[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 4969-4976]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
[[Page 4969]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by David Bird, J.D., and John Darrouzet,
J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 1. Scope of Chapter
Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized
Sec. 3. Reappropriations
Sec. 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills
Sec. 5. Contingent Fund Expenditures
B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills
Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status
Sec. 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations--``Continuing'' Appropriations
Sec. 8. Consideration Made in Order by Special Rule or Unanimous
Consent
Sec. 9. Waiver of Points of Order--by Resolution
Sec. 10. General Appropriation Bills Considered by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments
Sec. 12. Points of Order; Timeliness
Sec. 13. House-Senate Relations
DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
[[Page 4971]]
INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Authorization of appropriations
appropriation measure, language of, as authorization,
Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
``authorized by law,'' purposes, effect of language limiting
appropriations to, Sec. Sec. 2.17-2.20
court judgment as, Sec. 2.2
executive order as, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
general grant of authority as authorizing specific project,
Sec. 2.11
implied, for necessary or incidental expenses, Sec. 2.10
increasing appropriation within authorized limits, Sec. Sec. 2.13-
2.16
``miscellaneous expenses,'' appropriation for, as authorized,
Sec. 2.12
``not less than'' certain amount, language authorizing
appropriation of, held not to be appropriation, Sec. 4.34
prior appropriation measure, language in, as authorization,
Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
reappropriations of unexpended balances, see Reappropriations of
unexpended balances
refusal to appropriate for authorized purpose, Sec. 2.1
Senate amendments, see Senate amendments
specific project authorized by general grant of authority,
Sec. 2.11
subsequent enactment of authorization, Sec. 2.21
total amount authorized, amendment increasing appropriation to,
Sec. 2.16
Certification of court judgment to Congress as prerequisite to
apropriation, Sec. 2.2
Conferees
appointed for separate chapters of appropriation bill,
Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
chairman, selection of, agreement between Appropriation Committees
of
House and Senate as to, Sec. 13.6
Senate amendments providing for appropriations in legislative
bills, duty of conferees as to, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
Conference report
concurrent resolution, amendment of items not in disagreement made
by, Sec. 13.19
waiver of points of order against, Sec. 13.17
Confirmation, Senate, of appointees as prerequisite to appropriation
for salaries, Sec. 2.9
Constitutional rights of House in initiation of revenue and
appropriation bills, Sec. 13.1
Contingent fund expenditures
layover requirement as applied to resolution, Sec. 5.1
privileged, resolution as, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
surplus funds, transfer of, Sec. 5.3
Continuing appropriations
privileged, not reported as, Sec. 7.2
use of, Sec. 7.1
Court judgment as authorization, Sec. 2.2
Debate, consideration and
close debate, motion to, Sec. 11.1
House as in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
reading bills for amendment, see Reading bills for amendment
Senate amendments, Sec. 11.2
suspension of the rules, Sec. 11.7
terms of, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
Enrollment, changes or corrections in, Sec. Sec. 11.29, 13.19
Executive order as authorization, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
General appropriation bills, privileged status applicable only to,
Sec. Sec. 7.2-7.4, 7.6
[[Page 4972]]
General grant of authority as authorizing specific project, Sec. 2.11
Germaneness rule applicable to appropriation bills, Sec. 11.10
Implied authorization for necessary or incidental expenses, Sec. 2.10
Increasing appropriation within authorized limits, amendments,
Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16
Judgment of court as authorization, Sec. 2.2
Legislative bills, appropriations in generally, prohibition against,
Sec. 4.1
advances from Treasury directed to be made ``when appropriated,''
Sec. 4.38
allocation of agency's receipts, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
allocation of excess foreign currency, Sec. 4.22
allocation of funds to other agencies to assist in carrying out
purposes of act, Sec. 4.36
allocation of money repaid from loans, Sec. 4.21
allocation of proceeds of sale, Sec. 4.20
amendments to legislative bills, generally, Sec. 4.24
Area Redevelopment Fund, reconstituted appropriations authorized
for, Sec. Sec. 4.45, 4.46
conferees, duty of, as to appropriations contained in Senate
amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
Corps of Engineers, amendment permitting use of appropriations
``heretofore or hereinafter made'' by, Sec. 4.33
definition of ``appropriation'' as ``payment of funds from the
Treasury'', Sec. 4.40
definition of ``appropriation'' discussed, generally, Sec. 4.43
``directed,'' Secretary of Treasury authorized and, to purchase
notes and obligations, Sec. 4.43
diversion of funds to new purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.9, 4.12, 4.13
emergency fund, amendment providing for, Sec. 4.25
exports, future, provision for use of foreign currency proceeds
from, Sec. 4.44
farm loans, amendment authorizing, Sec. 4.37
fees or receipts of agency, allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
foreign credits, additional use of, Sec. 4.23
foreign credits, amendment providing for use of, for new purpose,
Sec. 4.31
foreign currency, excess, use of, Sec. 4.22
foreign currency proceeds from future exports, provision for use
of, Sec. 4.44
guaranteeing agencies authorized to use funds ``heretofore''
approved, Sec. 4.27
Immigration and Naturalization Service, amendment providing for
expenditures from funds appropriated for, relating to detention of
illegal aliens, Sec. 4.29
interest paid to United States by India, amendment providing for
expenditure of, Sec. 4.28
loan repayments, use or allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.21, 4.46
membership in international organization, language authorizing
President to accept, as not involving appropriation, Sec. 4.42
Mutual Security Agency, funds ``heretofore'' appropriated for,
amendment providing for use of, Sec. 4.30
``not less than'' certain amount, language authorizing
appropriation of, held to be authorization, Sec. 4.34
portion of bill subject to point of order, Sec. 4.2
public debt issues, loans authorized to be made from proceeds of,
Sec. 4.43
[[Page 4973]]
public debt transaction financing, Senate ruling on, Sec. 4.47
reappropriations as, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.35
receipts, allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
sale, allocation of proceeds of, Sec. 4.20
same or related purposes, unobligated funds previously appropriated
for, Sec. Sec. 4.10-4.13
school construction, amendment providing for payment of allotments
to states for, from tax receipts, Sec. 4.32
Senate ruling on public debt transaction financing, Sec. 4.47
special accounts for special purposes, language directing deposit
of tax proceeds in, Sec. 4.39
tax receipts, amendment providing for payment of allotments to
states from, for school construction, Sec. 4.32
transfer of fund to new purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.9, 4.12, 4.13
Treasurer directed or authorized to use funds or make payments,
Sec. Sec. 4.14, 4.15
Treasury account, provision for payment into, of unused
appropriations, Sec. 4.41
Treasury, payment of funds from, ``appropriation'' defined as,
Sec. 4.40
unemployment benefits, amendment directing payments to states on
account of, Sec. 4.26
unexpended appropriations, provision requiring payment into
Treasury account of, Sec. 4.41
unobligated funds previously appropriated for same or related
purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.10-4.13
waiver of points of order, Sec. 4.3
``Miscellaneous expenses,'' appropriation for, as authorized, Sec. 2.12
Necessary or incidental expenses as impliedly authorized, Sec. 2.10
Points of order
legislative bill, points of order against appropriation language
included in conference report, Sec. 13.12
precedence of, over amendments, Sec. 12.3
pro forma amendment, precedence of point of order over, Sec. 12.3
recognition, priority in, Sec. 12.4
reservation of, prior to referral of bills to Committee of the
Whole, Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.2
Senate bills, appropriations contained in, Sec. 13.16
timeliness, see Timeliness of points of order
two consecutive paragraphs, points of order against, made by
unanimous consent, Sec. 12.5
waiver of, against conference report, Sec. 13.17
Prior appropriation measure, language in, as authorization,
Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
Privileged status of appropriation bills
adjourn, motion to, automatic rollcall on motion to go into
committee of the Whole after rejection of, Sec. 6.2
agreement giving appropriation bill privilege over other privileged
matter, Sec. 6.1
consideration, question of, determined by House, Sec. 6.2
continuing appropriations not privileged, Sec. 7.2
general appropriation bills, privilege applicable only to,
Sec. Sec. 7.2-7.4, 7.6
reduction in appropriations, bill providing for, Sec. 7.6
relative privilege, Sec. 6.1
supplemental appropriations not privileged, Sec. 7.4
Projects or purposes authorized by law, effect of language
expressly limiting appropriations to, Sec. Sec. 2.17-2.20
[[Page 4974]]
Reading bills for amendment
increasing funds in bill, when permitted, Sec. Sec. 11.16-11.18
paragraph, general appropriation bills considered by,
Sec. Sec. 11.8, 11.9
paragraph not yet read, effect of amendment relating to, Sec. 11.12
paragraph, previous line in amendment affecting, Sec. 11.14
passed, when paragraph considered as, Sec. 11.11
points of order, timeliness of, see Timeliness of points of order
separate votes in House on amendments, Sec. 11.21
stricken, language previously, amendment containing, Sec. 11.15
substitute, amendment in nature of, Sec. Sec. 11.19, 11.20
unanimous consent, amendment offered by, to paragraph passed in
reading, Sec. 11.13
Reappropriations of unexpended balances
generally, as prohibited, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5
authorization by statute as superseded by later rule, Sec. 3.6
authorization by statute as superseding rules, Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.8
authorization, lack of, for project as barring reappropriation
prior to rule prohibiting reappropriations, Sec. 3.14
Holman Rule not applicable, Sec. 3.10
legislative bills, prohibition under rule against appropriations
in, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.7, 4.10, 4.11
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, enactment of prohibition
in, rulings prior to, Sec. Sec. 3.12-3.15, 4.35
limitation, amendment prohibiting expenditures ``so long as'' prior
appropriations unexpended held to be permissible as, Sec. 3.11
transfer of funds, Sec. 3.9
works in progress, for, Sec. 3.15
Recognition, priority in, to make points of order, Sec. 12.4
Recommittal of bill with instructions
amendments previously adopted by House, changes not permitted in,
Sec. 11.26
Committee of the Whole, motion recommending recommittal made in,
Sec. 11.22
deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 11.24
inconsistent motions in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.22
procedure upon reporting bill back with amendment, Sec. 11.23
prohibition on use of appropriations, Sec. Sec. 11.27, 11.28
reduction of total appropriation, instructions as to,
Sec. Sec. 11.25, 11.26
scope of instructions, Sec. 11.26
Reduction of total appropriation, recommittal of bill with instructions
effecting, Sec. Sec. 11.25, 11.26
Refusal to appropriate for authorized purpose, Sec. 2.1
Repeal of prior authorization, Sec. 2.22
Reported, authorization enacted after bill has been, Sec. 2.21
Salaries, appropriations for, as dependent on Senate confirmation of
appointees, Sec. 2.9
Scope of general authorization, specific project as within, Sec. 2.11
Senate amendments
appropriations in legislative bills, duty of conferees as to,
Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
recede, motion to, agreed to in Senate, Sec. 13.2
reference of bill with Senate amendments to Committee on
Appropriations, Sec. 13.3
[[Page 4975]]
scope of House amendments to, Sec. Sec. 13.13-13.15
unauthorized expenditures, Senate amendment containing, perfection
by House of, Sec. Sec. 13.13, 13.14
Senate bill
point of order in House against appropriations in, Sec. 13.16
point of order, language in Senate bill stricken pursuant to, in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 12.18
Special rule making consideration of bill in order
closed rule, modified, form of, Sec. 8.1
continuing appropriations considered in House as in Committee of
the Whole, Sec. 8.4
debate on, Sec. 8.6
deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 8.3
previous question on special rule, rejection of, Sec. 8.6
rejection of special rule providing for consideration of continuing
appropriation, Sec. 8.5
temporary appropriations, Sec. 8.1
waiver of points of order against deficiency appropriation bill,
Sec. 8.3
waiver of points of order against general appropriation bill,
Sec. 8.2
Specific approval of project or expenditure, effect of law requiring,
Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
Specific project as authorized by general grant of authority, Sec. 2.11
Subsequent enactment of authorization, Sec. 2.21
Supplemental appropriations
House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration in,
Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
privileged, not reported as, Sec. 7.4
requests for consideration of, Sec. 7.5
unanimous consent, consideration by, Sec. 10.1
waiver of points of order against provision, Sec. 9.1
waiver of points of order against specific paragraph, Sec. 9.6
waiver of points of order by unanimous consent, Sec. 10.1
waiver of three-day availability requirement, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
Suspension of rules for matters not in disagreement between the Houses,
Sec. 13.18
Suspension of rules, passage of certain provisions under, Sec. 11.7
Timeliness of points of order
amendments, point of order too late after consideration of,
Sec. Sec. 12.10, 12.11
amendments, points of order against, Sec. 12.13
appropriations in legislative bills, points of order against,
Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.18
considered as read, points of order where bill has been, Sec. 12.12
debate on paragraph, point of order made before, Sec. 12.9
``general''appropriation bill, point of order that bill is not,
Sec. 12.6
legislative bill, appropriation language contained in conference
report on, Sec. 13.12
passed, point of order that paragraph has been, Sec. 12.7
reading of paragraph, point of order made after, Sec. Sec. 12.8-
12.11
Total amount authorized, amendment increasing appropriation to,
Sec. 2.16
Unanimous consent, consideration of appropriation bills by
any time, consideration at, Sec. 8.20
continuing appropriations, Sec. Sec. 8.7-8.10, 8.12, 8.16-8.20
[[Page 4976]]
general appropriation bills have been considered by,
Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3
House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration in, Sec. 8.7
immediate consideration, Sec. 8.21
month, consideration during current, Sec. 8.19
reporting bill as nonprivileged, effect of, Sec. 8.8
special rule superseded, Sec. 8.14
specified day, consideration on, Sec. 8.9-8.14
supplemental appropriations, Sec. Sec. 8.7, 8.11, 8.13, 8.14
three-day availability requirement waived, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 10.2,
10.3
waiver of three-day rule, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 10.2, 10.3
week, following, consideration during, Sec. Sec. 8.17, 8.18
week, same, consideration during, Sec. 8.16
Waiver of points of order by resolution
bill or provisions, points of order against, Sec. 9.5
committee amendments, points of order against, Sec. 9.7
conference report, points of order against, Sec. 13.17
debate, general, waiver agreed to after, Sec. 9.1
deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 8.3
general appropriation bill, Sec. 8.2
legislative language specifically made in order, Sec. 9.3
paragraph, specified, excepted from waiver, Sec. 9.2
paragraph, specified, of supplemental appropriation bill protected,
Sec. 9.6
paragraph, specified, points of order waived as to, Sec. 9.6
three-day availability requirement waived, Sec. 9.4
title, specified, points of order against, Sec. 9.8
West front extension, law requiring specific approval of, Sec. 2.7
[[Page 4977]]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 1. Scope of Chapter
This chapter discusses consideration of appropriation bills on the
floor, beginning with procedures for reporting and calling up such
bills.(1) The requirement that appropriations contained in
general appropriation bills must have been previously authorized by law
is discussed in a general way; but detailed treatment of the
prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation on
general appropriation bills is to be found in a separate
chapter.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For earlier treatment of the subject matter of this chapter, see 4
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3553-3700; 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 1116-1331, 1571-1578.
2. Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters relating to the duties, prerogatives, and jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations are discussed in the chapter on
committees of the House.(3) Dicussion of referral of bills
to committees is accordingly to be found in that chapter, although
additional related precedents may be found in the chapter on
introduction and reference of bills.(4) It may be noted for
present purposes that the Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction
over all general appropriation bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ch. 17, supra. Similarly, this chapter does not treat in any detail
the various powers and prerogatives of the House, including any
constitutional restrictions affecting appropriations for
particular purposes, such as the constitutional stricture (see
art. I Sec. 8 clause 12) that no appropriation of money ``to
raise and support armies'' shall be for a longer term than two
years. Matters relating to the powers and prerogatives of the
House, generally, including House authority with respect to
revenue and appropriation measures, are treated in Ch. 13,
supra.
4. Ch. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, issues related to committee hearings and various
oversight functions of the Committee on Appropriations are to some
extent covered in the chapter on committees; procedures and issues that
have developed too recently for inclusion in this edition will be taken
up in supplements to this edition as they appear. Accordingly, the
general oversight re
[[Page 4978]]
sponsibilities of the committee with respect to conducting studies and
examinations of the organization and operation of executive departments
and agencies are not discussed at length here. Moreover, the hearings
on the budget as a whole which are conducted by the committee in open
session within 30 days of submission of the budget are not covered in
any detail in this chapter.
In particular, procedures under the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, and the impact of such act on the congressional budget process
and on the role of the Committee on Appropriations, are necessarily
given only limited treatment in this edition. A summary of the act's
major provisions can be found in the chapter on the powers and
prerogatives of the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Ch. 13, supra. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 1007-11 (1981)
for provisions from the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, it is clear that the impact of the Congressional
Budget Act on the appropriations process and on the responsibilities of
the Committee on Appropriations will be considerable. For example, the
committee is given certain responsibilities with respect to rescissions
of appropriations, transfers of unexpended balances, and the amount of
new spending authority to be effective for a fiscal year. Its
responsibilities extend to measures reported by other committees which
exceed the appropriate allocation of new budget authority contained in
the latest concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year (the
resolution setting forth, among other things, appropriate levels of
budget outlays and of total new budget authority).
New provisions also require the Committee on Appropriations (to the
extent practicable), before reporting the first regular appropriation
bill for the fiscal year, to complete subcommittee markup and full
committee action on all regular appropriation bills for that year, and
to submit to the House a summary report comparing the committee's
recommendations with provisions of the latest concurrent resolution on
the budget.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For further discussion of the above provisions, see materials
contained in the latest edition of the House Rules and Manual,
and supplements to this edition of Deschler's Precedents. See
also the summary of Budget Act provisions in Ch. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4979]]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized
The Constitution (7) states: ``No money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
Appropriation bills are the device through which money is permitted to
be ``drawn from the Treasury'' for expenditure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Art. I Sec. 9 clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But before a general appropriation bill may appropriate funds for
particular purposes, such purposes must be authorized by law. Thus, an
appropriation for a project or activity not authorized by law is not in
order on a general appropriation bill, and a point of order may be made
against an appropriation that violates this requirement.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation
on general appropriation bills is found in Rule XXI clause 2,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981). The application of this
rule is discussed in detail in Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be seen that every ``authorization'' for an appropriation is
only one step in the process by which funds ultimately may become
available, since it contemplates subsequent action through
appropriation measures.(9) Of course, the House may decline
to appropriate funds for particular purposes, even though authorization
has been given for such purposes.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Parliamentarian's Note: It follows, for example, that
``authorizing'' language does not itself constitute ``new
spending authority'' which would prohibit the consideration of
a bill under Sec. 401 of the Congressional Budget Act. Where
the provision in question either impliedly contemplates further
recourse to the appropriations process, or makes express
reference to the appropriations process when required by
Sec. 401, such consideration is not precluded. (Note: The
Budget Act is necessarily given only limited treatment herein;
see the remarks in Sec. 1, supra, as to the scope of this
article.)
10. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enactment of authorizing legislation must occur prior to, and
not following, the consideration of an appropriation for the proposed
purpose. Thus, delaying the availability of an appropriation pending
enactment of an authorization will not protect that appropriation
against a point of order.(11) A bill violates the intent of
the requirement if it permits a portion of a lump sum--unauthorized at
the time the bill is being considered--to subsequently become available
without a further
[[Page 4980]]
appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``authorization'' for an appropriation must ordinarily derive
from statute. An executive order, for example, does not constitute
sufficient authorization in the absence of proof of its derivation from
a statute enacted by Congress.(12) On the other hand,
sufficient ``authorization'' for an appropriation may be found to exist
in a treaty that has been ratified by both parties; (13) in
a resolution of the House of the same Congress; (14) or in
legislation contained in a previous appropriation act which has been
allowed to become permanent law.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973
(proceedings related to H.R. 8619). See also Sec. Sec. 2.3,
2.4, infra.
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3587.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3656-3658, 3660.
15. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appropriation in excess of the specific amount authorized by law
is in violation of the rule prohibiting unauthorized
appropriations.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on
general appropriation bills was originally intended primarily to
prevent any delay of appropriation bills that might arise from
contention over propositions of legislation. However, as the
authorization process itself became more complicated over the years,
and as the number of programs requiring annual authorization increased,
there were frequent instances where the congressional appropriations
process remained uncompleted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. The
rule as currently implemented serves the purpose of giving legislative
committees the first opportunity to determine and report to both Houses
on priorities within specific legislative programs and the conditions
under which available funds may be expended, before the Appropriations
Committee recommends allocations of available revenues among various
legislative priorities during a given fiscal year. Procedures under the
Congressional Budget Act generally contemplate authorization of
expenditures by legislative committees as a prior step in the budget
process. (See, for example, Congressional Budget Act Sec. Sec. 301(c)
and 402(a).)
It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ``general
appropriation bills.'' Neither a resolution providing an appropriation
for a single government agency,(17)
[[Page 4981]]
nor a joint resolution containing continuing appropriations for diverse
agencies (to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are
enacted),(18) is considered a general appropriation bill
within the purview of the rule. In fact, the restrictions against
unauthorized items or legislation in a general appropriation bill or
amendment thereto are not applicable to a joint resolution continuing
appropriations, despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are
not ``continuing'' in nature.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 87th Cong 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1962.
18. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2
(4th ed.).
1. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.3
(4th ed.). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refusal to Appropriate for Authorized Purposes
Sec. 2.1 The House in the Committee of the Whole has the right to
refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part,
even though that object may be authorized by law.
On Feb. 18, 1938,(2) during consideration of the State,
Justice, Commerce, and Labor appropriations for 1939 (H.R. 9544), an
amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 2175, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. The principle is well
established. See also, for example, 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115,
77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942 (a refusal to appropriate
above a certain amount per designated recipient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 104, after line 25,
insert a new paragraph, as follows:
No part of any appropriation contained in this act for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be expended for any
expense incident to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for
the admission to any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the
United States for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for
readmission to the United States, or for the salary of any employee
charged with any duty in connection with the readmission to the
United States of any such alien without visa.
The following proceedings then took place:
Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
same point of order. This comes right back to the point I made
originally, that this provision deals with the present immigration
laws and is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes our
present act, which contains the provision that it is mandatory upon
the officials of the Department of Labor to advise an alien of his
status, whether he is legally or illegally in this country. This
provision seems to suggest that even a suggestion or an inference,
even a suggestion over the phone, would be a violation of the law,
and the men who are on the pay roll of the Government would be
penalized. I respectfully submit that the language offered as
[[Page 4982]]
the amendment to the new section is absolutely in the same
category, and that it is not germane to the present bill or to the
section now under consideration.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Dickstein) makes the point of
order that the amendment now suggested and offered by the gentleman
from Georgia is legislation. The Chair feels he is bound by
precedents which have been established for a long time in this
House and have been ruled upon by many occupants of the chair more
distinguished than he.
The fact that the failure to appropriate money to carry out the
purposes of an act may work an actual hardship in the enforcement
of that act or may even effect the practical repeal or certain
provisions of the act is entirely within the discretion of Congress
itself. Congress does not have to appropriate any money for laws
which have been authorized by bills reported from legislative
committees. As long ago as 1896 Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House, ruled as follows, and I read from
page 47 of Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives:
The House in Committee of the Whole House has the right to
refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part
even though that object may be authorized by law. That
principle of limitation has been sustained so repeatedly that
it may be regarded as a part of the parliamentary law of the
Committee of the Whole.
Therefore, the Chair is unable to agree with the contention of
the gentleman from New York and overrules the point of order.
Court Judgment as Authorization
Sec. 2.2 An appropriation to pay a judgment awarded by a court is not
in order unless such judgment has been properly certified to
Congress.
On June 20, 1935,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 79 Cong. Rec. 9811, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Carlson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Carlson moves to amend H.R. 8554, page 6, by inserting
a new paragraph following line 6, entitled ``Federal Trade
Commission'':
``For payment to Mrs. William E. Humphrey, or executor of
the estate of William E. Humphrey, $3,017 amount due as salary
at time of his death as member of Federal Trade Commission.''
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the amendment is new legislation in that the
judgment has not been certified according to law. . . .
The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. Under
the law,(6) judg
[[Page 4983]]
ments have to be certified to the Congress before an appropriation
is made; therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
6. The Chair apparently relied on provisions governing procedures
whereby claimants obtaining judgments against the United States
are compensated from appropriations made for that purpose. See,
for example, the present 28 USC Sec. 2518 (based on 26 Stat.
537, Sept. 30, 1890 and 43 Stat. 939, Feb. 13, 1925), regarding
certification to Congress of judgments of the Court of Claims;
see also 28 USC Sec. 2517 (payment of judgments of the Court of
Claims out of general appropriations therefor); 28 USC
Sec. 2414 (payment of judgments and compromise settlements on
claims against the United States); 31 USC Sec. 724a (permanent
appropriation to pay final judgments, awards, and compromise
settlements); 28 USC Sec. Sec. 2671 et seq. (tort claims
procedure); and House Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 852 (1981) (prohibiting private bills and
resolutions, and amendments to bills and resolutions,
authorizing payment of claims for which suit may be instituted
under tort claims procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order as Authorization
Sec. 2.3 The words ``authorized by law'' in Rule XXI clause 2, were
construed to refer to a ``law enacted by the Congress,'' and not to
encompass executive orders.
On Mar. 2, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1682, 1683, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY
Salaries and expenses: The limitation in the appropriation for
salaries and expenses, War Relocation Authority, in the National
War Agency Appropriation Act, 1945, on the amount which may be
expended for travel is hereby increased from $375,000 to $475,000;
and of said appropriation not to exceed $280,477 is made available
for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1945 incident to the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of the emergency refugee
shelter at Fort Ontario, N.Y., provided for in the President's
message of June 12, 1944, to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).
Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against that part of the section following the
semicolon in line 20 and ending on page 14, line 2, that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill; furthermore, that there is no
specific authority in existing statutes for the operation of this
particular program. The Executive order of the President which
created the War Relocation Authority does not encompass the
activities for which these funds would be used. . . .
The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes the point of
order against the language beginning in the concluding part of line
20 on page 13 and extending through the balance of
[[Page 4984]]
the paragraph, that this appropriation is not authorized by law.
Under the rules of the House, no appropriation shall be
reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an
amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by
law.
It is the opinion of the Chair that an Executive order does not
meet the requirement stated in that rule. Therefore, not being
authorized by law enacted by Congress, the appropriation would not
be in order. The mere fact that it may be a reappropriation would
not make it in order if the original appropriation was not
authorized by law.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the
gentleman from Idaho.
Sec. 2.4 An executive order does not meet the requirement that
appropriations must be authorized by law.
On July 5, 1945,(9) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649),
making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in
the Committee of the Whole. . . .
The Speaker: (10) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be considered as read and that all Members desiring
to submit amendments or points of order have leave to submit them
at this time.
The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the unanimous consent request that has just been granted, I make
the point of order against the first item, National War Labor
Board, on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by
law.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of
order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the
same ground against the item for the Office of Defense
Transportation on page 5.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The point of order is conceded, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcantonio)
makes a point of order which the gentleman
[[Page 4985]]
from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) concedes. The Chair sustains the point
of order.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we do not
all have to concede the point of order. I want to ask the gentleman
from Missouri a question. . . .
Mr. Rankin: . . . If these were times of peace and this agency
had been created by the Executive order, as it was, I submit that a
point of order would lie against it. But the President of the
United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces. One of
the necessary incidents to that position is the ability and the
power to see that our troops and the materials to support them are
transported. For that reason, in order to break a bottleneck in our
transportation system, the President of the United States set up
the Office of Defense Transportation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chairman again states his opinion, regardless
of his own beliefs as to the merits of this particular office, that
the point of order must be sustained.
The rule is very explicit to the effect that no appropriation
shall be reported in any general appropriation bill or be in order
as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously
authorized by law.
In this present Congress, the present occupant of the chair
ruled that an Executive order was not a law such as could comply
with this rule.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sees no reason for departing from that holding. The
Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
The point of order is sustained.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973
(H.R. 8619).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language in Prior Appropriation Measure as Authorization
Sec. 2.5 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a point
of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but it may become permanent law
if it is not challenged and is permanent in its language and
nature; thus, language in a previous appropriation act providing
that ``hereafter such sums . . . as may be approved by Congress
shall be available (to increase domestic consumption of farm
commodities),'' was held to be permanent authorizing legislation
capable of supporting subsequent appropriations therefor.
On May 20, 1964,(14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R.
11202) for fiscal 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, raised a point
of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the
portion of the
[[Page 4986]]
section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. I will read it.
It reads as follows:
(5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase
domestic consumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority
contained in Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount
$2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
construction, alteration and modification of research
facilities.
There is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) makes a point of order
addressed to the language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning
with ``and'' and continuing through and including line 9, on the
ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was
contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the
appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a
limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the
words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that
``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one
year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for
such purpose,'' and so forth.
The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law
cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the
language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore
overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.6 A point of order having been raised that a portion of a lump
sum supplemental appropriation for the White House was not
authorized by law, the Chairman determined that the permanent law
authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, as well as
legislative provisions authorizing additional employment contained
in an earlier regular appropriation bill enacted for that fiscal
year, constituted sufficient authorization.
On Nov. 30, 1973,(16) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
11576) a point of order was raised against a provision, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 38854, 38855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The White House Office
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'',
$1,500,000.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
I raise a point of order to the language of lines 5, 6, 7, and
8 of page 14 under the provisions of rule XXI, clause 2, which
prohibits legislation on appropriation bills and which prohibits
the appropriation of funds without prior legislative authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to read from the language of the
commit
[[Page 4987]]
tee's report on White House office, salaries and expenses:
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000, a
reduction of $110,000 below the amount of the budget estimate.
These supplemental funds were requested to provide the
additional funds needed for the activities of the Counselors to the
President and their staffs, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, the President's Special Assistant for Consumer
Affairs, the Council on Economic Policy, and other professional
staff and consultants.
Mr. Chairman, before I pursue this matter further, I would
point out first of all that when an item in an appropriation bill
is defective as violative of the rules of the House--in this
instance, Rule XXI, clause 2--the whole of the particular item
under the point of order falls.
I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order
is directed specifically to the President's special assistant for
consumer affairs and to that office, which was challenged earlier
on this floor this year by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross).
Upon his point of order the Chair acted affirmatively and ruled in
support of the point of order and ruled out the item.
I challenge further on the same grounds, Mr. Chairman, the
appropriations for counsellor to the President in that there is no
statutory authority for counsellors to the President. I challenge
further the President's foreign intelligence advisory board in that
there is also, to my knowledge, no statutory authority for this
particular office.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I challenge on the same grounds again the
counsel on economic policy of the President and his staff and
offices, appurtenances and expenditures pertinent thereto. I would
point out further, Mr. Chairman, that under the rules of the House
of Representatives, that the burden is upon the proponent of the
appropriation bill to establish the legislative basis and to cite
the statutes upon which the Appropriations Committee bases its
action in appropriating funds. . . .
The Chairman: (17) . . . Sections 103, 105, and 106
of title 3 authorize appropriations for the purpose of paying the
salaries of certain persons in the Executive Office of the
President. The appropriation bill itself, in the paragraph
beginning on page 14, line 5, gives no indication that the
appropriation would be used for any unauthorized purpose. The
paragraph merely provides a lump sum for the Executive Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Michigan, in making his point of order, goes
beyond the provisions of the bill and looks at the provisions of
the committee report.
The Chair does not believe that in this case, any more than in
the case made by the gentleman from Iowa earlier in the
consideration of the bill, it is within his province to go beyond
the plain provisions of the bill, and the authorizing statute.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier ruling cited by Mr. Dingell had
taken place on June 15, 1973. Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas,
had sustained a point of
[[Page 4988]]
order against an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs,
established by executive order, where the Committee on Appropriations
had not cited statutory authority for the appropriation (contained in
H.R. 8619, agriculture-environment and consumer protection
appropriations bill). Congress subsequently enacted Public Law No. 93-
143, the Treasury, Executive Office Appropriations Act for fiscal 1974,
containing funds for the White House Office and legislation, effective
for the same fiscal year covered by the supplemental appropriation
bill, permitting the President to employ consultants notwithstanding
other provisions of law. For that reason, and because it was not
readily apparent from the language of either the supplemental bill, the
authorizing statute, or the committee report that a portion of the lump
sum was to fund an unauthorized office, the Chair overruled the point
of order.
Appropriation Bill as Containing Specific Approval
Sec. 2.7 The restriction in law prohibiting the use of any funds for
the preparation of final plans or for construction of the west
front extension ``until specifically approved and appropriated
therefor by the Congress'' was held not to require legislative
``approval'' prior to the appropriation, where the legislative
history of the law indicated that other law was to be considered
sufficient authorization for the project and that only further
approval through the appropriation process was required.
On Apr. 17, 1973,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriations bill
(H.R. 6691) for fiscal 1974, Mr. J. Edward Roush, of Indiana, raised a
point of order against the following language in the bill, and
proceedings ensued as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 12781, 12782, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of the Capitol
For an amount, additional to amounts heretofore appropriated,
for ``Extension of the Capitol'', in substantial accordance with
plans for extension of the West Central front heretofore approved
by the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, to be
expended, as authorized by law, by the Architect of the Capitol
under the direction of such Commission, $58,000,000, to remain
available until expended. . . .
Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is based upon these
following facts: The appropriation as proposed
[[Page 4989]]
lacks legislative authority and, secondly, the language
``$58,000,000 to remain available until expended'' constitutes
legislation on a general appropriation bill. . . .
I would refer to the appropriation bill last year, which would
be Public Law 92-342, under the section ``Extension of the
Capitol:''
Funds available under this appropriation may be used for
the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the
west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be
used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of
construction of said project until specifically approved and
appropriated therefor by the Congress.
I point out to the Chairman that the plans have not been
specifically approved. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I have searched this matter diligently and the
only authority that I can find for the extension of the west front
of the Capitol necessarily has to be inferred from the language of
a bill which was passed in 1855. . . .
Mr. [Robert R.] Casey of Texas: . . . Mr. Chairman, this
project is authorized, and I would point out that the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roush) who is making the point of order, failed
to read all of Public Law 242 of the 84th Congress.
The law reads:
Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is
hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives--
Et cetera.
In substantial accordance with Scheme B of the
architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress
and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document
Numbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Congress), but with such
modifications and additions, including provisions for
restaurant facilities and such other facilities in the Capitol
Grounds, together with utilities . . .
It does not just refer to one item. I think this gives great
latitude.
Together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other
appurtenant or necessary items . . . there is hereby
appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, that the Architect of the Capitol under the direction
of said commission and without regard to the provisions of
section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized
to enter into contracts.
Et cetera.
This law was amended February 14, 1956, and there was added
this amendment under ``Extension of the Capitol.'' This was Public
Law 406, 84th Congress:
The paragraph entitled ``Extension of the Capitol'' in the
Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, is hereby amended by
inserting after the words ``to remain available until
expended'' and before the colon, a comma and the following:
``and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such
additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be
required for the purposes hereof. . . .''
The Chairman: (19) . . . The gentleman from Indiana
. . . contends that Public Law 92-342 requires ``specific''
approval by Congress of prepara
[[Page 4990]]
tion of final plans or initiation of construction prior to an
appropriation therefor. The Chair has examined the legislative
history of the provision relied upon by the gentleman from Indiana
in support of his argument that the appropriation must be
specifically approved by Congress prior to the appropriation, and
it is clear from the debate in the Senate on March 28, 1972, that
approval in an appropriation bill was all that was required by the
provision in Public Law 92-342. The Chair feels that there is
sufficient authorization contained in [Public Law 84-242] as
amended by Public Law 84-406 for the appropriation contained in the
pending bill, and that no further specific authorization is
required prior to an appropriation for final plans and construction
for the West Front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. Sec. 2.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing
that appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses were
to be available for expenses of attendance of officers and
employees at meetings or conventions was held to be in order since
such provision was authorized to be included in appropriation bills
by statutory provisions.
On May 2, 1951, (20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The
following proceeding took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 36,
line 17, insert the following:
Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel
expenses shall be available for expenses of attendance of
officers and employees at meetings or conventions of members of
societies or associations concerned with the work of the bureau
or office for which the appropriation concerned is made.
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order against the amendment that it involves
legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
. . .
The Chairman: (21) The gentleman from Washington has
called the attention of the Chair to section 83, title 5 of the
United States Code. Permit the Chair to read the language contained
in that provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No money appropriated by any act shall be expended for
membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the
United States or of the District of Columbia, in any society or
association or for expenses of attendance of any person at any
meeting or convention of members of any society or association
unless such fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid
by specific appropriations for such purposes or are provided
for in express terms in some general appropriation.
The Chair feels that the language which has just been read
governs the matter and overrules the point of order
[[Page 4991]]
made by the gentleman from New York.
Senate Confirmation of Appointees Required Prior to Appropriation for
Positions
Sec. Sec. 2.9 Although the President has the power to appoint foreign
ambassadors and ministers, an appropriation to pay such salaries is
not in order unless the Senate has confirmed the appointment.
On Aug. 17, 1937, (22) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8245, a deficiency appropriation bill. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 81 Cong. Rec. 9175, 9176, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries of ambassadors and ministers: For an additional amount
for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938, for
the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
to Lithuania at $10,000 per annum, $8,333.34: Provided, That the
appropriation for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal
year 1938, shall be available for payment of the salary of an envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Estonia and Latvia at
$10,000 per annum. . . .
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point on order against the language on page 28, lines 4 to 12,
inclusive, as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill,
not authorized by law. It creates a new position, that of Minister
of Lithuania. The President has no constitutional right and is
empowered by no act of Congress to create additional positions.
Therefore, I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and if the
Chair is in doubt I would like to speak a little further on the
matter and cite some precedents. . . .
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I think
the item is subject to a point of order for the reason that the
Minister has been appointed but not confirmed. The President has
the right to appoint, but if the minister has not been confirmed
the Congress would have no right to appropriate. There has been no
confirmation. I think the gentleman's point of order is well taken,
if he chooses to make it. . . .
The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule. As
stated by the gentleman from Virginia, the President has the right
to appoint. At the present time, however, the Senate has not
confirmed the appointment. The appropriation, therefore, is subject
to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Implied Authorization
Sec. Sec. 2.10 Appropriations for travel expenses, including
examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, under the
heading ``Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture,''
were held authorized by law as necessary
[[Page 4992]]
to carry out the basic law setting up the Department of
Agriculture.
On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter of the
general appropriation bill of 1951. The following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language appearing in lines 6 to 7, page
204, ``travel expenses, including examination of estimates for
appropriations in the field.''. . .
The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] has made a point of
order against the language appearing on page 204 of the chapter
beginning in line 6, which has been quoted by him, on the ground
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the
rules of the House. The Chair has examined the language and has
listened attentively to the arguments presented and has also made
an examination of the precedents and decisions of the House. It
appears that in 1938 a point of order was made against language
similar to this, and the Chairman, Mr. Jones, of Texas, overruled
the point of order. The decision is found on page 2656 of the
Record of March 1, 1938. On the basis of that precedent and
decision the Chair overrules the point of order.
The 1938 decision relied on by the Chair took place during
consideration of H.R. 9621, appropriations for the Department of the
Interior. An amendment had been offered, reading in part as follows:
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 1, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: Page 72, beginning with line
12, insert the following:
Administration provisions and limitations: For all
expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts
amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the
reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures
from said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000
for personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the
office of the chief engineer . . .; examination of estimates
for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and
deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for
lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding.
The following exchange took place:
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is
legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not
authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic
prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision
for examination of estimates for appropriations in
[[Page 4993]]
the field, which is not authorized by law; $15,000 for
lithographing and engraving, not authorized by law; the purchase of
ice, the purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees,
not authorized by law.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment
provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of June 17,
1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemenatary thereto, known
as the reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures
from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The Chair thinks that
the items to which the gentleman from New York objects specifically
are incidental to the main purpose of carrying out the reclamation
law. These incidental items it seems to the Chair are necessary to
carry out the major purposes of the reclamation law, and the Chair,
therefore, overrules the point of order.
Mr. Taber offered an amendment to strike the words ``examination of
estimates for appropriations in the field,'' which amendment was
rejected.
Specific Project Authorized by General Grant of Authority
Sec. 2.11 Legislation authorizing the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to develop and test improved aircraft, and
legislation transferring and vesting those functions ``including
the development and construction of a civil supersonic aircraft''
in the Secretary of Transportation was held to authorize an
appropriation for the construction of prototypes of the civil
supersonic aircraft.
On May 27, 1970,(5) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation
appropriation bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17755), Mr. Sidney R. Yates,
of Illinois, raised a point of order against certain language in the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 17310, 17311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an additional amount for expenses, not otherwise provided
for, necessary for the development of a civil supersonic aircraft,
including the construction of two prototype aircraft of the same
design, and advances of funds without regard to the provisions of
section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),
$289,965,000, to remain available until expended. . . .
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation for the
development of a supersonic aircraft under the terms of a contract
between the Government and the Boeing Co. The authorization for the
appropriation is admittedly section 312(b) of the Federal Aviation
Act, which provides as follows:
The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise
such development work and service testing as tends to the
creation of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers,
and appliances.
For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make
pur
[[Page 4994]]
chases--including exchange--by negotiation, or otherwise, of
experimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances, which seem to offer special advantages to
aeronautics.
There is nothing in either provision which authorizes the
spending of public funds for private purposes or private gains.
There is nothing in either provision which gives the benefits of
whatever development or testing is undertaken to the person or the
company doing the work. My point here is if the Government pays for
the work, as it is in this case, then the Government is entitled to
the product. The Government owns the product because it has paid
for it. There is no provision in the law which permits gifts or for
making grants. That is not the case in this contract because the
plane when built will belong to Boeing. Under the contract,
whatever results from the development belongs to Boeing, which has
the burden of producing the SST. Under the contract the Government
is to be repaid for its money through royalties from the sale of
planes, but the planes when completed will belong to the Boeing Co.
