[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[D. Provisions as Changing Existing Law: Appropriations Subject to Conditions]
[§ 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 5992-6004]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
D. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
Sec. 48. Conditions Precedent to Spending
Requiring New Contractual Arrangements
Sec. 48.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment making the money
available on certain contingencies which would change the lawful
mode of payment is legislation and not in order.
On Mar. 27, 1952,(13) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill
(H.R.
[[Page 5993]]
7176), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 3064, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Toby] Morris [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the language beginning on line 24, page 13, and
ending on line 12, page 14 inclusive as follows:
Provided further, That until such time as a repayment
contract, covering the proper share of the cost of the
facilities hereinafter stated, shall have been entered into
between the United States and the prospective water users, no
part of this appropriation shall be available for the
initiation of construction of any dam or reservoir where the
dominant purpose thereof is storage of water for irrigation or
water supply, or any tunnel, canal or conduit for water, or
water distribution system related to such dam or reservoir:
Provided further, That funds appropriated in this act and
heretofore for all such structures now under construction,
shall not be available after January 1, 1954, unless such
repayment contracts shall have been entered into by the
prospective water users.
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the language on
the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and
that it seeks to change existing law.
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman refers to the
proviso appearing in line 25, page 13, and the proviso starting at
line 8 on page 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Morris: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: No, Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma has made a point of
order, as referred to by him, and the gentleman from Ohio concedes
the point of order. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of
order.
Audit by Comptroller General
Sec. 48.2 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment requiring
the imposition of an auditing and reporting procedure before funds
can be expended was ruled out as legislation.
On Apr. 10, 1964,(15) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R.
10723), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7642, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Page 26, after
line 22 insert the following:
``Sec. 104. No funds appropriated in this Act for the House
of Representatives or the Architect of the Capitol shall be
used unless the expenditure of such funds is audited by the
Comptroller General at such times as he may deem appropriate.
For the purpose of conducting such audits, the provisions of
section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act (42 Stat. 26; 31
U.S.C. 54) shall be applicable to the legislative agencies
under audit. The Comptroller Gen
[[Page 5994]]
eral shall report to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives the results of each such audit relating to the
financial transactions of the House of Representatives, and
shall report also to the Architect of the Capitol the results
of the audit of his office. All such reports, including the
reports required by the Act of July 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 482),
shall be printed as House Documents.''
Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, it is with
some reluctance that I must make a point of order against this
amendment. . . .
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my
appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee for reserving the
point of order. I knew that a point of order would be made.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose and intent of my amendment is clear.
Simply stated, the funds appropriated by H.R. 10723 would be
subject to the limitations of the Accounting and Auditing Act of
1950, as amended, with a view toward making the operations of the
House and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol subject to the
same objective auditing standards as are other Government
departments. . . .
Mr. Chairman, it is high time we opened our books to the
public. Just like any executive agency, we are spending taxpayers'
money for our daily operating expenses. There is no logical reason
why we should not be subjected to a public audit. Who knows, maybe
a little fat can be trimmed right in our own backyard.
The Chairman: (16) It is obvious on its face that
this amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair
sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: On another occasion, an amendment to a
legislative branch appropriation bill denying the obligation or
expenditure of certain funds contained therein unless such funds were
subject to audit by the Comptroller General was ruled out of order as
legislation where it appeared that the amendment was intended by its
proponents to extend and strengthen the authority of the Comptroller
General under law to audit legislative accounts. The amendment in that
instance was ruled out of order when it appeared that it was intended
by its proponents to work a change in the law and to require audits,
rather than simply state a condition precedent for obligation and
expenditure of the funds. A subsequent amendment which denied the use
of funds not subject to audit ``as provided by law'' was offered and
adopted. See 124 Cong. Rec. 17651, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1978
[H.R. 12935].
