[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[G. Limitation on Total Amount Appropriated by Bill]
[Â§ 80. Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6500-6507]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
           G. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED BY BILL
 
Sec. 80. Generally


Effect on Total Expenditures

Sec. 80.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    appropriations in the bill shall be available for expenditure only 
    to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    expenditures of agencies provided for in the bill beyond a 
    specified amount was held to be in order as a limitation upon funds 
    in the bill.

    On Mar. 21, 1952,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropriation. An 
amendment was offered to which a point of order was made and overruled, 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 2694, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
    York]: On page 64, after line 21, add a new section 405 as follows:
        ``Sec. 405. Money appropriated in this act shall be available 
    for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, only to 
    the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond 
    the total sum of $6,900,000,000.''
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        . . . It changes figures heretofore voted upon in the House in 
    the last 3 days. Therefore, that is legislation. It puts duties on 
    the various agencies not otherwise called for in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Coudert: This clearly does not touch the funds of prior 
    years; therefore, it does not appropriate with respect to them. It 
    only places a limitation upon the use to which the funds requested 
    in this bill, the new obligational authority, may be put. It limits 
    the freedom of expenditure and nothing else.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: A similar amendment had been ruled out of 
order on Mar. 3, 1952, on

[[Page 6501]]

the ground that it affected appropriations not carried in the bill. See 
98 Cong. Rec. 1781, 1782, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., discussed in Sec. Sec. 4 
[the Holman rule] and 48.9 (conditions precedent to spending), supra. 
Generally, amendments of this type are not, strictly speaking, 
limitations if the committee report shows the amount stated in the 
amendment to be less than the total covered by the bill; in such case, 
the amendment would constitute a retrenchment and thus be governed by 
the Holman rule.

Total Expenditure Ceiling

Sec. 80.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that ``Money 
    . . . in this bill shall be available for expenditure in the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1954, only to the extent that expenditures 
    thereof shall not result in total aggregate net expenditures of all 
    agencies provided for herein beyond the total of $5,500,000,000'' 
    was held to be a proper limitation only restricting the 
    availability of funds in the bill and in order.

    On July 22, 1953,(11) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6391, a Mutual Security Administration appropriation 
bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 99 Cong. Rec. 9559, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New 
    York]: On page 6, after line 1, insert a new section as follows:
        ``Money appropriated in this bill shall be available for 
    expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, only to the 
    extent that expenditures thereof shall not result in total 
    aggregate net expenditures of all agencies provided for herein 
    beyond the total of $5,500,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make the point of order that the amendment imposes 
    additional duties to determine whether or not the expenditures of 
    all agencies provided for therein exceed $5,500,000,000.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Coudert: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me point out that this 
    amendment is in the very same language as the Smith amendment that 
    was adopted a year ago on the military appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes that it is a proper limitation 
    and overrules the point of order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also the discussion in Sec. 4 (the Holman rule) and 48.9-48.11] 
        (conditions precedent to spending), supra.

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

[[Page 6502]]

        Ceiling by Reference to President's Budget

Sec. 80.3 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    availability for expenditure of all funds therein to the aggregate 
    level provided in the President's budget for that fiscal year for 
    the agencies covered in the bill was held to constitute a valid 
    limitation on the total amount covered by the bill.

    On June 15, 1972,(14) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1973 (H.R. 15417), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 21137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an appropriation bill--
    period.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Ceiling Notwithstanding Appropriation

Sec. 80.4 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that, 
    notwithstanding any other provisions carried in the bill for 
    printing and binding, the total amount to be expended for printing 
    and binding and related activities shall not exceed a specified 
    sum, was held to be a

[[Page 6503]]

    proper limitation applying only to appropriations in the pending 
    bill.