Yet, as I said, there is no authority on the statute books for
loans or grants to the contractor. . . .
The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raised the point of
order against the appropriation appearing on page 2 of the bill,
entitled ``Civil Supersonic Aircraft Development,'' on the ground
that there is no authorization in law for the development of such
an aircraft, and for the expenditure provided herein.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) in responding to
the point of order has cited certain provisions of law which have
been recognized by the gentleman from Illinois as pertaining
directly to the authorization of the civil supersonic aircraft
development program.
The Chair has examined the laws to which attention has been
directed. Chapter 20 of title 49, United States Code, relates to
the Federal aviation program of the Federal Government, and sets
forth the powers and duties of the Federal Aviation Agency and, as
has been pointed out, empowers the Administrator to ``undertake or
supervise such developmental work and service testing as tends to
the creation of improved aircraft. For such purpose, the
Administrator is empowered to make purchases--of experimental
aircraft.''
Even broader, I think, is the delegation of authority that
appears in Public Law 89-670, establishing the Department of
Transportation. Section 6(c)(1) of that act states as follows:
There are hereby transferred to and vested in the Secretary
(of Transportation) all functions, powers, and duties of the
Federal Aviation Agency, and of the Administrator and other
officers and offices thereof, including the development and
construction of a civil supersonic aircraft.
The Chair has heard the argument of the gentleman from Illinois
with reference to his contention that this must be construed
narrowly, but does not find in the law or in the precedents any
requirement for as narrow a construction as the gentleman has
contended for. It is a broad delegation of
[[Page 4995]]
authority, and must not be construed as narrowly as the gentleman
has sought.
In view of these citations, which give the Secretary a broad
experimental and development authority and bestow upon him in
explicit terms the authority to develop and construct a Civil
Supersonic Aircraft, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point
of order.
Therefore the point of order is overruled.
``Miscellaneous'' Items as Authorized
Sec. 2.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for
certain items ``and other miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise
provided for'' was held to apply to regular expenses that are
authorized by law, and in order.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2603, a State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and
Federal Loan Agency appropriation. A provision was read as follows, and
a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2378, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous expenses: For stationery, supplies, materials and
equipment, freight, express, and drayage charges, washing towels,
advertising, purchase of lawbooks and books of reference,
periodicals and newspapers, communication service and postage; for
the maintenance, repair, and operation of one motor-propelled
delivery truck; for rent in the District of Columbia, and
elsewhere; for official traveling expenses, including examination
of estimates for appropriations in the field, and other
miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
effectively carry out the provisions of the act providing for the
administration of the United States courts, and for other purposes,
$26,000. . . .
Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: . . . I make a point of order
against the language beginning in line 15 with the word ``and'' and
ending in line 16 with the word ``for.''
The Chairman: (8) The gentleman makes a point of
order against the language reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And other miscellaneous expenses not otherwise provided
for?
Mr. Jones: That is right.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, this
provides merely for regular expenses that are authorized by law. I
do not see anything in this subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair fails to see any reason why the
language referred to should be subject to a point of order, and
unless the gentleman from Ohio can be more specific in his
objection the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
[[Page 4996]]
Increasing Appropriation Within Authorized Limits
Sec. 2.13 It is in order to increase the appropriation in an
appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law if such increase
does not exceed the amount authorized for such objects.
On Mar. 10, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation
bill. An amendment was allowed which restored part of a sum which had
previously been stricken from the bill, where such amendment did not
cause the appropriation for the objects under consideration to exceed
the total amount for such objects authorized by law. The portion of the
bill in question, and proceedings relating to it, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2224, 2225, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood control, general: For the construction and maintenance of
certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Flood
Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented,
including printing and binding, newspapers, lawbooks, books of
reference, periodicals, and office supplies and equipment required
in the Office of the Chief of Engineers to carry out the purposes
of this appropriation, and for preliminary examinations and surveys
of and contingencies in connection with flood-control projects
authorized by law, $144,973,700: . . .
Mr. [David D.] Terry [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Terry: ``On page 7, line 5, strike
out $144,973,700 and insert $147,078,700.''
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment. . . .
Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
raise the amount carried in the bill, $144,973,000 for flood
control to an amount that will be sufficient to include the
beginning of the work on the Table Rock Reservoir.
Congress has authorized for the White River Basin $49,000,000
to be appropriated for the prosecution of a comprehensive dual
purpose flood control and power program in the White River Basin.
According to the testimony in the hearings, $15,870,000 was
allocated from funds previously appropriated against this
authorization. The Budget has presented four projects in the White
River Basin which total $37,525,000.
The appropriation of this amount, in conjunction with the
$15,870,000, would result in a total of $53,395,000, or $4,395,000
in excess of the $49,000,000 that has been authorized to be
appropriated.
The Committee of the Whole eliminated the $6,500,000 which was
included in the Budget sent down on
[[Page 4997]]
February 20 for the construction of Table Rock Reservoir. When this
matter was up in the subcommittee at the time of the marking up of
the bill, a motion was made by a committee member to eliminate
Table Rock, but the subcommittee voted against cutting out the
Table Rock item. When the bill came up in the full committee on
appropriations, on a very close vote, the committee eliminated
Table Rock on the theory that--and it was a fact--the appropriation
was over the authorization. So the Table Rock item was eliminated,
as I say, by a very close vote.
My amendment merely seeks to raise the amount to the limit of
the congressional authorization. If we adopt my amendment we add
$2,105,000 to the amount in the bill for flood control, but it will
permit considerable work to be done on the Table Rock project this
year and the coming fiscal year, and we shall still be within the
authorized appropriation limit carried in the Budget estimate for
the whole bill, and we shall not be above the $49,000,000 which has
been authorized by the Congress for the White River Basin. . . .
The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The authorization for these two projects was only $49,000,000.
. . .
Mr. Chairman, this exceeds the total amount authorized. . . .
Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the committee in charge of the bill
has checked those figures with the Army engineers in charge of
flood control, and the figure that I have included in the amendment
is the figure given by the engineers. It shows a total of
$53,395,000 will be appropriated, including $15,870,000 past
amounts, and those in the Budget estimates for 1943, in the sum of
$37,525,000, with a $49,000,000 authorization. That would exceed
the authorization $4,395,000. If $6,500,000 for Table Rock is
stricken out, the authorizations will exceed the appropriations in
an amount of $2,105,000, which is the amount of my amendment, and
is an amount that will not exceed the Budget estimate and will not
exceed the $49,000,000 authorized by the Legislative Committee of
this House for the comprehensive plan for the White River Basin.
Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I may say the gentleman's own figures
show that these are the items to begin the project and they will
exceed the amount of the Budget estimate.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
This section of the bill, lines 4 and 5, is for preliminary
examination, surveys, or for contingencies in connection with
flood-control projects authorized by law.
The gentleman from Arkansas in his amendment raises the
appropriation, but in that raise it only applies to those projects
which are authorized by law; therefore, the point of order is
overruled.
Sec. 2.14 An amendment proposing simply to increase an appropriation
for a specific object over the amount car
[[Page 4998]]
ried in the appropriation bill does not constitute a change in law
unless such increase is in excess of that authorized.
On Feb. 28, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office appropriation bill.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2029, 2030, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction of public buildings outside of the District of
Columbia: For continuation of construction of, and acquisition of
sites for, public buildings outside of the District of Columbia,
including the purposes and objects, and subject to the limitations,
specified under this head in the Third Deficiency Appropriation
Act, fiscal year 1937, and also including those increases in the
limits of cost of certain authorized projects, 25 in number, as
specified in House Document No. 177, Seventy-sixth Congress,
$30,000,000: Provided, That the provisions of section 322 of the
act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412), shall not apply with respect
to the rental of temporary quarters for housing Federal activities
during the replacement or remodeling of buildings authorized under
this or previous acts.
Mr. [James F.] O'Connor [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'Connor: Page 51, line 8,
strikeout ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$60,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that it is not authorized by law. . . .
The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. O'Connor] offers an amendment
on page 51, line 8, seeking to increase the appropriation there
stated, $30,000,000, to the figure of $60,000,000, to which
amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of
order on the ground that the increase in the item sought to be made
is not authorized by law.
The Chair invites attention to Public Resolution 122, Seventy-
fifth Congress, title III, Federal Public Buildings, and quotes in
part as follows:
. . . is hereby increased from $70,000,000 to $130,000,000.
There is a balance remaining of that authorization of
$71,000,000. The pending bill carries an appropriation of
$30,000,000, which would leave $41,000,000 unappropriated. The
amendment of the gentleman from Montana seeks to increase the
$30,000,000 appropriation to $60,000,000, or seeks to appropriate
$30,000,000 of the remaining $41,000,000 authorized by law.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing an additional
amount within the total authorized was held to be in order.
[[Page 4999]]
On Feb. 25, 1958, (13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10881, a bill making supplemental appropriations. The
following provision was read and a point of order was raised as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an additional amount for ``Acreage reserve program,''
fiscal year 1958, $250,000, which shall be available to formulate
and administer an acreage reserve program in accord with the
provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C.
1821-1824 and 1802-1814), with respect to the 1958 crops, in an
amount not to exceed $175 million in addition to the amount
specified for such purposes in Public Law 85-118.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the paragraph on page 4, lines 1 to 9 of the bill on
the ground that it changes existing law. I refer the chairman to
the language of the appropriation bill which became law on the 2d
day of August. . . .
The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language objected to by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] provides for an additional amount. This of course means an
additional amount to that provided for in the authorization
contained in Public Law 540 of the 84th Congress.
The Chair therefore feels that in view of the fact that there
are ample funds authorized to carry out this program, and that the
appropriation herein proposed is within the authorized amount, the
point of order cannot be sustained.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The law referred to in the point of order
was contained in Pub. L. No. 85-118 which provided, ``That no part of
this appropriation shall be used to formulate and administer an acreage
reserve program which would result in total compensation being paid to
producers in excess of'' a designated amount. That limitation, since it
applied only to the appropriation in that act, had no applicability to
the supplemental appropriation which was in dispute here.
Appropriation of Total Authorization
Sec. 2.16 Where the law authorizes an appropriation of a specific
amount and a paragraph of an appropriation bill appropriates a
portion thereof, an amendment changing the figure in the bill to
the full amount authorized is in order.
On Mar. 28, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5269, an agricultural
[[Page 5000]]
appropriation bill. The following portion of the bill was before the
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 3454, 3455, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Tenancy
To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the
provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act,
approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), including the
employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and
elsewhere, exclusive of printing and binding, as authorized by said
act, $24,984,500, together with the unexpended balance of the
appropriation made under said act for the fiscal year 1939.
Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 93, line
22, after the word ``Act'', strike ``$24,584,500'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$50,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that the $50,000,000 is not authorized by law. . . .
The Chairman: (16) The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma provides that the figures, $24,984,500, be
stricken out and $50,000,000 inserted in lieu thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill is making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture, and for the Farm Credit Administration, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1940. The Chair has examined the law, and the
law provides, on the question of farm tenancy, that not to exceed
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated for the year ending June 30,
1938; not to exceed $25,000,000 for the year ending June 30, 1939;
and not to exceed $50,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
Therefore the point of order is overruled.
Effect of Language Limiting Appropriations to Purposes Authorized by
Law
Sec. 2.17 A point of order will not lie against a lump-sum
appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some
of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation
of funds have not been authorized, since language in the bill
limits use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''
On June 18, 1958,(17) a point of order was made against
provisions of H.R. 12858 (appropriations for civil functions
administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies of the
Department of the Interior), as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
construction, general
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized
[[Page 5001]]
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 $1,600,000 for transfer to the Secretary of the Interior
for conservation of fish and wildlife as authorized by law; to
remain available until expended $577,085,500: . . . Provided
further, 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. [John] Taber [of New York]: [I make a point of order
against the] paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending on page
5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the appropriation which
has not been authorized by law. The figure there is $577,085,500. I
am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by letter dated June 11,
1958, that there is contained here $57,702,253 in projects which
are not authorized by law.
I am able by referring to the different items on page 5 of the
Report that there are the Beaver Reservoir in Arkansas, the Bull
Shoals Reservoir, Arkansas and Missouri. . . . There are probably
15 or 20 of those items. . . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: [The] gentleman makes a
point of order against the figure $577,085,500 in line 8 on page 4.
But the point of order does not lie for the reason that in the
proviso at the bottom of page 4 it is specifically provided:
Provided further, 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.
So the point of order is not well taken, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, these projects are without and beyond
the limits of the authorization. That is the point of order.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, may I also call attention to the
language beginning on page 3 as follows:
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.
The figure the gentleman refers to is for this specific
purpose.
The Chairman [Hale Boggs, of Louisiana]: The Chair is prepared
to rule.
The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23,
page 3, the language is as follows:
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.
Then further, as again pointed out by the chairman, there is
this language on the bottom of page 4:
That no part of this appropriation shall be used for
projects not authorized by law.
Now, that language, in the opinion of the Chair, is quite
specific in that none
[[Page 5002]]
of these funds regardless of the amount involved, can be used for
any project which is not authorized by law.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.18 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,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 12326), the
following paragraph of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the prosecution of river and harbor . . . and related
projects authorized by law; detailed studies, and plans and
specifications, of projects . . . authorized or made eligible for
selection by law . . .; 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: . . .
The Chairman: (19) The Chair recognizes the
gentleman to make (a) point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote briefly from ``Cannon's
Precedents,'' page 63:
As a general proposition whenever a limitation is
accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' ``until,''
``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-called
limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to its
ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the
conservative side. By doing so appropriation bills will be
relieved of much of the legislation which is being constantly
grafted
[[Page 5003]]
upon them and a check given a practice which seems to the
Chair, both unwise and in violation of the spirit, as well as
the substance, of our rules.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut]
care to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the
language. The legislative committee has placed outside limits on
the amount of money which can be spent in a given river basin. Such
basin may have a number of dams or projects in it. Without the
language these monetary limits could be exceeded by action on an
appropriation bill, thus setting aside the action of the
legislative committee.
This is strictly a limitation.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the
Chair that more than one member of the committee has admitted that
there are appropriations not authorized by law, that this is a
subterfuge, and I say, Mr. Chairman, designed to controvert the
rule of the House.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on Appropriations
for the past 18 years. I cannot recall when a point of order has
ever been raised against similar language in an appropriation bill.
The language is simply limiting an appropriation expenditure,
providing that the expenditure shall not be made until such project
is authorized by law. I fail to see, Mr. Chairman, where a point of
order could lie against this language because it is purely a simple
limitation of expenditure on an appropriation bill; nothing more,
nothing less.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
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 phase ``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: This precedent and the preceding one
demonstrate that when a lumpsum appropriation is restricted by specific
language in the bill to projects authorized by law, indications in the
committee report to the effect that certain unauthorized projects may
be contemplated must be conceded to be without legislative effect.
Where there is such a conflict in language, the language in the bill
itself would prevail. Further discussion of this concept appears in
Chapter 26, infra.
[[Page 5004]]
Sec. 2.19 A point of order will not lie against an amendment proposing
to increase a lump-sum appropriation for construction and
rehabilitation of public works projects when language in the bill
limits use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects . . . as
authorized by law.''
On June 5, 1959,(20) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for
civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Budge: On page 8, line 5, strike
out ``$128,473,239'' and insert ``$128,973,-239.''. . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The amendment has just
been read and I am reserving a point of order to the amendment.
The Chairman: (21) Will the gentleman from Missouri
state his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cannon: The point of order is that the project is
unauthorized.
Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to overrule the point of
order without further discussion, because the amendment simply
changes the amount of the bill without specific reference to any
project.
The point of order is overruled.
Parliamentarian's Note: The paragraph to which this amendment was
offered began as follows: ``Construction and Rehabilitation. For
construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation projects or
parts thereof (including power transmission facilities) and for other
related activities, as authorized by law to remain available until
expended, $128,473,239 . . .''
Sec. 2.20 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum
appropriation for increased pay costs, where the objection was
based on the ground that a portion of the increase was not yet
authorized by law; it was noted that language in the bill limited
use of the appropriation to pay costs ``authorized by or pursuant
to law.''
On May 21, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11400, a supplemental appropriation bill. The
following
[[Page 5005]]
paragraphs of the bill were read for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
House of Representatives
compensation of members
Compensation of Members, $1,975,000
salaries, officers, and employees
``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the
ground that, as admitted by the committee, this contains moneys to
be appropriated that have not been authorized by Congress.
The Chairman: (2) The Chair will inquire: Does the
gentleman's point of order refer to lines 12, 13, and 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman,
I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the
Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is, I believe, only
referring to the pay increase for the Speaker and other Members--
the item on line 12.
Mr. Gross: Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line
items contains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much
as I can to be sure I get the funds covered. If the gentleman will
tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with
the permission of the Chair.
Mr. Mahon: The funds which have not been authorized are
included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.
Mr. Gross: Those are the only funds that have not been
authorized?
Mr. Mahon: Yes; that is the figure involved. A small portion of
that has not been authorized. . . .
The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That
is correct.
Mr. Gross: You mean the $1,975,000?
Mr. Mahon: No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But it cannot
be paid unless it is authorized. Otherwise, it would revert unused
to the Treasury.
The Chairman: The Chair again is confused. The Chair sees no
reference to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language
referred to here.
Mr. Mahon: It is part of the figure of $1,975,000. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is still in a quandary because the
language in line 7 says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or
pursuant to law.''
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, all compensation due by law to Members
of Congress is authorized. If it is not authorized, it cannot be
paid.
The Chairman: Yes. . . .
The Chair is constrained to hold that the gentleman's point of
order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot
be used for any other purpose than increased pay costs authorized
by or pursuant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is
overruled.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1960
[H.R. 11666], where a point of order was made against a
paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that the lump-
sum figure therein contained, according to the report, funds
for one organization in excess of the authorization. Although
the point of order was conceded, the language of the bill
specified that appropriations in the paragraph were available
only for ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts''
providing for U.S. participation in certain organizations, and,
under the precedents, the quoted language would limit the
amount which could be used to the amount actually authorized,
so that the point of order would not lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5006]]
Authorizations Enacted After Reporting Appropriation Bill
Sec. 2.21 A point of order against an item in a general appropriation
bill was overruled when it became apparent that the authorizing
legislation had been enacted into law between the time the
appropriation bill was reported and the time it was considered in
the Committee of the Whole.
On May 19, 1970,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17619) a point of order was raised against
certain language in the bill as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 16164, 16165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act
of October 30, 1965 (16 U.S.C. 757), $2,168,000.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language on lines 1 through 3 of page 19
as unauthorized for an appropriation.
The Chairman: (5) Does the gentlewoman from
Washington desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Yes, I do, Mr.
Chairman.
May I say, relative to the Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries
Conservation, the bill was signed by the President of the United
States on May 14.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The language in the bill indicates that this is under the
provisions of the act of October 30, 1965. As the gentlewoman from
Washington points out, the program has recently been reauthorized--
Public Law 91-249.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Repeal of Prior Authorization
Sec. 2.22 An act providing that notwithstanding any other law, ``no
appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration unless previously authorized by legislation
hereafter enacted by the Con
[[Page 5007]]
gress,'' was construed to have voided all previous authorizations
for appropriations to that agency; hence an appropriation was held
not to be in order since not authorized by law enacted after the
repeal.
On June 29, 1959,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
7978), a point of order was raised against certain provisions of the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Research and Development
For an additional amount for ``Research and development,''
fiscal year 1959, $18,675,000, to remain available until
expended.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point [of] order against
the language on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, on the ground that there
is no authorization in basic law for this appropriation to be made.
In connection with that, I send a copy of Public Law 86-45 of
the 86th Congress to the Chair. I make the point of order on the
ground that there is no authorization in basic law for this
appropriation to be made. The authorization for this appropriation
did exist at one time, but it was repealed by the act of June 15,
1959, Public Law 86-45, section 4, which reads as follows:
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no
appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration unless previously authorized by legislation
hereafter enacted by the Congress.