Prior Approval by Bureau of Budget and Submission to Congress
Sec. 48.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the
Tennessee Valley Authority, stating that no part of the funds shall
be used ``unless and until'' approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget and sub
[[Page 5995]]
mitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, was
conceded to be legislation and held not in order.
On May 22, 1956,(17) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 11319),
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 8725, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against certain language in the Tennessee Valley
Authority paragraph as follows: . . .
Third. Lines 13 to 22, the proviso reading: ``That no part of
funds available for expenditure by this agency shall be used,
directly or indirectly, to acquire a building for use as an
administrative office of the Tennessee Valley Authority unless and
until the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, following a study
of the advisability of the proposed acquisition, shall advise the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and the Tennessee Valley Authority that the
acquisition has his approval: Provided further.''. . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the language
read by the gentleman is unquestionably legislation on an
appropriation bill and I therefore concede the point of order.
The Chairman: (18) . . . The gentleman from
Missouri, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, concedes the
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill and the
point of order is sustained.
Prior Approval by Public Housing Commissioner
Sec. 48.4 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds
for the Housing and Home Finance Agency and containing a proviso
that no funds appropriated therein or funds available for
expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the Housing Act shall be
available for certain expenditures unless made in accordance with a
budget approved by the Public Housing Commissioner was conceded to
be legislation and held not in order.
On June 23, 1960,(19) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Home Finance Agency
Public Housing Administration
Annual Contributions
For an additional amount, fiscal year 1960, for ``Annual
contributions'', $9
[[Page 5996]]
million, and in addition $3 million to be derived from funds
collected as fixed fees from local public housing authorities as
required by law: Provided, That no funds appropriated herein, or
funds available for expenditure pursuant to section 10 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, shall be available
for the payment of contributions with respect to any local public
agency expenditures for any project year ending after June 30,
1960, which are not made in accordance with a budget approved by
the Public Housing Commissioner as reasonable, necessary, and
consistent with economical operating policies.
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
language contained on page 8, lines 7 through 15, is legislation on
an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: We concede the point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Requiring State and Local Cost Sharing for Investigations
Sec. 48.5 Language in the Interior Department appropriation bill under
the heading ``General Investigations'' providing that ``the
expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for investigations
of any nature requested by States, municipalities, or other
interests shall be upon the basis of the State, municipality, or
other interest advancing at least 50 percent of the estimated cost
of such investigations'' was conceded to be legislation on an
appropriation bill and held not in order.
On Apr. 25, 1947,(1) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation
bill (H.R. 3123), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
General Investigations
General investigations: For engineering and economic
investigations of proposed Federal reclamation projects and
surveys, investigations, and other activities relating to
reconstruction, rehabilitation, extensions, or financial
adjustments of existing projects, and studies of water
conservation and development plans, such investigations,
surveys, and studies to be carried on by said Bureau either
independently, or in cooperation with State agencies and other
Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, and the
Federal Power Commission, $125,000, which may be used to
execute detailed surveys, and to prepare construction plans and
specifications: Provided,
[[Page 5997]]
That the expenditure of any sums from this appropriation for
investigations of any nature requested by States,
municipalities, or other interests shall be upon the basis of
the State, municipality, or other interest advancing at least
50 percent of the estimated cost of such investigations. . . .
Mr. [J. Edgar] Chenoweth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chenoweth: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language contained in line 13 beginning with the word
``Provided'' down through line 18 to the colon, page 34, for the
reason it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jones] desire
to be heard on the point of order? The point of order is that this
is legislation on an appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair
therefore sustains the point of order.
Requiring Cost Sharing for Cooperative Range Improvements
Sec. 48.6 Language in an appropriation bill providing that no part of
the appropriation for ``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be
expended in any national forest until contributions at least equal
to such expenditures are made available by States or other local
public or private sources, was held to be legislation on an
appropriation bill and not in order.
On May 10, 1951,(3) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 3973), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 97 Cong. Rec. 5224, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the following language beginning in line 18 on
page 26 and including the proviso in lines 18 to 25 inclusive as
being legislation on an appropriation bill.