    On Mar. 27, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6845, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 3096, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: On page 
    141, after line 3, insert a new section, as follows:

            ``Notwithstanding any other provisions carried in this bill 
        for printing and binding the total amount to be expended for 
        printing, binding, duplicating, mimeographing, lithographing, 
        or reproduction in any other form or by any other device, and 
        including the purchase of reprints of scientific and technical 
        articles published in periodicals and journals shall not exceed 
        for every such purpose included in this bill the sum of 
        $450,000, and that the amounts estimated therefor and not 
        expended within this limitation shall be recovered into the 
        Treasury of the United States.''

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio. Although, as indicated by the gentleman from Oklahoma, 
    it does provide, ``notwithstanding any other provisions carried in 
    this bill,' it relates to appropriations in the pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that it is a limitation and is in 
    order. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Restriction on Obligations in Last Two Months of Fiscal Period

Sec. 80.5 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, providing that 
    no more than a certain percentage of funds therein for any agency 
    and apportioned to such agency by the Office of Management and 
    Budget pursuant to law, may be obligated during the last two months 
    of the fiscal year, was ruled out as legislation, where the 
    proponent of the amendment could not show that because it was not 
    in the form of a limitation permitted by the precedents which 
    negatively restricted the object, purpose, or amount of the 
    appropriation, it did not change existing law.

    On July 28, 1980,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Housing and Urban Development and independent 
agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 7631), an amendment

[[Page 6504]]

was offered and ruled upon as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 19924, 19925, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: Page 45, after line 23, insert 
    the following:

            Sec. 413. No more than an amount equal to 20 percent of the 
        total funds appropriated under this Act for any agency for any 
        fiscal year and apportioned to such agency pursuant to section 
        3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C. 
        665) may be obligated during the last two months of such fiscal 
        year. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Indiana 
    (Mr. Myers) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered an amendment to limit 
    the appropriations to a specific time; but I respectfully suggest 
    that the fact the gentleman has added the words, ``No more than'' 
    is still not, in fact, a limitation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are limiting here, not 
    directing, but limiting the authority to the last 2 months how much 
    may be spent takes away the discretionary authority of the 
    Executive which might be needed in this case. It clearly is more 
    than an administrative detail when you limit and you take away the 
    right of the Executive to use the funds prudently, to take 
    advantage of saving money for the Executive, which we all should be 
    interested in, and I certainly am, too; but Mr. Chairman, rule 843 
    provides that you cannot take away that discretionary authority of 
    the Executive.
        This attempt in this amendment does take that discretionary 
    authority to save money, to wisely allocate money prudently and it 
    takes away, I think, authority that we rightfully should keep with 
    the Executive, that you can accumulate funds and spend them in the 
    last quarter if it is to the advantage of the taxpayer and the 
    Executive. . . .
        Mr. Harris: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me first address the last 
    point, probably because it is the weakest that the gentleman has 
    made with respect to his point of order.
        With respect to the discretion that we are in any way limiting 
    the President, we cannot limit the discretion which we have not 
    given the President directly through legislation. There is no 
    discretion with regard to legislation that we have overtly 
    legislated and given to the President.
        Mr. Chairman, section 665(c)(3) of title 31 of the United 
    States Code, which states the following:

            Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be 
        distributed as may be deemed appropriate by the officers 
        designated in subsection (d) of this section to make 
        apportionments and reapportionments.

        Clearly grants agency budget officers the discretionary 
    authority to apportion the funds in a manner they deem appropriate. 
    My amendment would not interfere with this authority to apportion 
    funds. On the contrary, my amendment reaffirms this section of the 
    United States Code, as Deschler's

[[Page 6505]]

    Procedures, in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 26, 
    section 1.8, states:

            The provision of the rule forbidding in any general 
        appropriation bill a ``provision changing existing law'' is 
        construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists, or a 
        proposition for repeal of existing law. Existing law may be 
        repeated verbatim in an appropriation bill, but the slightest 
        change of the text causes it to be ruled out.

