    ``Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this act shall 
    be available for the construction or acquisition and conversion of 
    any vessel for use as a naval auxiliary which is not constructed or 
    acquired and converted on a reimbursable basis from funds 
    appropriated to the Navy Department pursuant to an act authorizing 
    the construction or acquisition and conversion of auxiliary vessels 
    for the Navy Department, and.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, this is on the point or 
    order. I

[[Page 6398]]

    submit this is not legislation on an appropriation bill. It is a 
    limitation on the money to be used in the construction of certain 
    types of ships. . . .
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, this 
    appropriation bill provides money for the construction of ships by 
    the Maritime Commission. As I understand the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia, it simply limits those funds as to the 
    type of ships for which the funs might be used and is, therefore, 
    very definitely a limitation on the appropriation itself and not 
    legislation.
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard briefly?
        The Chairman: (10) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, the beginning of the section is that 
    the appropriation is made to increase the construction fund 
    established by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and any amendment 
    such as proposed by the gentleman effects an amendment to the 
    Merchant Marine Act, 1936. If legislation is brought in to 
    accomplish the purpose which the gentleman desires, I have no 
    objection, but I am unable and he is unable to say what effect it 
    will have upon the fund that is provided for the work now in 
    progress. But whether that is true or not, it would be an amendment 
    to the construction fund provided by the Merchant Marine Act.
        Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, here is an authorization 
    for the Maritime Commission to build ships, any kind of ships. We 
    put a limitation on it and say they cannot build a certain type of 
    ship. That certainly is not legislation. It is a limitation.
        That is the whole point. . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Georgia [Mr. Vinson] provides for a limitation upon the 
    appropriation contained in this bill. Therein it differs from the 
    last amendment offered. . . .
        The Chair thinks that clearly this is merely a limitation upon 
    an appropriation, therefore overrules the point of order.

    Note: This amendment would probably be ruled out of order today, 
because it appears to make the availability of funds contingent upon 
future authorizations and future appropriations. Mr. Vinson's concern 
is proposing the amendment seemed to be to ensure that money would not 
be available, from the construction fund cited in the bill, for 
construction of auxiliary vessels without specific authorization. He 
had earlier (11) offered the following amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 1360, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Vinson of Georgia: Page 11, line 4, 
    insert ``Provided further, That no funds appropriation under this 
    act or heretofore or hereafter appropriated under this heading, 
    shall be available for the construction or acquisition and 
    conversion of any vessels for use as a naval auxiliary, except on a 
    reimbursable basis from funds appropriation to the Navy Department, 
    pursuant to an act authorizing the construction or acquisition and 
    conversion of auxiliary vessels for the Navy Department.''

[[Page 6399]]

    Explaining the amendment, Mr. Vinson stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter, and I shall 
    state to the Committee how it happened, how it arose. In January 
    the Navy Department submitted to the Budget in the usual method 
    required by the Department for clearance, a bill to authorize the 
    construction of a million tons of auxiliary. Bear in mind that from 
    the beginning of time down to date the Navy has always controlled 
    what is known in the Navy as the auxiliary shipping bills. For 
    instance, in 1941 and 1942 we authorize 2,500,000 tons of 
    auxiliaries. In the past that authorization has been brought before 
    the House in a separate bill from the Naval Affairs Committee, and 
    when it becomes law, then we go to the Committee on Appropriations 
    to get the money to carry out the authorization. When the Navy 
    Department in January desired to build a million tons of auxiliary, 
    what happened? The Naval budget officer from the Navy, on January 
    13 went before the general Budget officials and they said this:

            They state that they were already giving to the Maritime 
        Commission, Admiral Land, sufficient money to finance the 
        building of the merchant ships which can be built according to 
        the types which we call naval auxiliary tonnage. In addition to 
        that, they have given and propose to continue to give the War 
        Shipping Administration, also Admiral Land, plenty of money to 
        convert many of the ships for Army or Navy use. The paper today 
        states a request for $4,000,000,000 before Congress for the 
        Maritime Commission.