Provided, That hereafter no part of the appropriation for
``Cooperative Range Improvements'' shall be expended in any
national forest until funds or other contributions at least
equal to such expenditures are made available by States or
other local public or private sources, except that claims
recognized by the act of December 19, 1950, shall be accepted
as contributions for the purposes of this section.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: A point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: In view of the fact that a point of order has been
made to
[[Page 5998]]
the last half of the paragraph I make a point of order against the
entire paragraph. I do not think it can be argued that it is not
subject to a point of order. A point of order having been made to
half of the paragraph, I make a point of order against the entire
paragraph.
The Chairman: Does any Member desire to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair sustains the point of order to the entire paragraph.
Providing Cost Sharing for Road Construction
Sec. 48.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds for
the construction of an additional Washington airport in Virginia
shall be available for an access road (a federal project) provided
the State of Virginia makes available the balance of funds
necessary for the construction of the road was conceded to be
legislation and held not in order.
On June 29, 1959,(5) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Aviation Agency
Construction and development, additional Washington airport
For an additional amount for ``Construction and
development, additional Washington airport'', $22,470,000, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$400,000 shall be available for an access road to the north
from the airport provided the State of Virginia makes available
the balance of funds necessary for the construction of said
road.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language of the bill on page 3, line 6, beginning
with the words ``of which'' and running through line 10, on the
ground that this language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Thomas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of
order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Delaying Obligation Until Other Funds Have Been Spent
Sec. 48.8 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the rent-
supplement program, an amendment to withhold obligation of those
funds until funds previously
[[Page 5999]]
appropriated (in another bill) for military housing construction
are obligated, which placed an unrelated contingency on the use of
funds in the bill, was ruled out as legislation.
On Mar. 29, 1966,(7) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
14012), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]:
On page 4, line 22, after ``program'' and before the period add,
``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be obligated
until funds made available for the construction of family housing
for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense agencies
in Public Law 89-202, have been obligated.''
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order.
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the point
of order comes too late. The Chair was about to state the question.
The Chairman [James G. O'Hara, of Michigan]: The question had
not yet been put. The Chair was about to state the question, but
the question had not yet been put. The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment on the ground that it relates to funds
previously appropriated and which are not carried in this bill and
interferes with executive discretion given to the President under
existing law to do what he wishes with the funds.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this
point.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Michigan
briefly on the point of order.
Mr. Cederberg: Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to try to be
sure that our military families are given an equal opportunity to
have family housing that has been deferred. This matter has
adequately been discussed in the debate previous to this time. I
had hoped possibly out of the generousness of the hearts of the
gentlemen on the Democratic side that they would not raise a point
of order and therefore obviously deny our military service families
the right to have these houses that they so desperately need.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan places an
unrelated contingency upon the use of funds provided in this
paragraph, and as such is legislation in an appropriation bill, and
not germane to the paragraph.
The point of order is sustained.
Parliamentarian's Note: Provisions that seek to control the timing
of expenditure of funds may sometimes be ruled out as legislation,
inasmuch as such provisions may interfere with executive discretion as
to such expenditure.
[[Page 6000]]
See the proceedings at 126 Cong. Rec. 16815-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.,
June 25, 1980; for discussion of provisions affecting executive
discretion generally, see Sec. 51, infra. More precisely, it may be
stated that, if a proposed limitation on the use of funds goes beyond
the traditionally permissible objects of a limitation, as, for example,
by restricting discretion in the timing of expenditure of funds rather
than restricting their use for a specific object or purpose, such
provision may be ruled out as legislation in the absence of a
convincing argument by the proponent showing that the provision does
not change existing law.
In some instances, a provision of the type described above may be
allowed, even though legislative in effect, if it can be viewed as
falling within the Holman rule exception. See Sec. 4, supra, for
general discussion of the Holman rule. As long as an amendment calls
for an obvious reduction at some point in time during the fiscal year,
the amendment is in order under the ``Holman Rule'' even if the
reduction takes place in the future in an amount actually determined
when the reduction takes place (for example, by formula). See, for
example, 126 Cong. Rec. 20499-503, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1980.