        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, 
    specifically restates by reference the existing law, which in no 
    way gives discretion as to spending, but gives discretion as to 
    apportionment.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the budget execution cycle 
    has many steps. Whereas the Chair's earlier ruling related to the 
    executive branch authority to apportion, my amendment addresses the 
    obligation rate of funds appropriated under the fact. As OMB 
    circular No. A-34 (July 15, 1976) titled ``Budget Execution'' 
    explains:

            Apportionment is a distribution made by OMB.
            Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts 
        awarded, services received, and similar transactions.

        Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes some additional duties, but 
    only a very minimal additional duty upon the executive branch.
        Deschler's chapter 26, section 11.1 says:

            The application of any limitation on an appropriation bill 
        places some minimal extra duties on Federal officials, who, if 
        nothing else, must determine whether a particular use of funds 
        falls within that prohibited by the limitation. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . In the first instance, the Chair would 
    observe that it is not the duty of the Chair or the authority of 
    the Chair to rule on the wisdom or the legislative effect of 
    amendments.
        Second, the Chair will observe that the gentleman from 
    Virginia, in the way in which his amendment has been drafted, 
    satisfies the requirements of the Apportionment Act, which was the 
    subject of a prior ruling of the Chair in connection with another 
    piece of legislation.
        The Chair agrees with the basic characterization made by the 
    gentleman from Indiana that the precedents of the House relating to 
    limitations on general appropriation bills stand for the 
    proposition that a limitation to be in order must apply to a 
    specific purpose, or object, or amount of appropriation. The 
    doctrine of limitations on a general appropriation bill has emerged 
    over the years from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the 
    Whole, and is not stated in clause 2, rule XXI itself as an 
    exception from the prohibition against inclusion of provisions 
    which ``change existing law.'' Thus the Chair must be guided by the 
    most persuasive body of precedent made known to him in determining 
    whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris) ``changes existing law.'' Under the precedents in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 26, section 1.12, the proponent of an 
    amendment has the burden of proving that the amendment does not 
    change existing law.
        The Chair feels that the basic question addressed by the point 
    of order is as follows: Does the absence in the precedents of the 
    House of any ruling

[[Page 6506]]

    holding in order an amendment which attempts to restrict not the 
    purpose or object or amount of appropriation, but to limit the 
    timing of the availability of funds within the period otherwise 
    covered by the bill require the Chair to conclude that such an 
    amendment is not within the permissible class of amendments held in 
    order as limitations? The precedents require the Chair to strictly 
    interpret clause 2, rule XXI, and where language is susceptible to 
    more than one interpretation, it is incumbent upon proponent of the 
    language to show that it is not in violation of the rule 
    (Deschler's chapter 25, section 6.3).
        In essence, the Chair is reluctant, based upon arguments 
    submitted to him, to expand the doctrine of limitations on general 
    appropriation bills to permit negative restrictions on the use of 
    funds which go beyond the amount, purpose, or object of an 
    appropriation, and the Chair therefore and accordingly sustains the 
    point of order.

President Given Authority to Make Reductions

Sec. 80.6 An amendment adding a new section to a general appropriation 
    bill authorizing the President to reduce each appropriation in the 
    bill by not more than 10 percent was conceded to be legislation 
    (conferring new authority on the President) and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2(c).

    On May 31, 1984,(20) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 5172), a point of order was sustained 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of 
        Pennsylvania]: On page 57, after line 3, insert the following 
        new section:
            Sec. 611. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        the President may reduce any appropriation in this Act by not 
        more than ten percent. . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, [the amendment] 
    proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
    . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Chairman, this is the same language that 
    I offered yesterday which was debated in the House and which we did 
    consider in the House.
        It does provide a mini-line item veto for the President. This 
    would end up reducing the amount of money in the bill by $1.1 
    billion.
        But the gentleman from Iowa is correct that this does 
    constitute a violation of rule XXI, clause 2, and I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The point of order is conceded, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 6507]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The proposed amendment would not have been 
permitted under the Holman rule because the proposed reductions were 
not certain on the face of the amendment as is required under the 
Holman rule. A similar amendment offered by Mr. Walker on June 6, 
1984,(2) as also conceded to be out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. ---- , 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