        Here it is in the bill. Now, what does that mean? It means that 
    if the construction of the auxiliaries for the Navy, which are 
    composed of tankers, supply ships, repair ships, and other ships 
    that are armed but do not carry armament, they propose by the set-
    up that is not being worked out with the Maritime Commission or the 
    War Shipping Administration, to give to the Navy its auxiliaries. 
    Now, I am opposed to the War Shipping Administration or the 
    Maritime Commission taking the place of Congress. In other words, 
    what is under way now is to circumvent Congress in making the 
    authorization, the Naval Affairs Committee in presenting it to the 
    House, and the Naval Appropriations Committee from making the 
    appropriation. We have no objection to the Maritime Committee 
    acting as the agent of the Navy to construct any of its 
    auxiliaries, but we do propose to enter a vigorous protest against 
    the Navy Department becoming the pensioner of the Maritime 
    Commission or the War Shipping Administration.

    The amendment in that instance, however, was conceded to be out of 
order.

Limiting Purchase of Foreign Agricultural Products if Domestic Supplies 
    Adequate

Sec. 69.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a 
    motion to recommit which provided that no funds should be used to 
    purchase any foreign dairy or other competitive agricultural 
    products produced in the

[[Page 6400]]

    United States in sufficient quantities to meet needs, was held a 
    limitation and in order.

    On May 19, 1939,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
6392, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments and Judiciary 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Hawks [Jr., of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the 
    bill to the committee with instructions to report it back forthwith 
    with the following amendment: At the end of the bill insert a new 
    paragraph, as follows:
        ``No part of the funds appropriated in this bill shall be used 
    for the purpose of purchasing any foreign dairy or other 
    competitive foreign agricultural products which are not [sic] 
    produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet 
    domestic needs.''
        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the motion to recommit is not in order in that it is an 
    attempt to place legislation in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, it 
    is a limitation on appropriations.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from South Carolina.
        The point of order has been made that the motion to recommit is 
    not in order because of the fact that it sets up matters of 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. The Chair has tried carefully 
    to read the provisions of the motion. On a fair reading and 
    construction of the whole motion it appears that there is nothing 
    affirmative in the motion in the way of legislation. It appears to 
    the Chair on the whole to be a restriction or a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of funds.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    More recently, a provision with a similar intent contained in H.R. 
14262, the Department of Defense appropriation bill, was ruled out of 
order.(14) In that case, the portion of the bill in question 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 122 Cong. Rec. 19014, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 723. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
    shall be available for the procurement of any article of food, 
    clothing, cotton, woven silk or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn 
    for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric, 
    or wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn or contained in 
    fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles), or speciality metals 
    including stainless steel flatware, not grown, reprocessed, reused, 
    or produced in the United States or its possessions, except to the 
    extent that the Secretary of the Department concerned shall 
    determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of 
    any articles of food or clothing or any form of cotton, woven silk 
    and woven silk

[[Page 6401]]

    blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or 
    coated synthetic fabric, wool, or specialty metals including 
    stainless steel flatware, grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced 
    in the United States or its possessions cannot be procured as and 
    when needed at United States market prices.

    The affirmative and express duty placed on the Secretary to make 
the determinations described was probably a determining factor in the 
Chair's ruling.

Federal-aid Airports

Sec. 69.3 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 existing law permitted inclusion of language making 
    that appropriation contingent upon subsequent congressional 
    approval.

        On May 15, 1947,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 3311, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
    and Judiciary appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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

[[Page 6402]]

    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: (16) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a limitation, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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.

Public Works

Sec. 69.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds 
    appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by law ``or 
    which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be 
    appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the 
    amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to 
    limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order 
    against the language as legislation was overruled.