This law, Mr. Chairman, was approved on June 15, 1959. This
language clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that appropriations can
be made for items authorized by legislation which is hereafter
enacted, meaning after June 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly states that
appropriations can be made only for items authorized after June 15,
1959, hence all previous authorizations are voided. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa has made a point of order
against that portion of the bill appearing in lines 2, 3, and 4,
page 4, and has called the attention of the Chair to section 4 of
Public Law 86-45. In view of the language cited, the Chair sustains
the point of order.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 3. Reappropriations
A House rule states:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating
unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision
shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations
for public works on which work has commenced.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XXI clause 5 (renumbered as clause 6 beginning with the 94th
Congress), House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5008]]
The rule is not applicable when the reappropriation language is
identical to legislative authorization language enacted subsequent to
the adoption of the rule, since the law is a more recent expression of
the will of the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 3.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The precedents in this section must be compared with those carried
in Chapter 26, infra, discussing transfer of funds affecting other
appropriations, wherein provisions which sought to authorize the
transfer of previously appropriated funds into new accounts for a
different purpose have been ruled out as legislation changing existing
law in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI. Section 139(c) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, later incorporated into the
standing rules as clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI in 1953, sought
to preclude reappropriations of unexpended balances, which were
understood to be legislative methods (1) for making an appropriation
available after the period in which it may be obligated has expired, or
(2) for transferring to a given appropriation an amount not needed in
another appropriation.(10) Prior to 1946, provisions which
reappropriated in a direct manner unexpended balances and continued
their availability for the same purpose for an extended period of time
were not prohibited by Rule XXI because those provisions did not
contain direct language changing existing law by conferring new
authority (see, e.g., 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3592; 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1152), and this doctrine was extended even to include
reappropriations for different purposes than those for which originally
appropriated, if the new purposes were authorized by law (see, e.g., 7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158; Sec. 3.14, infra). Other precedents,
however, indicate that prior to 1946, propositions to make an
appropriation payable from funds already appropriated for a different
purpose have been ruled out as legislation (see e.g., 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1466). Indeed, on Dec. 14, 1921, Speaker Frederick H.
Gillett, of Massachusetts, stated that ``there are several decisions in
print which are contradictory. There are decisions both ways.'' (7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158). In light of more recent precedents
contained in
[[Page 5009]]
Chapter 26, infra, however, it would appear that the Chair may properly
rule out as legislation in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI provisions on
a general appropriation bill which confer new authority to expend
previously appropriated funds for a new purpose or for unauthorized
projects by inclusion of language permitting or mandating transfers
between accounts. Both that chapter and this section indicate that the
Chair has on occasion relied upon both clause 2 and clause 5 of Rule
XXI to rule out provisions which sought to authorize the transfer of
previously appropriated funds into new accounts. Despite the conferral
of Rule X clause 1(b)(3) in the 93d Congress of jurisdiction over
``transfers of unexpended balances'' upon the Committee on
Appropriations, that committee remains restricted by clause 5 (now
clause 6) of Rule XXI from including reappropriations of unexpended
balances of appropriations in general appropriation bills, and only
transfers between accounts in the same general appropriation bill are
permitted (see Ch. 26, infra, discussion of transfer of funds within
the same bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, e.g., summary of hearings, Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 824, June 19, 1945
(hearing on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The return of an unexpended balance to the Treasury is in
order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 4 Hinds' precedents
Sec. 3594. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally
Sec. 3.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing
reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations is in
violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), and therefore not in
order.
On July 11, 1955,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The
following provision of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 10232, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See also, for example,
106 Cong. Rec. 6862, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1960; 101
Cong. Rec. 8534, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1956. . . .
An amendment was offered as indicated below:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten:
On page 1, line 3, strike out the word ``appropriated'' and
substitute the word ``reappropriated.''
Page 1, line 4, strike out the words ``not otherwise'' and
substitute the word ``heretofore.''
The effect of which was to change the text of the bill to read:
That the following sums are reappropriated, out of any money in
the Treas
[[Page 5010]]
ury heretofore appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1956.
A point of order was made as follows:
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill. He attempts to appropriate money heretofore
appropriated . . . and it goes beyond the scope of the present
legislation.
Mr. [James L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding that a rule was had on this bill on legislation
included in it. It is my understanding that money now in the
Treasury to the credit of the foreign-aid program is not all
expended.
The Chairman: (13) The legislation under
consideration is not here under a special rule. If the gentleman
does not care to be heard, the Chair is ready to rule on the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Rule XXI, clause 5, is very plain. It provides
that--
No general appropriation or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.
It seems to the Chair that this language very plainly deals
with the amendment that has just been offered, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
Sec. Sec. 3.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill reappropriating
unexpended balances of funds previously appropriated was held in
violation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and not in
order for certain monitoring activities.
On Aug. 20, 1951,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5215, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment
was offered and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 10393, 10394, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 9, strike out lines
22 and 23 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``For an
additional amount, for monitoring activities, to be derived from
funds previously appropriated, $1,000,000.''
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
The appropriation is from ``funds previously appropriated'' and
therefore is tantamount to a reappropriation. Under amendments to
the rules of the House enacted in the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, reappropriations are not in order on general
appropriation bills. . . .
The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision in the gentleman's amendment providing that the
funds for monitoring activities are to be derived from funds
previously appropriated is a violation of the Reorga
[[Page 5011]]
nization Act, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 3.3 In an appropriation bill a provision that ``the unexpended
balance of appropriations heretofore reserved for moving the
International Broadcasting Service to the District of Columbia or
its environs shall remain available for such purpose until December
31, 1954,'' was ruled out, being a reappropriation in violation of
Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), the Chair also construing the
language to be legislation in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
On Mar. 3, 1954,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Department
appropriation. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 2600, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page
49, lines 11 to 14, I make a point of order against that language.
The Chairman: (17) Will the gentleman explain his
point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rooney: This would make available into another fiscal year
funds appropriated in the current year. There is no authority in
law for this.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio]: I concede the point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair thinks this is legislation on an
appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Sec. 3.4 A provision in an appropriation bill permitting an
appropriation previously made in another act to be used for a new
purpose was conceded to be legislation.
On Dec. 11, 1969,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1970, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a
point of order against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 38541, 38542, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members' Clerk Hire
After June 1, 1970, but without increasing the aggregate basic
clerk hire monetary allowance to which each Member and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico is otherwise entitled by law, the
appropriation for ``Members' clerk hire'' may be used for
employment of a ``student congressional intern'' in accord with the
provisions of House Resolution 416, Eighty-ninth Congress.
Point of Order
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on
[[Page 5012]]
page 6, beginning with line 11 and through line 18, as being
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman desire to be
heard in support of the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: I thought I made the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the Committee
on Appropriations put this legislation in the bill for the purpose
of accommodating Members. It is subject to a point of order, and
the point of order is conceded.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas has conceded the point
of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 3.5 Where the bill providing an annual authorization for the Coast
Guard Reserve had not yet been enacted into law, an amendment to a
general appropriation bill containing funds for Coast Guard Reserve
training and providing that amounts equal to prior year
appropriations for that purpose should be transferred to that
appropriation was held to contain an unauthorized appropriation in
violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and a reappropriation of unexpended
balances in violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6).
On June 20, 1973,(20) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation
appropriation bill for fiscal 1974 (H.R. 8760), Mr. George H. Mahon, of
Texas, raised a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr.
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts. Proceedings were as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 4, after line 23, insert:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 20538, 20539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Training
For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; and
supplies, equipment, and services; $25,000,000: Provided, That
amounts equal to the obligated balances against appropriations
for ``Reserve training'' for the two preceding years shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation, and such
merged appropriation shall be available as one fund, except for
accounting purposes of the Coast Guard, for payment of
obligations properly incurred against such prior year
appropriations and against this appropriation. . . .
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against
the amendment. The amendment, in my opinion, is legislation on an
appropriation bill and the funds are not authorized by law, so I
make the point of order against the amendment. . . .
The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5013]]
Clause 2, rule XXI, prohibits unauthorized items from being
included in amendments to a general appropriation bill, and also
clause 5, rule XXI, has a prohibition against the reappropriation
of unexpended balances of sums appropriated in prior years. The
amendment is subject to a point of order for these reasons and the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Later Rule as Superseding Statute
Sec. 3.6 A provision in the mutual security appropriation bill
reappropriating unexpended balances was conceded to be a
reappropriation proscribed by Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6),
notwithstanding a provision in the Mutual Security Act of 1955
(Sec. 548, adopted July 8, 1955, 22 USC Sec. 1767a) providing that
``unexpended balances are authorized to be continued available,''
since the rules of the House readopted in 1959 contained a later
expression of Congress to the contrary.
On June 17, 1960,(2) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 12619) making appropriations
for the mutual security program and related agencies for fiscal 1961,
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against certain
language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 106 Cong. Rec. 13138, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 5, lines 1 through 8, inclusive, on the grounds it
is not in order on a general appropriation bill under clause 5 of
rule XXI. This language provides for the reappropriation of funds
previously made available and is not permitted under the rules of
the House--paragraph 5 of rule XXI which reads, in pertinent part,
as follows:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.
It is true that the mutual security authorization law
authorizes reappropriation of unexpended balances, but that
authority was last contained in section 548 enacted in calendar
year 1956. Subsequent to that time, and at the beginning of the
86th Congress, the House adopted rules from which I have just read.
Inasmuch as this rulemaking action occurred subsequent to the
latest action by law, and there has been no enactment by statute on
the particular matter during the present Congress, the rules of the
House govern in this situation. Furthermore, it is well settled in
the precedents that the power of the House to make its own rules
may not be impaired by a law passed by a prior Congress. Therefore,
I ask that my point of order be sustained.
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was considerate enough to advise us
in advance of his intention to make this point of order.
[[Page 5014]]
He has stated the facts of the matter accurately. I have discussed
this point of order with other Members and we have carefully
reviewed the situation. Most regretfully I must concede that the
point of order is well taken.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later Statute as Superseding Rule
Sec. 3.7 Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), relating to the
reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations, is not
applicable when the reappropriation language is identical to the
authorization language enacted subsequent to adoption of the rule;
thus, where the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. No. 87-195)
specifically provided that ``unexpended balances of funds made
available under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 . . . are hereby
authorized to be continued available for general purposes for which
appropriated,'' the Speaker pro tempore held that a provision in an
appropriation bill reappropriating the unexpended balances of such
funds was in order, notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause
6), since the legislative authorization bill was a more recent
expression of the will of the House.
On Sept. 5, 1961,(4) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a
point of order against consideration of a bill (H.R. 9033) making
appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies for fiscal
year 1962. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 107 Cong. Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the Chair to the Rules of
the House of Representatives, 87th Congress, rule XXI, paragraph 5,
which reads as follows:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations; except
that this provision shall not apply to appropriations in
continuation of appropriations for public works on which work
has commenced.
Mr. Speaker, the language is explicit and there is only one
exception; that is for public works bills. I submit that this is
not a public works bill.
Mr. Speaker, I call attention of the Chair to the language
contained in H.R. 9033 for which consideration is asked, on page 3
of that bill, lines 8 through 24.
Unobligated balances (not to exceed $50,000,000) as of June
30,
[[Page 5015]]
1961, of funds heretofore made available for military
assistance under the authority of the Mutual Security Act of
1954, as amended, are, except as otherwise provided by law,
hereby continued available for the fiscal year 1962 for the
same general purposes for which appropriated.
Further, Mr. Speaker, section 101 on the same page reads:
Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated
against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of
the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, for the same
general purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic
assistance'' except the subparagraph of this title for
``Administrative expenses,'' are hereby continued available for
the same period as the respective appropriations in such
subparagraphs for the same general purpose.
Mr. Speaker, the language which I have read relates to funds
not in the bill and clearly reappropriates unexpended balances of
appropriations in violation of the rules of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair is prepared
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was
passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President
yesterday, and is now Public Law 87-195, specifically authorizes:
Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to the
Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, are hereby authorized
to be continued available for the general purposes for which
appropriated, and may at any time be consolidated, and, in
addition, may be consolidated with appropriations made
available for the same general purposes under the authority of
this act.
That is the will of both branches of the Congress as expressed
very recently. The language in the pending appropriation bill is
identical and consistent with the authority contained in section
645.
The Chair overrules the point of order, for the reason that the
recent act of the Congress makes the actions of the Committee on
Appropriations pursuant to law.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the House, 87th Congress
(including Rule XXI clause 5) were adopted on Jan. 3, 1961 (H.
Res. 8). The foreign-aid authorization bill (S. 1983) was
signed by the President on Sept. 4, 1961 (becoming Pub. L. No.
87-195). Section 645 of this law contained a specific
authorization for the reappropriation of certain unexpended
balances of mutual security funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.8 Language in an appropriation bill continuing the availability
of unobligated balances of prior appropriations was held in order
where provisions of the original authorizing legislation still in
effect had provided for such a reappropriation, and a dollar
limitation in the current authorization bill was interpreted to be
a limitation on new appropriations only and not to restrict
[[Page 5016]]
the reappropriation of unexpended balances of prior year funds.
On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10871, a foreign-aid appropriation bill for fiscal
1966. The Clerk read the following portion of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23181, 23182, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3, line 19:
Unobligated balances as of June 30, 1965, of funds
heretofore made available under the authority of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, except as otherwise
provided by law, are hereby continued available for the fiscal
year 1966, for the same general purposes for which appropriated
and amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated
against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of
the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, for the same general
purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic
Assistance'' are hereby continued available for the same period
as the respective appropriations in such subparagraphs for the
same general purpose: Provided, That such purpose relates to a
project or program previously justified to Congress and the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate are notified prior to the reobligation of funds
for such projects or programs.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language appearing on page 3, beginning with line
19 and running through the remainder of that page to and through
line 13 on page 4.
I made the point of order on the basis that the authorization
bill contains section 649, which reads as follows:
Sec. 649. Limitation on aggregate authorization for use in
fiscal year 1966.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the aggregate of the total amounts authorized to be
appropriated for use during the fiscal year 1966, for
furnishing assistance and for administrative expenses under
this Act shall not exceed $3,360,000,000.
Mr. Chairman, I point out that listed at the top of page 3 of
the committee report is the ``carryover from prior year
appropriations,'' in the amount of $158,352,000, which is a part of
the unobligated carryover that is controlled under the language
which I seek to strike under the point of order. There is further
``deobligations of prior-year obligations'' listed in the report at
the top of page 3. This is also controlled under the language that
I seek to have stricken under the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to find the total amounts of all
appropriations contained in the language to be found on pages 3 and
4, to which I have referred, but in order that this bill to be made
to conform to the new section that was written into the
authorization bill, which has been signed by the President of the
United States and is now law, I submit that the language in the
bill to which I have referred must be stricken.
The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Louisiana
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5017]]
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
It appears to me that we are dealing with two different acts.
Under the authorizing legislation there was a ceiling of $3,360
million of new appropriations. The bill before the House calls for
only $3,285 million in new appropriations. Some part of the
previous money appropriated is 1-year funds and does not
necessarily carry over, and we are following the language in the
authorizing legislation itself.
I refer to section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as
amended:
Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to
this Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended or Public
Law 86-735 are hereby authorized to be continued available for
the general purposes for which appropriated, and may at any
time be consolidated, and, in addition, may be consolidated
with appropriations made available for the same general
purposes under the authority of this Act.
Mr. Passman further made the argument, apparently accepted by the
Chair, that since section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 had
not been deleted from the current bill in conference, it appeared the
conference intended that the right to continue unobligated funds should
remain in the authorization.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa made his point of order against the
language on line 19, page 3, and through line 13 on page 4.
The Chair, after careful examination of the sections in the
conference report referred to by the various Members who have
commented on this point of order, is constrained to agree that the
language found in the conference report on page 25 referred to
authorizations contained in that particular bill and pertains only
to new money.
There is a definite feeling on the part of the Chair that it
did not pertain to carryover funds or to the making available of
funds which under section 645 would remain and continue to be
available.
The Chair feels that section 645 is sufficient to make these
carryover funds in order and the Chair, therefore, overrules the
point of order.
Transfer of Funds
Sec. 3.9 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring the
availability of funds available in other acts for employment of
guards for government buildings and conferring certain powers on
those guards and on the Postmaster General was conceded to be
subject to a point of order and was ruled out as in violation of
Rule XXI clauses 2 and 5 (clause 5 is now clause 6).
On Aug. 1, 1973,(9) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury, postal
[[Page 5018]]
service, and executive office appropriations bill (H.R. 9590) for
fiscal 1974, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, raised a point of order
against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 610. Funds made available by this or any other Act to the
``Building management fund'' (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), and the ``Postal
service fund'' (39 U.S.C. 2003), shall be available for employment
of guards for all buildings and areas owned or occupied by the
United States or the Postal Service and under the charge and
control of the General Services Administration or the Postal
Service, and such guards shall have, with respect to such property,
the powers of special policemen provided by the first section of
the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), but shall
not be restricted to certain Federal property as otherwise required
by the proviso contained in said section, and, as to property owned
or occupied by the Postal Service, the Postmaster General may take
the same actions as the Administrator of General Services may take
under the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948
(62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b) attaching thereto penal
consequences under the authority and within the limits provided in
section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C.
318c).
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make, again, the same point of
order against the entirety of section 610, beginning with line 4 on
page 36.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: (10) The point of order is conceded
and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holman Rule Not Applicable
Sec. 3.10 A reappropriation of unexpended balances, prohibited by Rule
XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), is not in order on a general
appropriation bill under the guise of a Holman rule exception to
Rule XXI clause 2.
On Oct. 18, 1966,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 18381, a supplemental appropriation bill. Proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 16 after line 3 add a new
section as follows:
Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision,
appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall,
not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, be reduced in the aggregate by not less than
$1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer
of funds previously appropriated for governmental activities
that the President, within the aforementioned 120 days, shall
have determined to be excess to the necessities of the services
and objects for which appropriated.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against this amendment.
[[Page 5019]]
The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the amendment goes far
beyond the scope of this bill and applies to funds made available
by other laws for which appropriations are not provided in the
pending measure.
I make the further point of order that the amendment would
obviously impose additional duties on the President.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Yes, I do wish to be heard, Mr.
Chairman.
With respect to this amendment I shall not repeat the
provisions of the Holman rule.
I believe we have changed the Holman rule today by making it
relate to this bill. The previous precedents of the House have been
it must not necessarily apply to this particular bill when there is
a retrenchment so, we are making new precedents today.
This is a general appropriation bill affecting various
agencies. Since the amendment also deals with and affects various
appropriations of various agencies, it is germane.
Again, there can be no speculation as to its retrenching
Federal expenditures because it reduces appropriations in this
bill--in this bill by $1.5 billion and requires the President to
fund activities in this bill from previously appropriated funds
that are excess to the necessities of the services and objects for
which appropriated.
I point out again that the Holman rule does not go along with
the decision suggested by the distinguished chairman of the
committee that additional duties are involved.
Under the Holman rule it is a question of retrenchment of
expenditures.
The legislation in this amendment is not unrelated to the
retrenchment of expenditures. Instead, it is directly instrumental
in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures. Thus, the proposed
retrenchment and the legislation are inseparable and must be
considered together.
``Cannon's Precedents'', in volume VII, 1550 and 1551, holds
that an amendment may include such legislation as is directly
instrumental in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures
proposed. That is the precise situation with respect to this
pending amendment.
Again I cite ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VII, 1511, which
holds that language admitted under the Holman rule is not
restricted in its application to the pending bill, and to the June
1, 1892, decision, to which I referred before, of the Committee of
the Whole and its Chairman, that an amendment was in order under
the Holman rule even though it changed existing law.
I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if this is held to be out of
order we will be changing the precedents and the rules of the
House, and we will be destroying the Holman rule.
I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio specifies that
appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall be
reduced in the ag
[[Page 5020]]
gregate by not less than $1.5 billion. This reduction would be
achieved by authorizing and directing the President to utilize
previously appropriated funds for the activities carried in this
bill.
The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. It
places additional determinations and duties on the President and
involves funds other than those carried in this bill.
Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have
to qualify, as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the
Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is
inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum
which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held
not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule.
Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruled to the same effect when a
proposition involving the Holman rule was before the House on
January 26, 1921.
Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) authorizes the reappropriation of
unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in
this bill and is not germane.
With respect to the latter point and the citation that has been
given by the gentleman from Ohio, which is found in the precedents
of the House, volume VII, 1511, the Chair will note that the
proposition reduced the number of Army officers and provided the
method by which the reduction should be accomplished. It was an
amendment, as it appears in the citation, to a War Department
appropriation bill and was therefore germane in spite of whatever
the general proposition in the heading may have stated.
For the reasons given, the Chair will sustain the point of
order made by the gentleman from Texas.
Limitation of Funds in Bill so Long as Previously Appropriated Funds
Remain Unexpended
Sec. 3.11 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no part
of the funds therein should be available for expenditure so long as
the funds theretofore appropriated for such purpose and unexpended
exceeded three billion dollars, was held to be a proper limitation
and not an affirmative reappropriation of unexpended balances.
On July 11, 1955,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10235, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained
in this act
[[Page 5021]]
shall be available for expense of transportation . . . and
unpacking of household goods and personal effects in excess of an
average of 5,000 pounds net but not exceeding 9,000 pounds net in
any one shipment, but the limitations imposed herein shall not be
applicable in the case of employees transferred to or serving in
stations outside the continental United States under orders
relieving them from a duty station within the United States prior
to August 1, 1953.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten: On page 9, after line 9,
add the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds herein
appropriated shall be available for expenditure so long as the
funds heretofore appropriated for such purposes and unexpended
by the Mutual Security Administration exceed $3 billion.''
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill and that it attempts to reappropriate money
previously appropriated. . . .
The Chairman: (14) As the Chair understands it, the
amendment provides a very definite limitation to this
appropriation. In the opinion of the Chair it is merely a
limitation and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reappropriations Permitted Prior to Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946
Sec. 3.12 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited it,(15) the reappropriation of funds carried
in a prior appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law was
held in order on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 6, 1944,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5587, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 8941, 8942, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 89 Cong.