It should be noted here that on one occasion, in 1965, language in
a supplemental appropriation bill providing funds for the rent
supplement program and specifying that ``no part of the . . .
appropriation or contract authority shall be used'' in any project not
part of a ``workable program for community improvement'' (as defined in
the Housing Act of 1949) or which is without local official approval
was held to be a proper limitation and in order. The 1965 ruling would
probably not be followed in current practice; that ruling is discussed
further, with related precedents, in the ``note on contrary rulings''
following Sec. 53.6, infra.
Funds Available to Extent Aggregate Expenditures Do Not Exceed
Specified Amount
Sec. 48.9 On a general appropriation bill a limitation applying to
funds other than those provided in the pending bill is not in
order. But rulings differ in the application of this principle to
provisions making funds available ``only to the extent that
expenditure thereof shall not raise total aggregate expenditures
of'' agencies provided for in the bill.
[[Page 6001]]
On Mar. 3, 1952,(8) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments
appropriation bill (H.R. 6854), the Chair ruled out of order an
amendment as described above, on the basis that the proposed limitation
would affect appropriations not carried in the bill. A point of order
was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 98 Cong. Rec. 1781, 1782, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 27,
supra, discussing provisions that affect funds in other acts,
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New
York]: Page 15, line 11 insert a new section 403:
``Sec. 403. Money appropriated in this act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1953, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
raise total aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for
herein beyond the total sum of $7,060,000,000: Provided
further, That this limitation shall not apply to expenditures
from the postal revenues; to refunds of internal revenue
collections, to refunds and draw-backs in the Customs Service,
and to refunds of moneys erroneously received and covered.''
Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the amendment. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order on the ground that
this amendment goes beyond the scope of this bill and deals with
expenditures which are not included in this bill.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on
the point of order?
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from New York is
recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not go beyond the
scope of the bill in its limitation on expenditures. The limitation
is that the total expended including the amounts in this bill shall
not exceed the $7,060,000,000 over and above the total expenditures
for the postal revenues, the refunds on internal revenue
collection, and the refunds and drawbacks in the customs service,
and the refunds of money erroneously received. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the brief time the
Chair has had to study the amendment, the Chair is of the opinion
that the limitation which the gentleman from New York desires to
place in the bill would operate to limit expenditures of
appropriations which are not carried in the bill, and therefore
sustains the point of order.
A seemingly different result was reached on Mar. 21,
1952,(10) on which day the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7072, an independent offices appropria
[[Page 6002]]
tion. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 2694, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also the ruling at 99
Cong. Rec. 9559, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1953, on a
similarly worded amendment to H.R. 6391, the Mutual Security
Administration appropriation bill, discussed at Sec. 80.2,
infra. And see Sec. Sec. 80.3 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Coudert: On page 64, after line 21,
add a new section 405 as follows:
``Sec. 405. Money appropriated in this act shall be available
for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, only to
the extent that expenditure thereof shall not result in total
aggregate expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond
the total sum of $6,900,000,000.''
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation
on an appropriation bill. . . .
. . . It changes figures heretofore voted upon in the House in
the last 3 days. Therefore, that is legislation. It puts duties on
the various agencies not otherwise called for in the bill. . . .
Mr. Coudert: This clearly does not touch the funds of prior
years; therefore, it does not appropriate with respect to them. It
only places a limitation upon the use to which the funds requested
in this bill, the new obligational authority, may be put. It limits
the freedom of expenditure and nothing else.