    On May 24, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12326. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law; detailed 
    studies, and plans and specifications, of projects (including those 
    for development with participation or under consideration for 
    participation by States, local governments, or private groups) 
    authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such studies 
    shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
    construction); and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer to the 
    Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife as 
    authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available until 
    expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by 
    a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line 
    18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a

[[Page 6403]]

    law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may 
    be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to 
    be appropriated.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    make the further point of order that this is authorizing 
    appropriations for projects not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958, by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber]. It also happens that the present 
    occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The Chair 
    ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no 
    question about its referring to the controlling phrase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be emphasized that the provision 
in question did not permit appropriations for unauthorized projects, 
but merely stated that where projects are authorized, even just for 
planning, money is only available within limits now or hereafter 
changed. This and related precedents are discussed further in Sec. 7, 
supra. See, for example, the June 18, 1958, ruling discussed at 
Sec. 7.10, supra.

Public Works Acceleration

Sec. 69.5 An amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill providing 
    funds for public works acceleration but prohibiting use of such 
    funds for (1) projects previously rejected and (2) projects, other 
    than for forest preservation, not requiring state or local matching 
    funds was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 10, 1963,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5517. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 6130-32, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]:
        Page 7, after line 14 insert:

                        ``Public Works Acceleration

        ``For an additional amount for `Public Works Acceleration', 
    $450,000,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for any project that has ever been rejected by the Senate or 
    House of Representatives or by any Committee of the Congress: 
    Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used 
    for any project that does not require a financial contribution from 
    State or local sources except projects dealing with

[[Page 6404]]

    preservation of forests in the jurisdiction of the Department of 
    Agriculture and the Department of the Interior.''. . .
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment on the basis that you are legislating in an 
    appropriation bill. This particular language which is added by this 
    amendment is, in fact, legislation.

        The Chairman: (20) Will the gentleman state in what 
    respect it is legislation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Laird: The legislation is in the proviso as far as the 
    matching formula is concerned, which is contrary to the basic law. 
    The second proviso of the amendment does not follow the basic act 
    which was passed in the last session of Congress and is, in fact, 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit 
    that this language is accurate and in order. The gentleman refers 
    to the proviso ``providing further that no part of this 
    appropriation shall''. It only deals with this appropriation. It is 
    a limitation on the use of the fund and, therefore, I submit it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The Chairman has had an opportunity to examine 
    the amendment and feels that the matter discussed is a limitation 
    on the appropriation. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authorizing law, Public Law No. 87-658 
(the Public Works Acceleration Act of 1962) required matching funds for 
projects but did not contain the exception stated in the amendment for 
projects dealing with preservation of forests. Had the argument been 
pressed that to provide such an exception would allow an unauthorized 
use of funds for forest projects which do not meet the conditions of 
the authorizing legislation the Chair should have upheld the point of 
order.

Public Buildings

Sec. 69.6 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that ``none 
    of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for providing 
    facilities at Flint, Mich.'' was held in order as a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds.

    On July 22, 1954,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9936, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 11459, 11460, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for alteration of Federal buildings to 
    provide facilities for additional Federal judges as authorized by 
    the act of February 10, 1954 (68 Stat. 8), and additional court 
    personnel, and for expansion of existing court facilities, 
    including costs of moving agencies thereby displaced from space in 
    Federal buildings, $3

[[Page 6405]]

    million, to remain available until June 30, 1956.
        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cederberg: On page 12, line 21, 
        after ``1956'', insert ``Provided, That none of the funds 
        herein appropriated shall be used for providing facilities at 
        Flint, Mich.''

        Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, this is a limitation upon the 
    appropriation bill rather than legislation.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan is definitely a 
    limitation. The point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee Valley Authority Personal Services

Sec. 69.7 To an appropriation bill, an amendment placing a limitation 
    on the amounts in the bill to be used for personal services in the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority was held to be a proper limitation since 
    restricted to funds in the bill.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation bill. 
During consideration, a point of order against an amendment was 
overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 2674, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: 
    Page 35, line 24, strike out the period and insert a comma and add 
    the following: ``and not to exceed $99,131,125 of funds available 
    under this section shall be used for personal services.''. . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I made the point of order that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It says ``funds 
    available.'' There are two types of funds available to the TVA--
    appropriated funds and its own revenues. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment refers only to 
    funds contained within this section of this bill and is merely a 
    negative limitation, which is in order. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Just prior to this ruling, the Chair had 
ruled out of order an amendment stating that ``not to exceed 
$99,131,125 of the funds available to the Tennessee Valley Authority 
shall be used for personal services.'' [See 98 Cong. Rec. 2673, 2674]. 
The Chair stated that that amendment was not limited to funds contained 
in the bill.