Rec. 1068-70, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 17, 1943; 81 Cong.
Rec. 3799, 3800, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 19, line 3, insert:
``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources
``The funds appropriated in the Department of Agriculture
Appropriation Act, 1945, under the head `Conservation and Use of
Agricultural Land Resources,' notwithstanding any allocation
thereof heretofore made by departmental order, may be used to
discharge in full payments and grants earned by farmers in carrying
out authorized soil and water conservation practices.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill and that it changes existing law.
[[Page 5022]]
It is apparent from the reading of it that if it were not
legislation, there would be no occasion for offering it, that if it
did not require legislation to permit the reallocation of these
funds there is no reason why the Department would not have done it
before. There would be nothing to stop it. So it is perfectly
apparent that this is legislation. . . .
The Chairman: (17) The Chair holds that this is a
reappropriation of formerly appropriated money, so as to carry out
existing law and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.13 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited reappropriations,(18) the reappropriation of
unobligated or unexpended balances for purposes authorized by law
was in order, even though for different purposes than those for
which originally appropriated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 28, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.
The following portion of the bill was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong. Rec. 2987, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Aid Highway System
For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to
provide that the United States shall aid the States in the
construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes'',
approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355-359), and all acts
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, to be expended in
accordance with the provisions of said act, as amended, including
not to exceed $556,000 for departmental personal services in the
District of Columbia, $60,000,000 to be immediately available and
to remain available until expended, which sum is part of the sum of
$125,000,000 authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
1936, by section 4 of the act approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat.
994). . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 70, line 24, after
``$60,000,000'', insert the following: ``of the unobligated
balances of funds allocated for other purposes than road and
grade-crossing eliminations appropriated by Public Resolution
No. 11, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved April 8, 1935.''
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order that it is legislation upon an appropriation.
. . .
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is clearly in error,
because this is a pure reappropriation of funds that were
appropriated under the act of April 8, 1935, out of unobligated
balances other than those providing for the elimination of grade
crossings and roads. It involves a reappropriation only. . . .
The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5023]]
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] seeks to reappropriate certain unobligated funds heretofore
appropriated. The Chair has before him a syllabus which is directly
applicable to the point raised. It may be found in Cannon's
Precedents, section 1158, and is as follows:
The reappropriation of unexpended balances for purposes
authorized by law is in order, even though for different
purposes than those for which originally appropriated.
The Chair thinks, therefore, that the amendment is in order,
and overrules the point of order.
Sec. 3.14 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited it,(3) the reappropriation of an unexpended
balance could be made in a general appropriation bill; but a
reappropriation of an unexpended balance, to be applied to projects
unauthorized by law, was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 1937,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment a paragraph of the bill H.R. 6958, an
Interior Department appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4684, 4685, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong.
Rec. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For administrative expenses on account of the above projects,
including personal services and other expenses in the District of
Columbia and in the field, $750,000, in addition to and for the
same objects of expenditure as are hereinbefore enumerated in
paragraphs 2 and 3 under the caption ``Bureau of Reclamation''; in
all, $9,500,000, to be immediately available: Provided, That of
this amount not to exceed $75,000 may be expended for personal
services in the District of Columbia: Provided further, That the
unexpended balances of the amounts appropriated from the
Reclamation Fund, Special Fund, under the caption ``Bureau of
Reclamation, Construction,'' in the Interior Department
Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937, shall remain available for the
same purposes for the fiscal year 1938.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the language on page 79, line 4, beginning with
the word ``Provided'' down to the end of the paragraph.
Mr. Chairman, this includes a lot of allotments to irrigation
projects, which would expire on the 30th of June, amounting to
$33,000,000. As I understand, a great many of them have not been
authorized by law. There is included, amongst others, the Gila
project that was ruled out on a point of order previously. . . .
The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair invites attention to the fact it is obvious that
quite a number
[[Page 5024]]
of projects are sought to be covered by the provision here
contained. The Chair feels that under the rule cited by the
gentleman from Nevada there can be no question but what
unappropriated balances may be reappropriated, but the Chair is
unable to see how this rule meets the situation here presented,
because the question here is whether or not these various projects
have been authorized by law. The Chair feels the burden of proof is
on those supporting the projects and the provision contained in the
bill to make some satisfactory showing, to the effect that the
projects have been authorized. The Chair invites attention to the
fact that such a showing has not been made. It follows, therefore,
that the language to which the point of order has been made, in the
opinion of the Chair, would be legislation on an appropriation
bill, a proper showing not having been made that these items have
been authorized by law.
The Chair is of the opinion this provision is not in order and,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
Works in Progress
Sec. 3.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the Public
Works Administration allotments (made available to the Bureau of
Reclamation, pursuant to the National Industrial Recovery Act,
either by direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally
made from the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937) should
remain available for the purpose for which allotted during the
fiscal year 1939 was held in order under the principle relating to
``works in progress.''
On Mar. 2, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering the following paragraph of H.R. 9621, an Interior
Department appropriation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Works Administration allotments made available to
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to
the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by
direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to
another Department or agency, and the allocations made to the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the
appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act
of 1935 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, shall
remain available for the purposes for which allotted during the
fiscal year 1939.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it is not
authorized by law.
The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Nevada
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the
unexpended
[[Page 5025]]
balances proposed to be appropriated by this paragraph are lawful
projects which have qualified as being in order under the rules of
the House for one or more of the following reasons:
First. That they are for improvements of existing projects.
Second. That the work on them is in progress.
Third. That there has been a finding of feasibility by the
President, which automatically authorizes appropriations, as
provided by the reclamation law, title 43, sections 412, 413, and
414.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Nevada states that all of
these projects are already under way and that this paragraph simply
reappropriates money already available.
Mr. Taber: These allotments have been made for all sorts of
projects not authorized by law, and yet the adoption of this
provision would authorize every project that has not yet been
authorized for which an allotment has been made.
The Chairman: The gentleman states that these projects are
already under way.
Mr. Taber: That would not authorize them.
The Chairman: It authorizes reappropriation of appropriations
heretofore made if the work is in progress. The Chair, therefore,
overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While this decision predates the enactment
of clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI as part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (which rule prohibits the reappropriation of
unexpended balances except with respect to appropriations in connection
with appropriations for public works on which work has commenced),
clause 2 of Rule XXI, in effect on the date of this decision, likewise
precluded appropriations for purposes not authorized by law unless in
continuation of appropriations for public works and objects already in
progress. Thus this decision stands for the proposition that
reappropriations of unexpended balances may be included on general
appropriation bills at least if made for the same unauthorized public
works in progress for which originally made. For a discussion of
precedents involving public works in progress, see Chapter 26, infra
(including a similar ruling made on May 13, 1941, discussed in that
chapter).
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills
A House rule provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be
reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an appropriation
be in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution
reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of
order on an
[[Page 5026]]
appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment
thereto may be raised at any time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulings on points of order under the above provision have
frequently depended on whether language allegedly making an
appropriation was in fact merely language authorizing an
appropriation.(9) For example, language in a bill
authorizing an appropriation of not less than a certain amount for a
specified purpose has been held not to be an
appropriation.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 4.34 et seq., infra.
10. See Sec. 4.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of order under this rule, while in order ``at any time,''
are received at any time while the amendment or provision of the bill
is pending under the five-minute rule. See discussion in notes at House
Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981), citing decision of Mar. 18, 1946.
Points of order based on the above rule have sometimes been waived
by resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 4.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally
Sec. 4.1 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
reappropriating, making available or diverting an appropriation or
a portion of an appropriation already made for one purpose to
another is not in order.
On Apr. 7, 1936,(12) the House was considering H.R.
12037, the tobacco compact bill. A point of order was raised and, after
debate, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 5108, 5109, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] makes a point of order
against section 7(a), which reads as follows:
For the purpose of administering this act the Secretary of
Agriculture is hereby authorized to expend $300,000, or so much
thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, out of funds
appropriated by section 12(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act, as amended.
The gentleman from Michigan calls attention to clause 4 of rule
XXI, which provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any
such bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised
at any time.
The question, of course, arises as to whether or not an
appropriation made by a preceding Congress or by this
[[Page 5027]]
Congress for a particular purpose may be diverted for another
purpose not contemplated at the time the appropriation was made,
under the rule which the Chair has just read.
The gentleman from Michigan has read rulings which were made in
the Seventy-third Congress, first session, in which it is said--
Language reappropriating, making available or diverting an
appropriation or a portion of an appropriation already made for
one purpose to another is not in order.
Of course, we all know that the Committee on Agriculture is not
authorized under the rules to report appropriations. In the opinion
of the Chair it is very clear, in a reading of the section referred
to, that the language constitutes a diversion of funds heretofore
made by the Congress for an entirely different purpose and,
therefore, sustains the point of order of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Mapes] against section 7(a).
Portion of Bill Subject to Point of Order
Sec. 4.2 Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) is limited in
application to the objectionable language in a bill and not to the
bill in its entirety.
The rule cited above has been held to disallow the following
language in a bill reported by a legislative committee, without at the
same time disallowing the remainder of the bill:
Provided further, That out of revenues from and appropriations
for the Alaska Railroad, there is authorized to be used such amount
thereon as may be necessary for the purchase of property of the
Mount McKinley Tourist & Transportation Company, and the purchase,
construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities for the
public as herein authorized.
Thus, on Mar. 6, 1940,(13) a Member raised a point of
order against the language quoted above during consideration of H.R.
4868, a bill concerning Mount McKinley National Park. The following
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 2457, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order.
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen: I make the point of order against the entire bill
on the ground that the provisions beginning in line 23, on page 2,
are in contravention of the rule prohibiting appropriations in a
bill for legislative purposes.
Mr. [Robert A.] Green [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the
point of order and desire to offer an amendment.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: But, Mr. Chairman, under the
point of order the bill goes out.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Oh, no; it does not go out. The
enacting clause is still there, and anyone has
[[Page 5028]]
authority to offer any amendment that he desires under the rules of
the House.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
This provision comes under clause 4 of rule XXI, which, in
effect, prohibits appropriations being made by committees not
having jurisdiction over appropriations. Beginning with line 23 on
page 2 of the bill provision is made for an appropriation.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Waiver of Points of Order
Sec. 4.3 Consideration of a legislative bill has sometimes taken place
pursuant to a resolution waiving points of order against the bill,
when a provision in the bill could constitute an appropriation in
violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Apr. 12, 1967,(15) a Member addressed Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 9121-23, 9134, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 411 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 411
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5404) to amend the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 to make changes and improvements
in the organization and operation of the Foundation, and for
other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are
hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit. . . .
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. . . .
I wonder if the gentleman can explain to the House why in line
7, page 1, House Resolution 411, all points of order against the
bill are waived in the wisdom of the committee?
Mr. Pepper: I will ask the distinguished author of the bill,
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Daddario], if he will make the
response to the able gentleman from Missouri, and I yield to him
for that purpose.
Mr. [Emilio Q.] Daddario: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I would advise the gentleman from Missouri that on
page 17, line 12, section (g), there is reference to the transfer
of funds from one department to another.
[[Page 5029]]
[Note: the language referred to sought to permit funds available to
any department of the government for scientific research to be
transferred to the National Science Foundation under certain
conditions.]
Transfer or Diversion of Funds to New Purposes
Sec. 4.4 The diversion or reappropriation of funds to a new purpose is
an appropriation and is therefore not in order on a rivers and
harbors bill.
On Apr. 8, 1935,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6732, a bill dealing with the construction, repair,
and preservation of public works on rivers and harbors. An amendment
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 5277, 5278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which is on the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: On page 1, line 9, after the
word ``documents'', change the colon to a period and add the
following: ``The Administrator of Public Works is hereby
directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of
said authorized works of improvement of rivers and harbors and
other waterways, such sum or sums out of the funds provided in
House Joint Resolution 117 as may be necessary to prosecute and
complete such works or improvements.''
Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
make a point of order to the amendment. As I understand the
amendment, it is the equivalent of an appropriation. It applies to
a matter not within the jurisdiction of this committee. We have no
jurisdiction over legislation of the Public Works Administration.
Furthermore, I consider that amendment as an appropriation. . . .
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as I heard
the amendment read, it makes an appropriation, because it directs
the Administrator of Public Works to allocate part of the funds
already appropriated for these specific purposes. This is at least
a reappropriation and comes within the rule forbidding
appropriations coming from legislative committees. . . .
The Chairman: (17) . . . This bill, of course,
cannot carry an appropriation. The gentleman offers an amendment to
the effect that the Administrator of Public Works is hereby
directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of such
authorized works of improvement on rivers and harbors and other
waterways such sum or sums from the funds provided in House Joint
Resolution 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William W. Arnold (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This, clearly, is a diversion of funds already appropriated,
which is tantamount, in the opinion of the Chair, to an
appropriation.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
[[Page 5030]]
Sec. 4.5 Language in a legislative bill to reorganize the government,
providing for the transfer of unexpended balances of appropriations
and making such funds available for expenditure, was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Apr. 8, 1938,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 3331, a government reorganization bill. At different
points the Clerk read two sections as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 5083-98, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 410. Such of the personnel of the General Accounting
Office employed in connection with the functions exercised by the
General Accounting Office through the Audit Division of that
Office, and such of the unexpended balances of appropriations
available to the General Accounting Office for the exercise of such
functions, as the President shall deem to be necessary to enable
the Auditor General to exercise the functions vested in and imposed
upon him by this title, are transferred to the office of the
Auditor General, and any unexpended balances of appropriations so
transferred shall hereafter be available to the Auditor General for
the purpose of exercising the functions of his office and for
otherwise carrying out the provisions of this title: Provided, That
the transfer of personnel under this section shall be without
change in classification or compensation . . . Provided further,
That such of the personnel so transferred who do not already
possess a classified civil-service status shall not acquire such
status by reason of such transfer. . . .
Sec. 307. There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Sec. 308. The provisions of this title shall become effective
60 days after its enactment.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the words beginning in line 4, of page 57, ``and such
of the unexpended balances of appropriations available to the
General Accounting Office for the exercise of such functions''; and
then, beginning in line 10, ``and any unexpended balances of
appropriations so transferred shall hereafter be available to the
auditor general for the purpose of exercising the functions of his
office and for otherwise carrying out the provisions of this
title.''
Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: (19) The Chair sustains the point of
order on the ground that it is in conflict with clause 4 of Rule
XXI and the language to which the point of order is addressed is
stricken from the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently in the proceedings, a point of order based on
[[Page 5031]]
the same grounds was sustained against the following language:
Sec. 420. Such portions of the unexpended balances of
appropriations or other funds available for the United States Civil
Service Commission, the offices of the Civil Service Commissioners,
and all other offices of such Commission, as the President shall
deem necessary, are transferred to the Administration. Unexpended
balances of appropriations or other funds available for such
Commission or offices, not so transferred pursuant to the
President's determination under this section, shall be impounded
and returned to the Treasury.
Sec. 4.6 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing that such part as the President might determine of the
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds
available for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer
District were transferred to the commission and were to be
available for expenditure for carrying out the provisions of the
act was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause
4 (now clause 5), and not in order.
On July 20, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1717, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. At one point the
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 9554, 9555, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Sec. 18. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the
provisions and purposes of this act. The acts appropriating such
sums may appropriate specified portions thereof to be accounted for
upon the certification of the Commission only. Funds appropriated
to the Commission shall, if obligated by contract during the fiscal
year for which appropriated, remain available for expenditure for 4
years following the expiration of the fiscal year for which
appropriated. After such 4-year period, the unexpended balances of
appropriations shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered
into the Treasury.
(b) Such part as the President may determine of the unexpended
balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds available
for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer District
are hereby transferred to the Commission and shall be available for
expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
act.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against subparagraph (b) on page 52, lines 18 to 23,
inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes an appropriation and
may not be reported by the Committee on Military Affairs, which is
without jurisdiction to report appropriations. I am constrained to
make this point of order, Mr. Chair
[[Page 5032]]
man, for two or three reasons. The appropriations now carried in
the War Department appropriation bill for $375,000,000 were made in
a larger amount than would have been made for 1 year only because
the Budget request was for only $200,000,000. The additional
$175,000,000 was added in place of contractual authorizations for
obligations to mature in fiscal 1948. The total appropriation was
made for the military features of the atomic service. It is now
proposed that these appropriations be transferred for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of this act, which is much broader,
providing for loans, providing for the development of civilian
production and licensing, and many other features not contemplated
in the appropriations for the Military Establishment. Consequently,
this paragraph constitutes an appropriation, and I make the point
of order that it may not be reported in this bill.
The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Kentucky
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the
Chair, the language referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota,
beginning on line 18, page 52, and extending through line 23, is in
violation of clause 4 of rule 21. Therefore, the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.7 To a bill establishing an Airways Modernization Board and
providing for transfer of personnel, records, and the like,
authority to transfer ``unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and other funds available,'' was ruled out as an
appropriation reported from a legislative committee in violation of
Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 30, 1957,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for the development and
modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control
facilities to serve present and future needs of civil and military
aviation. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Related Functions
Sec. 4. The Board, upon unanimous decision and with approval of
the President, may transfer to itself any functions (including
powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of
the Departments of Defense or Commerce or of any officer or
organizational entity thereof which relate primarily to selecting,
developing, testing, or evaluating systems, procedures, facilities,
or devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic
control. In connection with any such transfer, the President may
provide for appropriate transfers of records, property, necessary
civilian personnel, and unex
[[Page 5033]]
pended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available or to be made available of the officers, department, or
other agency from which the transfer is made.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language in section 4, page 7, beginning on line 12, reading ``and
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available or'' as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Arkansas desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has
examined the language to which the point of order has been made,
and after consideration finds that the language is obnoxious to
clause 4 of rule 21 of the House and therefore sustains the point
of order.
Sec. 4.8 In a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency,
providing inter alia, a revolving fund in the Treasury for higher
education facility loans, a provision authorizing the Commissioner
of Education to ``transfer to the fund available appropriations
under Sec. 303(c) [of the Higher Education Act] to provide capital
for the fund,'' was held to constitute an appropriation and was
ruled out as a violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 18, 1966,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Participation Sales Act of 1966 (H.R.
14544) a point of order was raised against a provision thereof, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 10913, 10918, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolving Loan Fund
``Sec. 305. (a) There is hereby created within the Treasury a
separate fund for higher education academic facilities loans
(hereafter in this section called ``the fund'') which shall be
available to the Commissioner without fiscal year limitation as a
revolving fund for the purposes of this title. The total of any
loans made from the fund in any fiscal year shall not exceed
limitations specified in appropriation Acts.
``(b)(1) The Commissioner is authorized to transfer to the fund
available appropriations provided under section 303(c) to provide
capital for the fund. All amounts received by the Commissioner as
interest payments or repayments of principal on loans, and any
other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from his
operations in connection with this title, including any moneys
derived directly or indirectly from the sale of assets, or
beneficial interests or participations in as
[[Page 5034]]
sets of the fund, shall be deposited in the fund. . . .''
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the language on page 8 of the bill,
lines 5, 6, and 7 through the word ``fund.'' The point is based
upon my feeling that the language violates rule XXI, clause 4, of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be
heard on the point of order.
The appropriations referred to are future appropriations
authorized and to be made for the specific purpose of making the
transfers here authorized. This is not a case of changing the
object of past appropriations, and the point of order should be
overruled.
That refers to section 303(c), which I have before me now. It
provides:
For the purpose of making payments into the fund
established under section 305, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated . . . .
It is not making the appropriation; it is authorizing the
appropriation.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not subject
to the point of order.
The Chairman: (5) . . . The gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Jonas] makes a point of order to the language
appearing on page 8, lines 5 through 7, to the end of the sentence
on that line, on the ground that it is in violation of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the language and has listened
attentively to the gentleman from Texas, but is of the opinion that
since this language directs a transfer of available appropriations
it is in fact in violation of rule XXI; and therefore sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.9 Where a legislative bill (reported from the Committee on
Banking and Currency) authorized certain government agencies that
extend credit to individuals to use any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to them for certain new purposes specified in the
bill, the provision was conceded to be in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 18, 1966,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966. At one
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 112 Cong. Rec. 10893, 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. (a) Section 302(c) of the Federal National Mortgage
Association Charter Act is amended [by inserting at a designated
point]:
. . . Any trustor creating a trust or trusts hereunder is
authorized to purchase, through the facilities of the trustee,
outstanding beneficial interests or participations to the extent of
the amount of his responsibility to the trustee on beneficial
interests or par
[[Page 5035]]
ticipations outstanding, and to pay his proper share of the costs
and expenses incurred by the Federal National Mortgage Association
as trustee pursuant to the trust instrument, and for these purposes
may use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him
for the general purposes or programs to which the obligations
subjected to the trust are related.
(3) If any trustor shall guarantee to the trustee the timely
payment of obligations he subjects to a trust pursuant to this
subsection, and it becomes necessary for such trustor to meet his
responsibilities under such guaranty, he is authorized to fulfill
such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other amounts
available to him for the general purposes or programs to which the
obligations subjected to the trust are related. . . .
