[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[§ 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 5586-5591]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
Sec. 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization
Generally
Sec. 21.1 An amendment proposing to appropriate a sum in addition to
that authorized by law for a specific purpose is not in order on an
appropriation bill.
On Mar. 12, 1942,(19) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6709, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.
During consideration, a point of order against an amendment was
sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 2346, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: Page 79,
line 11, after the period, add the following paragraph:
``To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to further carry
out the provisions of section 32, as amended, of the act
entitled `An act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and
for other purposes,' approved August 24, 1935, and subject to
all provisions of law relating to the expenditure of funds
appropriated by such section, $40,000,000. Such sum shall be
immediately available and shall be in addition to, and not in
substitution for, other appropriations made by such section or
for the purpose of such section.''
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California on the ground that there is no authority of law for
making an appropriation in addition to the permanent appropriation
made by section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. There is no
legislative basis for the amendment which the gentleman offers.
The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from
California wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Voorhis of California: No, Mr. Chairman; I concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Increase in Lump Sum Beyond Authorization
Sec. 21.2 An amendment proposing an increase in the amount of an
appropriation authorized by law was held to be unauthorized: to the
appropriation for compensation of Members of the House, an
amendment proposing to increase the total amount beyond that
authorized was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
[[Page 5587]]
On Apr. 19, 1950,(1) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill
(H.R. 7786), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 5392, 5393, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter II, Legislative Branch
The Clerk read as follows:
For compensation of Members of the House of
Representatives, Delegates from Territories, and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, $5,492,500. . . .
Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: Page 3, line 6, strike out
``$5,492,500'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$7,135,000.''
Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order against the amendment that there is no
authority in law for this increase.
The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Multer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Multer: No; I do not care to be heard on the point of
order.
The Chairman: Can the gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] cite
any authorization of law for the increase proposed by his
amendment?
Mr. Multer: Only the fact that this body has the authority to
fix the salary of its Members. I think it does not matter how or in
what bill the House does it. It may do so as part of an
appropriation bill. This item being the item appropriating for the
pay of Members of Congress I think it is subject to amendment.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. McGrath]
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the Members
of the House are deserving of an increase in compensation, yet my
position at this time is of a legislative capacity and I must
support the rules of the House.
I respectfully submit that the point of order lies against the
amendment.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from New York yield for a question?
Mr. McGrath: I yield.
Mr. Taber: As I understand, this is an amendment to the gross
amount for salaries. It is not in order, of course, because the
only authority we have is to appropriate an amount equivalent to
the product of the fixed salary times the number of Members. The
effect of the amendment would not even be to increase the salary.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] has offered an
amendment which has been reported; the gentleman from New York [Mr.
McGrath] has made a point of order against the amendment on the
ground that the amount sought to be included by the amendment is
not authorized by law.
The Chair has examined the question to some extent, and it
appears that the amount carried in the bill re
[[Page 5588]]
flects the amount authorized by existing law. Therefore, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would be in excess
of existing authority of law.
The point of order is sustained.
Where Part of Lump Sum is Unauthorized
Sec. 21.3 Instance where a point of order was conceded against a
paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that a lump-sum
figure therein included funds for one organization in excess of the
authorization therefor even though all funds in the lump sum were
to be available only as authorized by law.
On Apr. 12, 1960,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11666, an appropriation for the Departments of State,
Justice, and the Judiciary. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions to International Organizations
For expenses necessary for permanent representation to certain
international organizations in which the United States participates
pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific acts of Congress,
including expenses authorized by the pertinent acts and conventions
providing for such representation; salaries, expenses, and
allowances of personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign
Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801-1158); hire of
passenger motor vehicles; printing and binding, without regard to
section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111); and
purchase of uniforms for guards and chauffeurs; $1,850,000.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and
running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an
appropriation not authorized by law. . . .
The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is
going to be a great deal of tweedledee and tweedledum. It is the
fact, and we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has
been in existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an
authorization for expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the
newly created NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian
Interparliamentary Union have authorizations for $30,000. The
committee felt that the oldest one, the 70-year-old one, should be
put on the same basis as the two lately formed ones, and for that
reason inserted in the bill $30,000.
Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of
order is
[[Page 5589]]
well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the bill specified that
appropriations in the paragraph were available only for
``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts'' providing for
United States participation in the organizations. Under a
ruling of the Chair on June 18, 1960 (106 Cong. Rec. 11646,
86th Cong. 2d Sess.) and similar precedents, the quoted
language arguably would have limited the amount which could be
used to the amount actually authorized, in which case the point
of order would not have lain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Funds Above Authorized Level
Sec. 21.4 A provision in an appropriation bill providing funds for the
Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures
in excess of the amount authorized by law was ruled out as in
violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
On Apr. 10, 1964,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 7636, 7637, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal
Expenditures
For an amount to enable the Joint Committee on Reduction of
Nonessential Federal Expenditures to carry out the duties
imposed upon it by section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941 (55
Stat. 726), to remain available during the existence of the
Committee, $29,750, to be disbursed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the language relating to the Joint Committee on
Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures which appears on
page 9, line 15 through line 2 on page 10, inclusive. There is no
authority in the basic law to appropriate such an amount. The joint
committee was established by the provisions of section 601 of the
Revenue Act of 1941 and appears in volume 55 of the Statutes at
Large, on page 726. Subsection (e) of section 601 limits the total
appropriations that can be made to this joint committee to the sum
of $10,000, or less, and I will quote the subsection as follows:
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, the sum of
$10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to carry out
the provisions of this section.
This joint committee was clearly intended to be a temporary
thing of short duration. As a matter of fact, it has not been
carried into the United States Code although that is not a matter
of great importance to this question, even though it indicates that
in the eyes of the people who prepare the code it was to be a
temporary thing. I trust that the Chair will sustain the point of
order which I have made. . . .
[[Page 5590]]
The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma
concede the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman.
We have no other point to stand on except the fact that this has
been done for many years without protest. If that does not give it
life and legality, I know of no way that would give it life and
legality as of this moment. I certainly cannot with any logic offer
a substitute of only $10,000. That is so far from the realities of
the moment that I will just have to let it pass for the moment.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Inasmuch as the authorization is for $10,000 and the
appropriation is for considerably more than that, the Chair
believes the point of order is well taken.
The point of order is sustained.
Sec. 21.5 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for
the Joint Committee on Defense Production in excess of the amount
authorized by law was conceded to be subject to a point of order.
On Apr. 10, 1964,(8) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was sustained against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 110 Cong. Rec. 7640, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows--page 10, line 21:
Joint Committee on Defense Production
For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on Defense
Production as authorized by the Defense Production Act of 1950,
as amended, $90,520.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the paragraph relating to the Joint Committee on
Defense Production which appears on page 10, lines 21 to 24,
inclusive, on the grounds that the amount proposed to be
appropriated, $90,520, exceeds the amount that is authorized to be
appropriated in the basic law. In title 50 of the United States
Code, section 2162(e), authorization for this committee is limited
to not to exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, and I quote subsection
(e) as follows:
The expenses of the committee under this section, which
shall not exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, shall be paid from
the contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon
vouchers signed by the chairman or vice chairman.
In view of this limitation, the proposed appropriation in the
pending bill is, in my opinion, clearly subject to a point of order
and I trust the Chair will so rule.
The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I would have
to concede the point of order. The only way I know to meet this
situation is to offer an amendment at this point.
The Chairman: Did I understand correctly that the gentleman
from Oklahoma concedes the point of order?.
[[Page 5591]]
Mr. Steed: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
The point of order is sustained.