[[Page 6406]]

Restricting Highway Funds to Limit Vehicle Weights

Sec. 69.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of Interstate Highway System funds in the bill by any state 
    which permits the Interstate System to be used by vehicles in 
    excess of certain sizes and weights but not interfering with 
    contractual obligations entered into prior to enactment was held in 
    order as a negative limitation on the use of funds in the bill 
    which did not impose new duties on federal officials (who were 
    already under an obligation to determine vehicle weights and widths 
    in each state) and which did not directly change any allocation 
    formula in existing law.

    On July 10, 1975,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill (H.R. 8365), a point of order against an amendment 
was overruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 22006, 22007, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: 
        page 35, after line 21, insert:
            Sec. 315. (a) No part of any appropriation for the 
        Interstate System contained in this Act shall be available for 
        expenditure or obligation in any State within the boundaries of 
        which the Interstate System may lawfully be used by vehicles 
        with weight in excess of eighteen thousand pounds carried on 
        any one axle, or with a tandem-axle weight in excess of thirty-
        two thousand pounds, or with an overall gross weight in excess 
        of seventy-three thousand two hundred and eighty pounds, or 
        with a width in excess of ninety-six inches, or the 
        corresponding maximum weights or maximum widths permitted for 
        vehicles using the public highways of such State under laws or 
        regulations established by appropriate State authority in 
        effect on July 1, 1956 (or in the case of the State of Hawaii 
        February 1, 1960), whichever is the greater.
            (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall take effect in 
        each State on the 30th day after the 1st day of a regular 
        session of the legislature of that State which session begins 
        after the date of enactment of this Act.
            (c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the 
        payment of any contractual obligation of the United States 
        entered into prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        It imposes a tremendous amount of new duties on the Secretary 
    of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Highway System, 
    in order to enforce the law. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . This amendment, if 
    adopted, would require a great number of the States--28 of them, if 
    my information is current and correct--to amend

[[Page 6407]]

    or repeal their own basic laws, adopted in good faith and in total 
    conformity with applicable Federal law, under pain of losing their 
    Federal highway apportionments. If that is not changing the basic 
    law, Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult, indeed, to conceive of a 
    provision which would change basic law.
        This amendment, if adopted, would impose upon the 
    administrators in the Federal Highway Administration and the 
    Department of Transportation the duty of ascertaining just which 
    States had complied with this new directive, when they had come 
    into compliance with the new directive, whether their individual 
    statutes met the test herein prescribed, part of which test is 
    totally new to Federal law, whether their individual legislative 
    action had been timely within the meaning of this amendment, and 
    precisely how much of their entitlements were to be withheld based 
    upon their untimeliness or their total failure to comply. . . .
        Moreover, the effect of the amendment would go far beyond the 
    period covered by the annual appropriation. I invite the attention 
    of the Chair to subsection (b) of the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which reads as follows:

            Subsection (a) of this section shall take effect in each 
        State on the 30th day after the 1st day of a regular session of 
        the legislature of that State which session begins after the 
        date of enactment of this Act.