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing on page 4, line 22, beginning with the word
``and'', which language is as follows: ``and for these purposes may
use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him for
the general purposes or programs to which the obligations subjected
to the trust are related.''
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language
in the bill on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of
the rules of the House of Representatives, which requires that
bills making appropriations may not originate in committees other
than the Committee on Appropriations.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word
``he'' and continuing through lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the word
``related,'' which language is as follows: ``he is authorized to
fulfill such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to
which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language
on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from North
Carolina has added some language which he does not really intend to
include in his point of order? As I understand, the gentleman
intended to make a point of order against the language on page 5,
line 5, starting with the word ``by'' down to and including the
word ``related'' on line 8. In other words, as I understand, the
gentleman intends to make a point of order against the language
reading as follows: ``by using any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to
which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''
[[Page 5036]]
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is correct
and it was my purpose to have the point of order lie against the
language on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word ``by'' down to
and including the word ``related'' on line 8.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this
language on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Unobligated Funds Previously Appropriated for Same or Related Purposes
Sec. 4.10 Language in a legislative bill providing that the cost of
surveys therein authorized would be paid from the appropriation
theretofore or thereafter made for such purposes was held to be an
appropriation and therefore in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now
clause 5).
On July 29, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 175, a bill to authorize the
submission to Congress of a comprehensive national plan for the
prevention and control of floods of all the major rivers of the United
States. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 7838-40, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
resolution.
With the following committee amendment:
Strike out all of section 2 and insert: ``The cost of
surveys and preparing plans as herein authorized shall be paid
from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such
purposes.''
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to
have to make a point of order against the committee amendment. The
amendment changes the authorization to a direct appropriation, and,
of course, an appropriation is not in order on a legislative bill.
. . .
The Chairman: (9) The language against which the
point of order is raised reads as follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of surveys and preparing plans as herein
authorized shall be paid from the appropriations heretofore or
hereafter made for such purposes. . . .
It seems clear to the Chair that the language of the amendment
is prohibited by rule XXI, section 4, and, therefore, the Chair
sustains the point of order.
Sec. 4.11 Language in a legislative bill making available unobligated
balances of appropria
[[Page 5037]]
tions ``heretofore'' made to carry out the provisions of the bill
was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4
(now clause 5) and therefore not in order.
On Mar. 18, 1946,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal
Works Administrator. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 2371, 2372, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it enacted, etc., That the Federal Works Administrator is
hereby authorized under the provisions of the Public Buildings Act
of May 25, 1926, as amended (40 U.S.C. 341-347), and as hereby
further amended--
(a) For projects outside of the District of Columbia: To
construct extensions to the marine hospitals at Seattle, Wash., and
San Francisco, Calif. . . . and design new building projects where
the sites are in Government ownership, notwithstanding the fact
that appropriations for construction work shall not have been made.
The total limit of cost for the foregoing shall be $13,000,000 and
the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made for the
construction of projects outside the District of Columbia are
hereby made available for this purpose.
(b) To construct an additional building for the General
Accounting Office.
. . . The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore
made for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged
project, including the acquisition of addition land, and contracts
may be entered into for construction work within the full limit of
cost pending additional appropriations.
(c) To acquire additional land in and contiguous to the area in
the District of Columbia defined in the act of March 31, 1938 (52
Stat. 149), under a limit of cost of $2,000,000. Funds for this
purpose are hereby made available from the unobligated balances of
appropriations heretofore made for the construction of buildings
outside the District of Columbia.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fadjo Cravens (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I make a point of order against the words beginning
on page 2, line 4: ``and the unobligated balances of appropriations
heretofore made for the construction of projects outside the
District of Columbia are hereby made available for this purpose'';
on the ground that it is an appropriation and coming from a
committee not authorized to report appropriation bills to the
House. . . .
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to make a point of order against the language in paragraph (b) and
paragraph (c), and in paragraph (b) I make the point of order
against the language beginning in line 15 which reads:
The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made
for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged
project, including the acquisition of additional land,
[[Page 5038]]
and contracts may be entered into for construction work within
the full limit of cost pending additional appropriations. . . .
Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: I call the gentleman's
attention to the fact that there is a committee amendment striking
out section (b).
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the committee amendment has not
been made. Consequently, I am making a point of order lest, by some
slip, the amendment might not be accepted. I make the point of
order that that would make appropriations for an unauthorized
project by means of an appropriation reported by a committee
without jurisdiction. . . .
Mr. Lanham: Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly concede the points
of order. I do it reluctantly because I had hoped they would not be
made.
The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from
Texas concedes each point of order?
Mr. Lanham: The gentleman from Texas does reluctantly concede
the points of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] and the two points of order made by the gentleman from South
Dakota [Mr. Case] are sustained by reason of the fact the language
against which they are made is tantamount to new appropriations;
and the language is stricken from the bill in each instance.
Sec. 4.12 Provisions in a bill reported from a legislative committee
that funds appropriated and made available under specified items in
the Agricultural Appropriation Act of 1946, to the extent that such
funds have been validly obligated, should be continued available
for use by the Farmers' Home Corporation established in the bill,
and that certain appropriated funds should be transferred from one
agency to another agency created in the bill, were held to be
appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5),
and therefore not in order.
On Apr. 9, 1946,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5991, a bill creating the Farmers' Home Corporation.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 3375, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have
several points of order to submit.
My first point of order is against the language contained on
page 5, lines 4 to 15, inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes
an appropriation upon a legislative bill and is out of order for
that reason. That language reads as follows:
(c) The funds appropriated, authorized to be borrowed, and
made available under the items ``Farmers' crop production and
harvesting loans' (under the heading ``Farm Credit
Administration''), ``Loans,
[[Page 5039]]
grants, and rural rehabilitation'', and ``Farm tenancy'', in
the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1946, to the
extent that such funds are validly obligated or committed by
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of the Farm Credit
Administration, or their delegates, shall not lapse on June 30,
1946, but shall be continued available for use by the
Corporation in fulfilling such obligations or commitments,
subject to the limitations set forth in the acts appropriating
or authorizing such funds.
I make the same point of order against the language contained
on page 6, lines 4 to 18, inclusive, as follows:
(e) All funds made available by appropriation or
authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture for the fiscal
year 1947 for loans and administrative expenses for carrying on
the farm tenancy program shall be available to the Corporation
for loans under the provisions of section 40(d)(13)(A) hereof
and for administrative expenses incident thereto. All such
appropriations and authorizations for loans, grants, and rural
rehabilitation and farmers' crop production and harvesting
loans shall be available to the Corporation for loans for the
purposes of section 40(d)(13)(B) hereof and for administrative
expenses incident thereto. The limitations on the amounts of
each such appropriations and authorization for loans and
administrative expenses for each such purpose shall be observed
by the Corporation.
I make the same point of order against the language contained
on page 6, lines 19 to 25, inclusive, and on page 7, lines 1 to 5,
as follows:
(f) There is hereby transferred to the Corporation from the
revolving fund established for the purpose of increasing the
capital of the regional agricultural credit corporations,
pursuant to section 84 of the Farm Credit Act of 1933, approved
June 16, 1933, as amended (U.S.C., 1940 ed., title 12, sec.
1148a), $10,001,000. $1,000 of the funds so transferred shall
be used for capital of the Corporation, as provided in section
40(b)(1) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended, and
$10,000,000 of such funds shall be covered into the farm tenant
mortgage insurance fund, pursuant to section 11(a) of the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended.
Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, while
I am not certain, I am afraid the points of order are well taken.
The Chairman: (13) The points of order are well
taken. The Chair sustains the points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip A. Traynor (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.13 Language in a bill authorizing participation by the United
States in the International Development Association (which
prohibited further United States subscription to the fund ``except
that loans or other financing may be provided by [an] agency . . .
which is authorized . . . to make loans or provide other financing
to international organizations,'' which would have included funds
theretofore appropriated) was held to be in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), and ruled out
[[Page 5040]]
on a point of order where it was not clear that the exception
merely restated existing authority in law to make loans to this
particular organization.
On June 28, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11001, a bill providing for U.S. participation in the
International Development Association. At one point, the Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 14789, 14790, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5. Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither
the President nor any person or agency shall, on behalf of the
United States, (a) subscribe to additional funds under article III,
section 1, of the articles; (b) accept any amendment under article
IX of the articles; or (c) make a loan or provide other financing
to the Association, except that loans or other financing may be
provided to the Association by a U.S. agency created pursuant to an
act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide
other financing to international organizations.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language on page 3, beginning at the end of line 4 down through
line 8, ``except that loans or other financing may be provided to
the Association by a United States agency created pursuant to an
act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide
other financing to international organizations.''
I will say to the Chair that I have made inquiry of the
committee here on the floor and the committee says that these are
organizations already in existence, with the possibility of
transfers being made under Public Law 480 or by other organizations
now authorized to make loans to these various countries. I make the
point of order that this is a transfer of appropriated funds and is
an appropriation on a legislative bill. . . .
Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: . . . I suggest that the
point of order should be overruled. I do not think I said anything
to indicate that there was any attempt to transfer any appropriated
funds or any authorized funds.
May I read from page 11 of the report which refers precisely to
the language now under attack by the point of order?
The excepting clause does not confer upon any U.S. agency
any authority it would not otherwise have and is intended to
make clear that the prohibitory language does not in any way
narrow, or preclude the use of, authority which any agency of
the U.S. Government, including the President, possesses under
other legislation to make loans or provide other financing to
international organizations, including the International
Development Association.
I suggest the point of order is not well taken.
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to that and say that the one
I am
[[Page 5041]]
referring to is the exception to what the gentleman from New York
has just stated.
Mr. Multer: I have referred only to the language which begins
with the words against which the point of order is made. It is that
exception to which the report from which I have read is directed.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
from New York whether or not he interprets this to be that the U.S.
agencies could use funds heretofore appropriated for the purposes
of this section?
Mr. Multer: Only if so authorized by the enabling or enacting
legislation and the appropriation making the funds available to
such other agencies.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Under the
interpretation of the gentleman from New York, the point of order
would lie; and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Directing Treasury to Make Funds Available
Sec. 4.14 Language directing the Secretary of the Treasury to make a
certain fund available for the payment of
adjusted-service certificates was held to be an appropriation and
not in order on a legislative bill.
On Jan. 9, 1936,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted-service
certificates (bonus bill). The Clerk read an amendment as follows and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 273, 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 7, line 13, add section 6A,
as follows:
``The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to make the
exchange stabilization fund of $2,000,000,000 that expires on
January 30, 1936, available on that date for payment of the
adjusted-service certificates.''
Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this
section or to any part of the bill.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair will hear the gentleman
from New York on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the bill
reads, ``To provide for the immediate payment of World War
adjusted-service certificates'', and my amendment offers a method
for the payment of these certificates. This is one of the many
means that may be proposed for the payment of these certificates,
and I should think there would be the greatest amount of latitude
by the Chair for any Member to offer a specific way of paying the
certificates.
The Chairman: The bill is merely an authorization for an
appropriation. The Chair thinks that a reading of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York clearly shows that the
amendment is an appropriation, and
[[Page 5042]]
not proper on this bill, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.15 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
authorizing the Treasurer of the United States to honor
requisitions of the Archivist in such manner and in accordance with
such regulations as the Treasurer might prescribe was held an
appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5).
On July 13, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
considering Senate Joint Resolution 118, a bill to provide for the
establishment and maintenance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. The
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9060, 9061, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the section on the ground that it contains an
appropriation of public funds and that it is reported by a
committee not having jurisdiction to bring into the House an
appropriation bill.
I call the attention of the Chair to the following language on
page 6, in line 7:
The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to
honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and
in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from
time to time prescribe.
Those words take money directly from the Treasury of the United
States without any limitation and are in violation of the
provisions of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House. . . .
Now, this is a permanent appropriation which will go on forever
of whatever amount the Archivist cares to draw for upon the
Treasurer under such rules and regulations as the Treasurer may
from time to time prescribe. I make the point of order against the
section.
The Chairman: (19) The Chair desires to direct a
question to the gentleman from New York. In line 8, on page 6, is
the gentleman of the opinion that the authorization there takes
money from the United States Treasury or merely honors
requisitions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: It authorizes the Treasurer of the United States,
without any further legislation, to take money right out of the
United States Treasury. It is a permanent appropriation.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it seems
to me that the point of order is ill taken for this reason: This is
not an appropriation. There is no appropriation provided in this at
all. It is simply and solely for the purpose of accepting the
requisitions of the proper authority in charge of all archives of
all kinds and character, because this bill provides that the
expense shall be appropriated for as a part of the Archivist's
expenses to the Government as a whole.
[[Page 5043]]
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I call
attention to the fact that the language in the section provides for
the creation of a trust fund to be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States. It provides for the raising of a trust fund to be
placed in the Treasury, and the language does not take appropriated
money out of the Treasury. It is not out of Government funds, but
out of the trust fund. It is not in itself a direct appropriation,
but more of an authorization for those in charge to draw on the
trust fund.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to
the fact that there is no limitation on the funds that this should
be taken out of. The way it reads it would be taken directly out of
the Treasury and not out of any trust fund whatever. It does not
say that it shall be taken out of a trust fund, nor is it implied
in any way.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York limit his point
of order to the sentence which he read?
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order against the
section.
Mr. Keller: Have you read what is at the bottom of page 5 as to
the method of depositing the money in the Treasury first?
Mr. Taber: Yes; I have read that. There is nothing whatever
that limits the amount that can be taken out to the amount that is
put in, nor is there anything whatever that limits it to being
taken out of that fund. It is direct authority to the Treasury to
pay it.
Mr. Keller: Well, what is a requisition, then?
Mr. Taber: A requisition is a draft upon the Treasurer. This
constitutes a permanent appropriation.
Mr. Keller: Only where the money is already provided, not where
it is not provided.
Mr. Taber: No; there is no such limitation.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the
gentleman from New York against the section is well taken, and
therefore sustains the point of order.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rayburn: I yield.
Mr. Taber: Will the gentleman tell us briefly what his
amendment does?
Mr. Rayburn: I may say to the gentleman from New York that I
conceded that his point of order was good.
The amendment I offer leaves out the language objected to by
the gentleman from New York in lines 7, 8, 9, and 10 on page 6,
reading:
The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to
honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and
in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from
time to time prescribe.
This undoubtedly meets the objection raised by the gentleman
from New York, and I contend that the amendment is in order.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page 5044]]
Allocation of Agency's Receipts
Sec. 4.16 Language in a legislative bill providing for the collection
of certain fees and authorizing the use of the fees so collected
for the purchase of certain installations was construed to be an
appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5).
On June 17, 1937,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472, the District of Columbia tax bill. At one point,
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to fix, prescribe,
and collect fees for the parking of automobiles in or upon any
street, avenue, road, highway, or other public space within the
District of Columbia under their jurisdiction and control, and to
make and enforce regulations to provide for the collection of such
fees. Any person violating any such regulation shall be punished by
a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 days.
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are further
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase, rent,
and install such mechanical parking meters or devices as the
Commissioners may deem necessary or advisable to insure the
collection of such fees as may be prescribed for the parking of
vehicles as aforesaid, and to pay the purchase price or rental and
cost of installation of the same from the fees collected, the
remainder of such fees to be paid to the collector of taxes for
deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
revenues of said District. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order
that this section appropriates money out of fees to be collected,
and therefore it is appropriation on a legislative bill. Line 24
provides that the purchase price of these machines shall be paid
from the fees collected and the remainder of the fee shall be paid
into the Treasury.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the point of order comes too late. The section
has been debated and amendments have been offered, and an amendment
to strike out the section has been offered.
Mr. O'Malley: I was attempting to get recognition from the very
beginning.
The Chairman: (21) The Chair is ready to rule. The
last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill,
joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
time.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is
properly raised at this time (1) and that this is purely
an
[[Page 5045]]
appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the
gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be
raised even after debate on the merits has taken place. See
Sec. 12.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 4.17 A provision in a legislative bill authorizing the Director of
the Census to use funds collected for issuance of birth
certificates in administering the provisions of the bill until
expended was held to be an appropriation not in order under Rule
XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 15, 1942,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7239, a bill authorizing the Director of the Census to
issue birth records. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6209, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order against the last sentence of the section just
read that the language creates a revolving fund, constitutes an
appropriation, and is reported in the bill by a committee which is
without authority to report appropriations.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi rose.
The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from
Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin of [Mississippi]: I wish to say that this is not an
appropriation. This money never goes into the Federal Treasury.
Therefore it does not come under the rule on which the gentleman
from South Dakota relies.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I pointed out that this creates a
revolving fund.
The Chairman: Where does this money go if it does not go into
the Treasury?
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: The money is used by the Director of
the Census to pay for the copying of these records.
The Chairman: What happens to the money?
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: It is held in the Bureau of the
Census just exactly as the Tennessee Valley Authority holds the
money that is paid in there, and that is used in a revolving fund
for the construction of dams, transmission lines, and so forth.
The Chairman: The question seems to be whether or not the
language is equivalent to appropriating this money. The language
is:
All amounts collected in payment of such fees may be used
by the Director in administering only the provisions of this
act and shall be available until expended.
There are certain precedents which indicate that that language
is equivalent to the phrase 'is hereby appropriated,' which would
be in violation of the rule. The Chair cites Cannon's Precedents,
volume VII, section 2152, page 896:
Provision for establishment of a special fund, to be
available with other funds appropriated for the purpose in
payment of refunds, was
[[Page 5046]]
ruled to be an appropriation and subject to a point of order
under section 4 of rule XXI.
On January 12, 1933, in the course of the consideration of
the bill (H.R. 13991), the Farm Relief Bill, in the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, this paragraph
was read:
``(b) The proceeds of all taxes collected under this
section, less 2\1/2\ percent for the payment of administrative
expenses under this act, shall be covered into the Treasury
into a special fund to be available, together with any other
funds hereafter appropriated for the purpose, for the payment
of any refunds under this section.''
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, raised the question of
order that the paragraph was in violation of section 4 of rule
XXI prohibiting committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations from reporting appropriations.
The Chairman, Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina,
sustained the point of order.
The Chair believes that the language objected to is in
violation of section 4 of rule XXI, and sustains the point of
order.
Sec. 4.18 Language in a bill reported from a legislative committee
providing that all moneys received by the Maritime Commission under
the act would be deposited in the construction fund of the
commission, and all disbursements made by the commission in
carrying out the act would be paid from such fund, was held to be
an appropriation and not in order.
On Oct. 2, 1945,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3603, a bill concerning the sale of surplus war
vessels. At one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 9288, 9289, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13. (a) The Commission is authorized to reconvert or
restore for normal operation in commercial services, including
removal of national defense or war service features, any vessel
authorized to be sold or chartered under this act. The Commission
is authorized to make such replacements, alterations, or
modifications with respect to any vessel authorized to be sold or
chartered under this act . . . as may be necessary or advisable to
make such vessel suitable for commercial operation on trade routes
or services or comparable as to commercial utility to other such
vessels of the same general type. . . .
(d) All moneys received by the Commission under this act shall
be deposited in the construction fund of the Commission, and all
disbursements made by the Commission in carrying out this act shall
be paid from such fund. The provisions of sections 201(d), 204(b),
207, 209(a), and 905(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended, shall apply to all activities and functions which the
Commission is authorized to perform under this act. . . .
Mr. [Herbert C.] Bonner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
[[Page 5047]]
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. William G. Stigler (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bonner: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language on page 21, line 6, first sentence, on the ground that it
is an appropriation.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia care to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Reluctantly, upon
advice from the parliamentarian on the point of order that I would
be foolish to argue otherwise, I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded; the point of
order is sustained.
Use of Proceeds From User Charges
Sec. 4.19 An amendment establishing a user charge and making the
revenues collected therefrom available without further
appropriation is not in order to a bill reported by a committee not
having the jurisdiction to report appropriations.
On Mar. 29, 1972,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 11896) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 10749-51, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz: On page 350 following line
6:
``Sec. 319(a) It is the purpose of this Section to
supplement the enforcement procedures of this Act by providing
for desirable economic incentives to water users to conserve
water and to minimize pollution through reduction in the
quantity of waste products dumped into these waterways. It is
also the purpose of this Section to encourage the formation of
regional waste treatment management organizations pursuant to
section 208(a) of this Act.
``(b)(1) In furtherance of the purpose of this Section, the
Administrator and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to establish and put into
effect two years after the enactment of this Act a schedule of
national effluent charges for all those discharges including
municipal sewage which detract from the quality of the water
for municipal agricultural, industrial, recreational, sport,
wildlife, and commercial fish uses. These discharges shall
include, but not be limited to, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, thermal discharges, and toxic wastes.
The charges shall be set at a level which will provide for the
attainment of the standards and goals of this Act. Such
regulations shall also provide for making available as public
information all amounts collected pursuant to such charges.
``(2) Any person who willfully fails to pay any charge as
required by regulations established pursuant to this Section or
who willfully fails to make any return, keep any records,
supply any information, or to do any other act required by such
regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or
imprisoned not more than one year or both, together with costs
of prosecution. . . .