The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair appreciates the fact that the author of the amendment
afforded the Chair an opportunity earlier in the day to read the
amendment and gave the Chair some time to study the language of the
amendment.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a limitation
upon the funds which are contained in the bill H.R. 7072, presently
before the Committee; that it is nothing more than a limitation on
those funds. The Chair is, therefore, constrained to overrule the
point of order and holds the amendment in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Mar. 3, 1952, ruling cited above seems
to support the better principle, that, where an attempted limitation
has the effect of delaying the expenditure of funds until
determinations are made as to aggregate expenditures at the end of a
fiscal year, it is not in order. However, if the reduction is certain,
such an amendment can be supported under the Holman rule. See the note
in Sec. 48.8, supra. And see Sec. Sec. 4 and 5, supra, for general
discussion of the Holman rule.
Ceiling by Reference to President's Budget
Sec. 48.10 An amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting the
availability for expenditure of all funds therein to the aggregate
level provided in the President's budget for that fiscal year for
the agencies covered in the bill was held to constitute a valid
limitation on the total amount covered by the bill.
[[Page 6003]]
On June 15, 1972,(12) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1973 (H.R. 15417),
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 21136, 21137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 40, after line 4,
insert the following new section:
``Sec. 409. Money appropriated in this Act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies
provided for herein beyond 100 per centum of the total
aggregate net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for
1973 (H. Doc. 215).''
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an appropriation bill--
period.
The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Illinois
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the Chair that the
language of this amendment with the exception of the percentage
figure and the House document reference is identical to the so-
called Bow amendment which was offered on many occasions in past
years and which has been challenged on previous occasions and which
has been sustained being in order of an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendment and will
rule that it is in order. It is, in effect, the ``Bow'' amendment
with a very slight variation. It is a restriction on the
appropriations in this bill.
The point of order is overruled.
Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the Mar. 21, 1952,
ruling cited in Sec. 48.9, supra, are subject to the same criticism.
Arguably, implementation of this amendment would require withholding of
all obligations until the end of the year, since an agency's budget
situation might not be subject to a final tabulation until all other
funds--those in the pipeline as well as those funded in other
appropriation acts--are taken into account. There is no disclosure on
the face of the amendment that there is a certain reduction to qualify
under the Holman rule exception.
Pending Balanced Budget
Sec. 48.11 To a bill making appropriations for foreign aid, an
amendment specifying that no funds made available therein may be
expended until total governmental tax receipts exceed total expend
[[Page 6004]]
itures was ruled out as legislation.
On July 1, 1964,(14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the foreign aid appropriation bill (H.R.
11812), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 15582, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 49.1,
infra, in which the Chair ruled out of order an amendment
making the availability of funds conditional on a congressional
finding that expenditures would not increase the public debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edgar F.] Foreman [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Foreman: On page 18, immediately
after line 24, insert the following:
``Sec. 404. Limitation on Appropriations for Economic
Assistance.--Notwithstanding any provision of this or any other
Act, no provision of this Act appropriating funds to carry out
any program of assistance under this Act (other than a
provision for military assistance as described in this Act and
in the amount of $1,055,000,000) shall become effective until
the tax receipts of the United States Government for the
preceding fiscal year are equal to or greater than the
expenditures of the Government for such fiscal year.''
Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the bill on the ground that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
Mr. Foreman: Mr. Chairman, I feel like any time we are
appropriating the taxpayers' dollars, we certainly should take into
consideration the question as to whether or not we are putting the
people further in debt. This is a very important question. It is a
legal question, a legislative question, and even more importantly,
a moral question.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment goes to the question of spending or
not spending of these funds, the limiting of making funds
available.
It does not legislate as to how they are going to be spent, or
not be spent, the bill itself does not even do that.
But as suggested earlier in our debate, perhaps this amendment
is indeed too sensible and entirely too practical to be applied to
our foreign aid giveaway program. Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps fiscal
responsibility, at this point and in this day in time, may be out
of order.
The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the face of it, this amendment appears to go far beyond the
scope of the bill.
The subject of the amendment is not covered or referred to in
the proposed legislation and, therefore, the Chair sustains the
point of order.