        Therefore, this would be applicable at different times in 
    different States. Furthermore, it is a well-known and verifiable 
    fact, Mr. Chairman, that in some of the States the next regular 
    session of the legislature will not occur until the year 1977, and 
    therefore, the applicability of this provision in the current 1976 
    appropriations bill, if it were adopted, would not occur in some of 
    the States until many months after the expiration of the period for 
    which this appropriations bill is written, almost 2 years from the 
    present date.
        An understanding of title 23 of the United States Code, which 
    sets forth the basic highway laws of the Nation, makes it 
    abundantly clear that the presently offered amendment, by its very 
    terms, would profoundly affect not only the present appropriation, 
    but future appropriations and apportionments under the law and the 
    basic legal relationship which present law prescribes between the 
    States and the Federal Government. . . .
        Sections 104, 106, and 118 of title 23 set forth the manner of 
    apportionment and obligation of funds among the States, including 
    the approval of plans, specifications, and estimates for individual 
    projects, and mandate advance contractual obligations on the part 
    of the Federal Government.
        They contain the declaration that--

            On or after the date the funds are apportioned, they shall 
        be available for expenditure.

        Section 104 requires that apportionments among the States be 
    based upon a ratio concerning the estimated cost of completing the 
    Interstate System within each such State. It also requires, Mr. 
    Chairman, in the interest of orderly planning and continuity, that 
    apportionments be made as far in advance of each fiscal year as 
    possible and, in no case, less than 18 months prior to the 
    beginning of that year.
        So, if this amendment were adopted and were to go into effect 
    in some

[[Page 6408]]

    States 18, 20 or 23 months from now, it would have a profound 
    effect on the duties of the Administrator in that not only would he 
    have to make ascertainments, he would have to make guesses in 
    advance as to whether a given State were going to comply with this 
    act, because the language compels him to make that apportionment 18 
    months in advance; and any apportionments withheld as a result of 
    this amendment clearly would affect and even control appropriations 
    and expenditures in future fiscal years. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    and the gentleman from Texas make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York on the grounds 
    that it constitutes legislation and is not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would first state that it is well settled that the 
    House may in an appropriation bill negatively deny the use or 
    availability of funds for certain purposes or to certain recipients 
    even though authorized by law, if the denial is limited to funds 
    contained in the bill and if the limitation does not constitute new 
    legislation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York limits 
    itself to appropriations contained in the bill for the Interstate 
    System. The amendment denies the availability of such funds for 
    expenditure or obligation within States wherein certain truck 
    weights and widths may be lawfully used on the Interstate System.
        The determination by the Federal Government, whether States 
    would meet the test mandated by the amendment, would not require 
    new affirmative duties. As Chairman Price ruled on December 11, 
    1973--the decision is noted in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, 
    section 16.2--almost any limitation on an appropriation bill 
    requires some determination to establish the fact whether the 
    limitation would apply, and it is in order to restrict the 
    availability of funds to recipients not meeting certain 
    qualifications as long as the determination of those qualifications 
    is readily ascertainable under existing law and facts. The Chair 
    would note that under section 127 of title 23 of the United States 
    Code, as amended by the Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974, the 
    Federal Government has the authority and duty to determine the 
    vehicle weights and widths which may be used in each State on the 
    Interstate System.
        It has been contended that the amendment constitutes 
    legislation because it denies the availability of funds not only 
    for expenditures but also for obligation. Yet the limitation is 
    confined to the funds carried in the bill and would deny only their 
    use for certain obligations entered into. The amendment reaches no 
    funds which are not carried in the bill, and that goes to the point 
    raised by the gentleman from Texas that some State legislatures are 
    not in session on an annual basis. It has been held in order on an 
    appropriation bill to deny the use of funds in the bill for the 
    Export-Import Bank to guarantee the payment of certain obligations 
    therein-after incurred, as cited in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 
    25, section 16.5. Again Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, section 
    17.1, indicates that an amendment

[[Page 6409]]

    to an appropriation bill may provide that none of the funds therein 
    shall be available for payments on certain contracts, and 4 Hinds' 
    Precedents, section 3987, lays down the principle that an 
    appropriation may be withheld from a designated object although 
    contracts may be left unsatisfied thereby.
        The amendment in issue does not seek to directly change a 
    formula, repeal a provision of law or require the use or allocation 
    of funds contrary to law. It simply denies appropriation for a 
    purpose which is authorized by law. For that reason the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.