[[Page 5048]]
``(c) Revenues collected by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to such charges shall be deposited in a trust fund
(hereinafter referred to as the `fund') in the Treasury to be
available without further appropriation to the Administrator
for use as prescribed in subsection (d).
``(d) Money from the fund shall be available for
distribution by the Administrator in each year for the purpose
of funding Section 106 of this Act (to assist water pollution
control programs of States and interstate agencies) . . . .''
The Chairman: (7) The Chair will hear the gentleman
from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William N.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, my point of
order is as follows: . . . [T]his amendment is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works. It proposes a tax on
effluents, and raises revenues, and therefore violates rule XI,
which places jurisdiction of revenue raising in the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Section 319(c), Mr. Chairman, categorically refers to revenues
collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to such
charges.
. . . [T]he amendment violates rule XXI, clause 4 prohibiting
appropriations in legislative bills. Section 319(c) and (d) of the
amendment directs the action to be taken with the revenues raised
in accordance with the amendment. In addition to the clear language
of the amendment, the stated purpose of the amendment in the
proponent's March 22, 1972, letter demonstrates the intent that
these funds be used for a specific purpose in violation of rule
XXI, clause 4.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .
Mr. Heinz: Mr. Chairman, I would argue, in response to the
statement of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) in
urging his point of order, that effluent charges are basically user
charges, and user charges are fundamental to the bill. The bill
would not work without them; they are the primary means of
financing the operation and construction of the water treatment
works herein.
And I would add further that this in itself is an important
consideration in ruling on this.
Also I would hasten to add that clearly under sections
204(b)(2) and 204(b)(3) that in fact the purpose of this bill is to
raise revenues for the purposes of the bill, and without this we
could not possibly construct any water treatment facilities.
Finally--and to be brief--there are two historical precedents
that I believe are important that establish the principle that user
charges are germane to the legislation.
Volume IV, section 4119 of Hinds' Precedents of the House of
Representatives--no relation, I would add--state that on February
23, 1905, the River and Harbor Appropriations Bill was under
consideration, and included in such bill was a section permitting
the collection of tolls on freight and passengers. A point of order
was made to that. The point of order was not sustained.
Similarly, at a later date, in Volume VII, section 1929 of the
same precedents, a bill that included a provision calling for fines
and penalties for offenses on lands of the public domain was
reported from the Committee on Public Lands, now called the Depart
[[Page 5049]]
ment of the Interior, and it was determined that those charges
might properly be considered by the Committee of the House as a
Whole.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Chair consider
these precedents in ruling on the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Ohio. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the amendment.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania states that the bill contains
similar provisions. However, the rule under which we are operating
specifically waives all points of order against sections 2, 8, and
12 of the committee amendment, but it does not waive such points of
order against an amendment to the committee amendment.
So far as nongermaneness is concerned, the Chair finds in
clause 3(c) of the amendment submitted a provision for collecting
revenues or taxes. Also in section 3(d) it provides for money
collected from the fund shall be available for distribution--in
other words, an appropriation.
So the Chair finds it is not germane for the reason that it
provides for raising revenue, or a tax, and appropriates money.
Therefore, the amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI and
also it is in violation of clause 4, rule XXI, prohibiting
appropriations on legislative bills.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Points of order had been waived against
appropriations contained in the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, but not against amendments offered from the floor
containing such provision. Hence, the amendment was subject to a point
of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 of Rule XXI in the 1981
House Rules and Manual].
Allocation of Proceeds of Sale
Sec. 4.20 In a bill providing, in part, authority to construct certain
facilities at military reservations, a provision permitting
immediate use of funds derived from the sale of the San Jacinto
Depot for purchase of a site and construction of a depot at Point-
Aux-Pins, Alabama, was ruled out as an appropriation reported from
a legislative committee in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now
clause 5).
On July 9, 1958,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13015. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 104 Cong. Rec. 13277, 13284, 13285, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 110. The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed
to enter into a contract or contracts for the sale of the San
Jacinto Ordnance Depot, Texas. . . . The Secretary of the Army is
directed to act as follows:
[[Page 5050]]
(1) The depot shall be moved to, and integrated with, the
ammunition out-loading terminal previously authorized for
construction at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., and, notwithstanding any
other provisions of this or any other act, the authority contained
in the act of July 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 536), for the acquisition of
land and initiation of construction for the Point-Aux-Pins facility
shall continue in effect until specifically superseded, modified,
or repealed.
(2) The sale of the San Jacinto Depot property shall be offered
by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on behalf of and
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army within 18 months
from the date of this act. No part of the land herein shall be
sold, transferred, or occupied, by virtue of this transaction, by
any Government agency or department.
(3) A contract or contracts for the sale of the San Jacinto
Depot shall be consummated as expeditiously as possible thereafter.
. . .
(4) All proceeds from the sale shall be available to administer
the provisions of this section and to pay any and all expenses,
including land acquisition, in connection with the relocation,
exchange, or sale of the San Jacinto Depot or the establishment of
a fully integrated depot at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., or all proceeds
deposited into the Treasury of the United States for obligation by
the Army. . . .
Mr. [Harry R.] Sheppard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
paragraph 4 of section 110 which appears on page 18 of the bill.
This paragraph is on appropriation in a bill from a committee not
having jurisdiction to report appropriations, and is in violation
of rule 21, paragraph 4.
Specifically, this provides that funds from the sale of the San
Jacinto Ammunition Depot shall be available to the Secretary of the
Army to pay any and all expenses, including land acquisition, in
connection with the relocation, change, or sale of the San Jacinto
Depot or for the establishment of a fully integrated depot at a
specified location in Alabama.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: I do not desire to be heard on
the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order.
Therefore, paragraph 4, if the Chair sustains the point of order,
will be eliminated.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia concedes the point of
order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Allocating Money Repaid From Loans
Sec. 4.21 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee
making available for administrative purposes money repaid from
advances and loans was held to be an appropriation and not in
order.
On Apr. 8, 1936,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 5051]]
ering H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill. At one point the Clerk read
a provision of the bill and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. (b) Any advances or loans which are repaid to the
Secretary by any commission pursuant to section 3 of this act shall
be held in a special fund in the Treasury of the United States and
shall be available until expended for the purpose of administering
this act or until such time as the Secretary shall determine that
all or any part of such funds will not be needed for such purpose,
whereupon all or any part of such funds shall, upon approval by the
Secretary, revert to the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. I desire to make a point of order against that paragraph.
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: We intend to offer an amendment
striking out the appropriation.
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
paragraph. I do not care to argue it. It is conceded by the
chairman of the committee, I think.
Mr. Jones: It is subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: (11) The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Excess Foreign Currency
Sec. 4.22 Language in a bill authorizing funds for the Foreign
Assistance Act and making excess foreign currencies available to
stimulate private enterprise abroad was conceded to be an
appropriation and in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Aug. 24, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 12048, the Foreign Assistance Act for 1967. A
provision was read, and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 23974, 23975, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 35, line 1: . . .
``Sec. 301. Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended, which relates to general provisions, is
amended as follows: . . .
``(d) Section 612, which relates to the use of foreign
currencies, is amended by adding at end thereof the following new
subsection:
`` `(d) Notwithstanding section 1415 of the Supplemental
Appropriation Act, 1953, excess foreign currencies, as defined in
subsection (b) may be made available, in addition to funds
otherwise available, to encourage the establishment, improvement,
or expansion of private enterprises in friendly less developed
countries. . . . The President may make loans or guaranties with
such currencies on such terms and conditions as he may deem
appropriate in the circumstances. To the maximum extent practicable
in making such loans or guaranties, the President shall utilize the
services of private financing institutions, including inter
[[Page 5052]]
mediate credit institutions which finance private business activity
even though there may be a governmental interest in such
institutions. . . .' ''
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the portion of the bill starting on page
35, line 1, to the bottom of page 37, be considered as read and
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? The Chair hears none, and it is
so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the language on page 36, beginning on line 3 and running
through line 23, on the grounds that it makes an appropriation and
is therefore in violation of paragraph 4 of rule XXI. . . .
Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair
sustains the point of order.
Additional Use of Existing Foreign Credits
Sec. 4.23 To a law authorizing, for certain purposes, use of foreign
credits already generated from sale of agricultural products
abroad, a section of a bill reported by the Committee on
Agriculture to authorize use of such funds for an additional
purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 18, 1956,(14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 11708, a bill to amend the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 13393, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. Section 104 (h) of the act is amended by inserting the
following language immediately before the period at the end of the
section: ``and for the providing of assistance to activities and
projects authorized by section 203 of the United States Information
and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C.
1448)''.
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against all of section 2 that it is an appropriation
on a bill by a committee not authorized to deal with
appropriations.
In support of that statement, may I say that this is
exceedingly technical and very difficult to follow. Nonetheless, by
referring to the basic act, Public Law 480, with which this deals,
we find that it refers to foreign currencies and I quote, ``which
accrue to the United States under this act.'' Then refer to the
specific section which states, ``to use the foreign currencies
[[Page 5053]]
which accrue.'' Then go right on down to section (h), to which
this is an amendment. It states, ``for the financing of.'' I submit
this is obviously an appropriation. I might say that if this were
only an authorization I would have no objection to it at all, but I
do not believe this is a proper place to appropriate. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, This currency
unquestionably belonging to the Government of the United States,
which it receives under the provisions of section 2 of Public Law
480, 83d Congress, and being turned over by the terms of section
104 for specific purposes is for other things or for anything that
they desire to purchase.
Paragraph (a) provides for providing new markets for United
States agricultural commodities.
Paragraph (b) to purchase strategic and critical materials. . .
.
Paragraph (e) for promoting balanced economic trade among
nations.
Paragraph (f) to pay United States obligations abroad.
Paragraph (g) for loans to promote multilateral trade.
Mr. Chairman, the adding of one more item for which the funds
can be used constitutes an additional appropriation of these
currencies which belong to the Government of the United States as a
result of the operations under paragraph (a) section 2. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, all
of the money that goes into the financing of these programs have
already been appropriated and turned over to the President to be
used by the President. In the original act, he is given the right
to barter. He is given the right to sell for local currencies. He
is given the right to give away. This only provides that he can
barter just as has been pointed out heretofore in the debate; one
of the rights he now has is to barter. We say he cannot barter with
the U.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, but that he can barter with
all other countries in the world. So it is not an appropriation on
legislation at all. The moneys have already been appropriated and
now are in the hands of the President. Mr. Chairman, without unduly
delaying the matter, may I point out the language. It says:
The President may use or enter into agreements with
friendly nations or organizations of nations and use the
foreign currencies which accrue under this title for one or
more of the following purposes.
And following that is barter, which is one of those purposes.
The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like the
gentleman from North Carolina to comment on this question. Do we
not acquire foreign currencies which belong to this Government,
which we receive for selling commodities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Prince H. Preston, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooley: Certainly, we are acquiring foreign currencies, and
the act provides for the use of those currencies by the President
of the United States. One of the uses that he can use them for is
(c) to produce military equipment, materials and so forth and
services for the common defense.
The Chairman: The point at issue is whether the funds can be
used without a further appropriation by the Congress.
[[Page 5054]]
Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the question. But the
point is, as I have pointed out, that the funds have already been
appropriated and have already been used largely, and this act
itself authorizes the increase of the authorization, but it does
not authorize the President to use the foreign currencies or
commodities for any purpose foreign to or in addition to the
enumerated uses set forth in the act, one of which is to barter.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] if all the currencies previously
acquired have been used by this Government.
Mr. Cooley: They have been obligated. To the exact extent, I am
not sure, but practically all of them have been obligated but not
actually used. They are covered by gentlemen's agreements, some of
which have not been fully consummated.
I would like to emphasize one point, if I may. The point of
order is to the effect that we are adding to the enumeration of
uses that the President could employ. We are not doing anything of
the kind. Under the act we have a right to barter. That is what
this provision authorizes him to do. We are only saying that he can
barter with this money. The fact of the business is it might be
considered a limitation because we limit the use of the money, in
that he cannot use it in North Korea or China.
Mr. Taber. If the Chair will permit, this is not barter at all.
It is the use of funds. The appropriations having already been
established in section 104, that of course can be continued. But to
add new money and appropriate money for other purposes that were
not allowed in the first bill is beyond the rule, and it
constitutes a new appropriation. Therefore, it is subject to a
point of order because it comes from a committee other than the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, might I add also that
in the committee hearings witnesses testifying on the part of the
executive department used as one of their arguments that this would
give them additional funds.
Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, may I add one comment? The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Taber] points out that we are adding something
to the authority of the President by this amendment in the bill.
Actually, I think some of these funds are now used in connection
with the school lunch program in Japan. They are being used in
other countries in connection with the education of the children of
those countries. Certainly we are not adding to the authority of
the President. It is rather strange that an objection to giving
authority to the President should come from that side of the aisle.
I do not think this is subject to a point of order.
The Chirman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Curtis] has made a point of order against section 2
of the bill, that this constitutes an appropriation. The bill under
consideration by the Committee seeks to amend existing law known as
Public Law 480 of the 83d Congress. In the pending bill it is
clearly evident that a new activity is being created by the
legislation. New authority is being granted in the handling of the
foreign credit derived from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in
the opinion of
[[Page 5055]]
the Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair therefore
feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.44, infra, where language
authorizing use only of future foreign currency proceeds was held not
to be an appropriation.
Amendment to Legislative Bills--Generally
Sec. 4.24 An amendment appropriating money is not in order on a bill
reported by a committee not having jurisdiction over
appropriations.
On May 22, 1936,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 3531, a bill to amend an act relating to Mississippi
River flood control. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 7777, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Arthur P.] Lamneck [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 7, after the word ``Engineers'', add the
following: ``Provided, That the Chief of Engineers, under the
supervision of the Secretary of War, shall at the expense of
the United States Government, construct a system of levees and
reservoirs to adequately control the floodwaters of the Scioto,
Olentangy, and Sandusky River Valleys in Ohio: And provided
further, There is hereby appropriated the sum of $40,000,000
for the carrying out of the above project.''
Mr. [Riley J.] Wilson [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it makes a direct
appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: (17) The amendment proposes to
appropriate $40,000,000. Rule XXI provides that no bill or joint
resolution carrying appropriations shall be reported by any
committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations nor
shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
not having that jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inasmuch as the amendment appropriates money in violation of
the rule, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Emergency Fund
Sec. 4.25 An amendment to a legislative bill proposing to make
available not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations for rivers and
harbors work as an emergency fund to be expended for repairing
damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon
was held in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 17, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 5056]]
ering H.R. 6264, a bill dealing with public works on rivers and
harbors. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5679, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: Page 9, after line 6, insert a
new paragraph, as follows:
``The sum of not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations available
for river and harbor work shall be immediately available as an
emergency fund to be expended under the direction of the Secretary
of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for repairing
damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon,
caused by storm in January 1939, in order to provide adequate
protection to property on such peninsula and in Tillamook, Oreg.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is an appropriation on a
legislative bill.
The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Oregon
desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from
New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I think the
gentleman from New York did not hear the amendment correctly,
because it is not an appropriation but an authorization for the
engineers to use river and harbor money.
Mr. Chairman, there is no language in this amendment which is
appropriating language. The amendment authorizes the use by the
Army engineers of money available for river and harbor work to be
used in emergency work on this project.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York insist on his
point of order?
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall have to insist on the
point of order. If we are to have an appropriation, it should come
in an appropriation bill after a hearing, and then it would go
through quicker, if the need were shown, than this bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman
from Oregon contains language which proposes to divert an
appropriation heretofore made to a new purpose and is therefore in
violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Unemployment Benefits
Sec. 4.26 To a bill amending the Social Security Act to provide a
national program for war mobilization and reconversion, an
amendment directing payments to states on account of unemployment
benefits was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), and not in order.
On Aug. 31, 1944, the Committee of the Whole was considering S.
2051, the war mobilization and reconversion bill of 1944. The following
proceedings took place: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 7464, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5057]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the [committee] amendment that it is an
appropriation of funds in violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the
House. I call the attention of the Chair particularly to this
language. I refer to the page and line of the Senate bill rather
than the amendment, because I have that in front of me and I assume
the Chair can refer to it readily. It begins on page 21, line 6:
(c) Each State shall be entitled to receive from the
Federal unemployment account for each quarter, beginning with
the first quarter commencing after enactment of this act, an
amount equal to the total of all payments of unemployment
compensation made by such State during such quarter, pursuant
to an agreement under this section.
(d) In the event that any State does not agree to make such
payments to such persons, the Civil Service Commission is
hereby authorized and directed to make such payments. . . .
(f) In case of an agreement under this section that a State
agency will make payments as agent of the United States, there
shall be paid in advance to the State such sum as the Board
estimates the State will be entitled to receive for each
quarter under such section. All money paid to a State under
this subsection shall be used solely for the payment of
unemployment compensation. Any money so paid to a State which
is not used for the purpose for which it was paid shall, upon
termination of the agreement, be returned to the Treasury. . .
.
The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Rhode Island that the rule under which we are
considering this measure, waives points of order against the
committee substitute, but not against the amendments which would be
offered to that substitute. The rule cited by the gentleman from
New York is very clear and specific:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any
such bills, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be
raised at any time.
In the opinion of the Chair, the language cited by the Chair
and other language cited by the gentleman from New York, clearly
provides for an appropriation.
Mr. [Aime J.] Forand [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, if the
committee amendment, which is an entire new bill, had not been
brought to the floor of the House as it is now, we would be
considering the George [Senate] bill, and that would be in the
George bill. Would not the rule given to us by the Committee on
Rules clear that? We understood this was a broad rule.
The Chairman: Yes; the rule would clear the Senate bill, but we
are not considering the Senate bill; we are considering the
committee substitute amendment to the Senate bill. This is offered
as an amendment to the committee amendment. In the opinion of the
Chair the point of order is well taken.
The Chair sustains the point of order on the authorities cited.
[[Page 5058]]
Guaranteeing Agencies' Use of Previously Appropriated Funds
Sec. 4.27 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency providing that certain guaranteeing
agencies were thereby authorized to use for the purposes of the
section any funds ``heretofore'' appropriated was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and
not in order.
On Aug. 2, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950. At one
point, a Member raised a point of order against an amendment. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11599, 11600, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I make the point of order that the amendment
violates the provisions of section 4 of rule 21. . . .
The Chairman: Will the gentleman from New York point out the
specific language in the bill to which he objects?
Mr. Taber: I call the Chair's attention to page 7, lines 18 to
23:
(d) Each guaranteeing agency is hereby authorized to use
for the purposes of this section any funds which have
heretofore been appropriated or allocated or which hereafter
may be appropriated or allocated to it, or which are or may
become available to it, for such purposes or for the purpose of
meeting the necessities of the national defense. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
. . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the language there
does constitute an appropriation in violation of the rule cited by
the gentleman from New York, and accordingly sustains the point of
order against the amendment on account of that objectionable
language.
Use of Foreign Interest Payments
Sec. 4.28 To a bill authorizing the furnishing of emergency food relief
assistance to India on specified credit terms, an amendment
providing that interest on the principal of any debt incurred
pursuant to such relief program be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury, to be immediately available for certain types of
expenditures by the Department of State was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
[[Page 5059]]
On May 24, 1951,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3791, a bill to furnish emergency food relief
assistance to India. An amendment was offered and a point of order
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5837, 5838, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William G.] Bray [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bray: On page 3, at line 20, add a
new section reading as follows:
``Sec. 4 (a) any sums payable by the Government of India,
under the interest terms agreed to between the Government of
the United States and the Government of India, on or before
January 1, 1957 . . . as interest on the principal of any debt
incurred under this act shall, when paid, be placed in a
special deposit account in the Treasury of the United States,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to remain
available until expended. This account shall be available to
the Department of State for the following uses:
``(1) Allocation, for designated educational, agricultural,
experimental, scientific, medical, or philanthropic activities,
to American institutions engaged in such activities in India. .
. .''
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, because of my
admiration for the gentleman I dislike to press the point of order,
but I think the rules of the House keep our thinking straight. I
therefore make the point of order. I submit the gentleman's
amendment goes far beyond the scope of the legislation. It
introduces a great deal of new matter and provides for an
appropriation in a legislative act, and is therefore not in order.
. . .
The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk
has reported, providing certain conditions relating to the
assistance proposed to be granted under the pending bill; in
addition it proposes the creation of a fund and makes available
those funds for certain specific purposes.
The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order against the
amendment on two grounds: One, that it is not germane; two, that it
seeks to make an appropriation.
The Chair would call attention to page 88 of Cannon's
Precedents where the following statement is made:
The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same
end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered--
Which is the contention of the gentleman from Indiana--
does not render it germane.
Though the proposed amendment seeks accomplishment of ends
undoubtedly worthy and somewhat related to the aims of the
pending bill, it does provide conditions separate and apart
from the pending bill.
Clause 4 of rule 21 provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an amendment
be in order during the
[[Page 5060]]
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee not having that jurisdiction.
The proposed amendment would in the opinion of the Chair,
violate this rule.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the
gentleman from Ohio in both respects.
Appropriations to Another Government Agency
Sec. 4.29 To a bill to amend the Agriculture Act of 1949 to permit the
importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment relating
to the detention of Mexican aliens, generally, in the United States
and providing that appropriations made heretofore shall be
available for expenditures to carry out the purposes of the
provision was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On June 27, 1951,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 3283, a bill to amend the Agricultural
Act of 1949, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 97 Cong. Rec. 7274, 7275, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Add a new section:
``Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to
the contrary and without regard to section 3709 of the revised
statutes, the Attorney General is authorized to purchase,
construct, lease, equip, operate, and maintain on either
Government-leased or Government-owned land such detention
facilities as may be necessary for the apprehension and removal
to Mexico of Mexican aliens illegally in the United States
Appropriations made to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall be available for expenditures to carry out the
purposes of this act.''
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler). . . .
Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order.
The Chairman: (7) Will the gentleman please state
the grounds of his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooley: First, that it broadens the scope of the
legislation under consideration. It is not germane, and it actually
constitutes an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from New York offers an amendment to the bill
before the committee and the gentleman from North Carolina makes
the point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is
not germane and that it contains an appropriation.
The Chair has had an opportunity to study the amendment offered
by the
[[Page 5061]]
gentleman from New York. As the Chair understands the bill before
the committee, H.R. 3283, it applies to certain Mexican aliens as a
class and as described in the bill. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York broadens the group to include Mexican
aliens illegally in the United States, beyond the class described
in the bill. The amendment also proposes to appropriate funds for a
certain purpose described in the amendment.
For these two reasons, the Chair is constrained to sustain the
point of order.
Funds Previously Appropriated for Mutual Security Agency
Sec. 4.30 To a bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture, an
amendment authorizing the use of funds ``heretofore appropriated
for the use of the Mutual Security Agency'' was ruled out as an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 29, 1953,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6016, a bill concerned with emergency famine relief.
An amendment was offered and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 99 Cong. Rec. 10392, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: Page 2, lines
10 and 11, strike out the words ``(including the Corporation's
investment in the commodities)'' and insert in lieu thereof
``of funds heretofore appropriated for the use of the Mutual
Security Agency.''
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Glenn R. Davis (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hope: I make the point of order against the amendment that
it is not germane and that it constitutes an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment as
drafted, would divert previously appropriated funds to a new
purpose. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Foreign Credits for New
Purpose
Sec. 4.31 To a bill providing for extension of a law authorizing, for
certain purposes, use of foreign credits generated from the sale of
surplus agricultural products abroad, an amendment proposing use of
a limited percentage of the generated funds for an additional
purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
[[Page 5062]]
On June 4, 1957,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, among other things. At one
point a Member offered the following amendment, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 2, following line
3, add the following new paragraph No. 4:
``Section 104(e) of such act is amended by striking out the
semicolon at the end thereof and adding a comma and the
following: `for which purposes not more than 25 percent of the
currencies received pursuant to each such agreement shall be
available through and under the procedures established by the
Export-Import Bank for loans mutually agreeable to said bank
and the country with which the agreement is made to United
States business firms and branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates
of such firms for business development and trade expansion in
such countries for the establishment of facilities for aiding
in the utilization, distribution, or otherwise increasing the
consumption of, and markets for, United States agricultural
products. Foreign currencies may be accepted in repayment of
such loans.' ''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation on a bill
coming from a committee which has no authority to report
appropriations to this body. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: As I understand it,
the President now has the authority in existing law to make these
agreements and to use the money as provided by law. This is in
effect saying he shall not use more than 25 percent of it for these
purposes.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Parliamentarian
has directed the Chair's attention to the fact that on July 18,
1956, in the consideration of a similar measure, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Preston], being Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, ruled on a point of order similar to that made by the
gentleman from New York.
This is the ruling, and the reasons for it in the language of
Chairman Preston, which the Chair adopts:
The gentleman has made a point of order against section 2
of the bill. The bill under consideration by the Committee
seeks to amend existing law known as Public Law 480 of the 83d
Congress. In the pending bill it is clearly evident that a new
activity is being created by the legislation. New authority is
being granted in the handling of the foreign credit derived
from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in the opinion of the
Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair, therefore,
feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Taber].
Use of Tax Receipts for School Construction
Sec. 4.32 An amendment (to a bill reported from the Committee
[[Page 5063]]
on Education and Labor) providing that the District Director of
Internal Revenue shall, under a formula, pay an allotment to each
state out of tax funds for school construction has been ruled out
as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently
clause 5).
On July 25, 1957,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 1, a bill to authorize federal assistance to the
states and local communities in financing an expanded program of school
construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of classrooms.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 12728, 12729, 12733, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edwin H.] May [Jr., of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. May: Page 31, beginning with line
19, strike out everything down through line 11, page 46, and
insert the following:
``Title I--Payments to State Educational Agencies
``Authorization of appropriations
``Sec. 101. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1957, and the four
succeeding fiscal years, such amounts, not to exceed $300
million in any fiscal year, as may be necessary for making
payments to State educational agencies as provided in section
104.
``Allotments to States
``Sec. 102(a)(1) The sums appropriated for any fiscal year
pursuant to section 101 shall be allotted among the States on
the basis of the income per child of school age, the school-age
population, and effort for school purposes, of the respective
States. Subject to the provisions of section 103, such
allotments shall be made as follows: The Commissioner shall
allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the
sums appropriated pursuant to section 101 for such year as the
product of--
``(A) the school-age population of the State, and
``(B) the state's allotment ratio (as determined under
paragraph (2)), bears to the sum of the corresponding products
for all the States.
``Payments to States
``Sec. 104. When he has computed a State's allotment for a
year, the Commissioner shall certify the amount thereof to the
District Director of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue
District of which the State is a part (or, if the State lies in
more than one such District, to the District Director
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury). From the
collections made from such State from taxes levied under part I
of subchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to income tax on individuals),
the District Director of Internal Revenue shall retain an
amount equal to the State's allotment. He shall then pay the
State's allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments,
to the State educational agency. . . .''
[[Page 5064]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that section 104 of the
amendment constitutes an appropriation and it is on a bill coming
from a committee not authorized to report appropriations.
That motion is in order at any time before the bill is enacted.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on the point of order.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: In my opinion, the point of order comes too late.
The amendment has been offered and reported and debate has begun on
the amendment.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it is specifically specified in the
rules that that point of order is available at any time during the
progress of the bill.
Mr. [H. R.) Gross [of Iowa]: Under rule XXI
Mr. Taber: Under rule XXI.
The Chairman: As to the question of timeliness of the point of
order, there is no question but that it can be made at this time.
The Chair feels that this language ``shall pay the State's
allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments, to the State
educational agency'' makes the amendment subject to the point of
order.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Corps of Engineers--Use of Prior Appropriations
Sec. 4.33 Where a committee amendment to a rivers and harbors
authorization bill contained language which permitted the Chief of
Engineers to use, for certain purposes, appropriations heretofore
or hereinafter made for civil works, the amendment was conceded to
contain an appropriation and was ruled out as in violation of Rule
XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On Oct. 3, 1962,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13273, the rivers and harbors authorization bill for
1962. At one point the Clerk read a committee amendment as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 21883, 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: Page 13, line 15, insert:
``Sec. 102. (a) The Act approved August 13, 1946, as
amended by the Act approved July 28, 1956 (33 U.S.C. 426e-h),
pertaining to shore protection, is hereby further amended as
follows: . . .
``(4) Sections 2 and 3 are amended to read as follows:
`` `Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized
to reimburse local interests for work done by them . . .
Provided, That the work which may have been done on the
projects is approved by the Chief of Engineers as being in
accordance with the authorized projects: Provided further, That
such reimburse
[[Page 5065]]
ment shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or
funds available therefor and shall not take precedence over
other pending projects of higher priority for improvements.
`` `Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to
undertake construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he
finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
to allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereinafter made
for civil works, not to exceed $3,000,000 for any one fiscal
year for the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
projects. . . .' ''
Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order against the amendment in that it appears clearly in
the amendment that it is an appropriation on an authorization bill.
The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Minnesota
desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
committee concedes the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
The Chair will state, this applies to the entire amendment from
page 13, line 15, down to and including line 19 on page 16.
Mr. Blatnik: Mr. Chairman, am I correct, then, that this
applies to the entire section 102, it deletes that section?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Language Held To Be ``Authorization''
Sec. 4.34 Language in a bill authorizing an appropriation of not less
than a certain amount for a specified purpose has been held not to
be an appropriation.
On May 11, 1934,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering a bill (17) which stated in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 8640, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H.R. 8781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpose of increasing
employment by providing for emergency construction of public
highways and other related projects there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the sum of not less than $400,000,000 for allocation
under the provisions of section 204 of the National Industrial
Recovery Act.
A point of order was raised against the provision, as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The language of this section
provides that there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of not
less than $400,000,000. That is, in effect, a mandatory piece of
legislation, and must result in an appropriation. This bill does
not come from the Committee on Appropriations and therefore this
sec
[[Page 5066]]
tion, with that language in it, is out of order. . . .
The Chairman: (18) . . . This is simply an
authorization, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David D. Glover (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reappropriation
Sec. 4.35 Language of an amendment providing that an appropriation when
made should come out of any unexpended balances heretofore
appropriated or made available for emergency purposes was held to
be in order on a legislative bill since such language did not
constitute an appropriation.
On Jan. 9, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted service
certificates. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong Rec. 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. . . .
Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment by Mr. Treadway: Page 7, line 13, after the word
``appropriated'', insert ``out of any unexpended balances
heretofore appropriated or made available for emergency
purposes.''
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order against the amendment that it is not
definite enough. It does not specify what law or what appropriation
is intended to be covered by the proposed amendment.
Mr. Treadway: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the
point of order.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the further point of order that it is an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: (2) The Chair does not think it
necessary to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts unless the
gentleman seeks to convince the Chair that the Chair would be in
error in holding his amendment in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is restrictive and limits Congress to just one source
in making its appropriation, while the bill in no way limits, the
amendment is merely an authorization. It will require action on the
part of Congress later to appropriate the money, and the Chair,
therefore, overrules the point of order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reappropriations are no longer permitted. See Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Made Available to Other Agencies
Sec. 4.36 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing that all
[[Page 5067]]
funds available for carrying out the act would be available for
allotment to other bureaus and offices for a similar purpose was
held not to be an appropriation, inasmuch as the bill permitted no
use of existing funds but merely authorized new funds, when
appropriated, to be so allocated.
On Apr. 8, 1936,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill, the
Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was made as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 5208, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 8. All funds available for carrying out this act shall be
available for allotment to the bureaus and offices of the
Department of Agriculture and for transfer to such other agencies
of the Federal or State governments as the Secretary may request to
cooperate or assist in carrying out this act.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
make a point of order against section 8 for the same reason as
applied to section 7. The section makes available and transfers
funds in the Treasury for a different purpose than that for which
they have been appropriated, and I think under the precedents and
decision of the Speaker and of the Chair it is subject to the same
point of order as was raised to section 7. . . .
I call the Chair's attention to the fact that the fees paid by
the handlers of tobacco for so-called marketing agreements under
section 3 go into the Treasury of the United States and are a part
of the funds referred to in this section. They would remain in the
Treasury and not be available to the Secretary of Agriculture or to
anyone except for the language in section 8. . . .
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I submit the
suggestion that by the provisions of the amendment to the previous
section any advance or loans repaid to the Secretary by any
commission, and so forth, shall revert to the Treasury of the
United States; so the point of order made by the gentleman is not
applicable. Section 7(a) is where provision is made with reference
to the funds mentioned in section 3. All that is involved in
section 8 is the amount appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture for administrative purposes, and this is merely a
matter of allowing him to permit some other bureau assisting him to
use the same fund. It is not a new appropriation, it is the same
appropriation and it is for the same function, that of
administration. It does not involve a new appropriation if a man's
assistant spends the man's money helping do the job. In fact, this
involves no appropriation at all. It only refers to the use of
funds authorized to be appropriated in a previous section--if and
when such appropriation is made.
If the gentleman from Michigan will look at the previous
section, he will find the funds mentioned in section 3, and the
collections thereof revert to the Treasury automatically, under the
amendment which we just adopted and which takes the place of the
provision which was stricken out. . . .
[[Page 5068]]
Mr. Mapes: Will not the gentleman from Texas admit that section
8 might divert some of the funds which may be appropriated under
the committee's substitute for section 7, which would not be so
diverted except for section 8?
Mr. Jones: That would be true for any part of the funds that
are appropriated there for administrative purposes but not for
advances and loans, because subdivision (b) of section 7
specifically eliminates all loans and advances and puts them back
into the Treasury when they are repaid. So, by virtue of the
limitation in section (b) this can apply only to administrative
funds.
The Chairman: (5) . . . As the Chair understands,
this bill does not carry any appropriation--that part of the bill
was stricken out on a point of order--and therefore there are no
funds available so far as the bill stands at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Farm Loans
Sec. 4.37 An amendment authorizing the making of farm loans was held
not to be an appropriation under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Jan. 25, 1937,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 1545. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 394-98, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. (a) No loan shall be made under this act to any
applicant who shall not have first established to the satisfaction
of the proper officer or employee of the Farm Credit
Administration, under such regulations as the Governor may
prescribe, that such applicant is unable to procure from other
sources a loan in an amount reasonably adequate to meet his needs
for the purposes for which loans may be made under this act; and
preference shall be given to the applications of farmers whose cash
requirements are small. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. Massingale: Amend paragraph C of
section 2, page 3, by striking out the period after the word
``prescribe'', on line 5 of said paragraph, inserting a comma, and
adding the following: ``and loans for seed oats shall be
immediately available in localities where it is customary that
sowing or planting shall be done in the late winter or early spring
months.'' . . .(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Note: Loans are not considered charges against the Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have
to disagree with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Massingale].
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's
amendment would amount to inserting an appropriation in a
legislative bill. . . .
The Chairman: (8) The Chair overrules the
gentleman's point of order insofar as the point of order is based
on the ground that the amendment involves an appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advances From Treasury
Sec. 4.38 Language authorizing and directing an executive
[[Page 5069]]
officer to advance, when appropriated, sums of money out of the
Treasury was held not to constitute an appropriation on a
legislative bill.
On June 17, 1937,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472. At one point an amendment was offered and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5914, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 1, after line 4,
insert the following:
``Title I--Authorization for Advance of Funds
``Until and including June 30, 1938, the Secretary of the
Treasury, notwithstanding the provisions of the District of
Columbia Appropriation Act approved June 29, 1922, is
authorized and directed, when appropriated, to advance, on the
requisition of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia,
made in the manner now prescribed by law, out of any money in
the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated,
such sums as may be necessary from time to time during said
fiscal year to meet the general expenses of said District, as
provided by law, and such amounts so advanced shall be
reimbursed by the said Commissioners to the Treasury out of the
taxes and revenue collected for the support of the government
of the said District of Columbia.''
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
. . . I make the same point of order against the amendment as
was raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and upon
which the Chair just ruled. The language of the District of
Columbia Appropriation Act makes this amendment an exception to the
appropriation act. The amendment states ``out of any money in the
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.'' It
seems to me the amendment seeks to have Congress authorize and
appropriate a certain amount of money which the Congress would have
to reimburse the Treasury for if the District itself was not able
to reimburse the Treasury out of the revenues to be obtained under
this bill.
The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. It is
the opinion of the Chair that the language included in the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols],
which indicates that the money cannot become available until and
when appropriated, is proper, and therefore overrules the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The language objected to by Mr. John Taber,
and subsequently referred to by Mr. O'Malley in his point of order, was
substantially the same as that in the Nichols amendment, but did not
include the phrase ``when appropriated.'' (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 5910, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Accounts for Specified Purposes
Sec. 4.39 Language directing that the proceeds of taxes shall be
[[Page 5070]]
deposited in a special account in the Treasury entirely to the
credit of the District of Columbia and would thereafter be
appropriated and used solely and exclusively for certain enumerated
purposes was held merely a direction to appropriate in the future
and not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5),
as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.
On June 17, 1937,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5924, 5925, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``All proceeds of the taxes imposed under this act . . . shall
be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United
States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia, and
shall be appropriated and used solely and exclusively for the
following purposes:
``(1) For the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and
maintenance of public highways, including the necessary
administrative expenses in connection therewith . . .''
Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against that part of section 2 on page 12, line 2,
beginning with the words ``and shall'', through and including line
24 on page 12, on the ground that it is an appropriation and
violates the rule which requires that appropriations shall come
from the Committee on Appropriations.
The Chairman: (13) Will the gentleman advise the
Chair of the language to which he makes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Engel: On page 12, line 2, commencing with the words ``and
shall be appropriated'', continuing through the remainder of the
section.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do
not believe the point of order will lie. This section first does
not appropriate any money. It is only an affirmative direction for
the expenditure of money or an indication of how the money shall be
expended, but it does not undertake, either by language or
implication, to appropriate money.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will state
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] has stated the
matter correctly. The point of order is overruled.
``Appropriation'' Defined as ``Payment of Funds From the Treasury''
Sec. 4.40 A bill to regulate barbers in the District of Columbia
containing language providing that fees and charges payable under
the act would be paid to the secretary-
[[Page 5071]]
treasurer of a board to carry out these regulations and providing
compensation of members of the board from such funds was held not
to be an appropriation of funds from the Treasury where it was
stated that expenses under the bill were not chargeable against the
United States or the District of Columbia.
On Jan. 24, 1938,(14) the House was considering H.R.
7085. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 1008, 1009, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11. All fees and charges payable under the provisions of
this act shall be paid to the secretary-treasurer of the Board. The
Board is hereby authorized to refund any license fee or tax, or
portion thereof, erroneously paid or collected under this act.
(a) For the examination of an applicant for a certificate as a
registered barber, $5. . . .
Sec. 12. The Commissioners are authorized and directed to
provide suitable quarters for examinations and equipment to the
Board and for the compensation of the members of the Board at the
rate of $9 per day . . . Provided, That payments under this section
shall not exceed the amount received from the fees provided for in
this act; and if at the close of each fiscal year any funds
unexpended in excess of the sum of $1,000 shall be paid into the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District of
Columbia: Provided, That no expense incurred under this act shall
be a charge against the funds of the United States or the District
of Columbia. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that sections 11 and 12 provide for an appropriation
which the Committee on the District of Columbia, as a legislative
committee, is not authorized to do. Section 11 sets up a schedule
of fees and section 12 appropriates such fees to the use of the
Commissioners, stating that any sums unexpended in excess of a
thousand dollars shall revert to the Treasury. . . .
The Speaker: (15) The Chair is ready to rule on the
point of order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order against
section 12 of the bill that under the terms of the section there is
an appropriation of funds out of the Public Treasury.
If, in the opinion of the Chair, the language of the section
sustained that position, clearly the point of order of the
gentleman from Wisconsin would be good. However, the Chair calls
attention to the fact it is stated in a precedent which will be
found in the Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, first
session, page 3388:
The term ``appropriation'' in the rule means the payment of
funds from the Treasury.
As far as the Chair is able to read the language of section 12,
it provides
[[Page 5072]]
only the payment of funds into the Treasury under certain
contingencies, and does not provide for the payment of funds out of
the Treasury.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order
made by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Unused Appropriations Paid Into Treasury Account
Sec. 4.41 A provision in a legislative bill providing that sums already
appropriated and not used for making parity payments would be
covered into the Treasury to offset the subsequent appropriations
made pursuant to the authority of the bill under consideration was
held not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5),
inasmuch as further action would be required to appropriate such
sums authorized.
On Jan. 29, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6350, a bill dealing with relief for certain
agricultural producers. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 851, 852, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to make a point of order against paragraph (b), on the ground that
it violates clause 4 of rule XXI.
Paragraph (b) reads as follows:
The Congress further determines that substantial amounts of
the sums which have heretofore been appropriated for making
parity payments will not be needed for making such payments;
and it hereby directs that so much of the money appropriated in
the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1942, for the
purpose of making parity payments as is not used for such
purpose shall be covered into the Treasury to offset the
appropriations made pursuant to the authority of this act. . .
.
My contention is that paragraph (b) diverts an appropriation
already made to a different purpose, therefore is a violation of
the rule. If there should be any doubt in the mind of the Chair, I
should like to be heard further on the point of order.
The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Fulmer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to comment
on the point of order except to state I do not believe that the
point of order is germane; therefore, it should not be sustained. .
. .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has examined this paragraph very carefully. The Chair
calls attention to the fact that the paragraph provides that the
sum of money, whatever sum it may be, appropriated for the purpose
of making parity payments and not used for such purpose shall be
covered into the Treasury to offset the appropriations made
pursuant to the authority of this act.
[[Page 5073]]
The paragraph contemplates that there will be further action by
the Congress before any appropriation is made available. Therefore,
the Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Is the holding of the Chair in the
language the Chair just used to the effect that further action is
necessary, that under the legislative history of this bill it would
not be possible for the proponents of this legislation to come
before the Committee on Appropriations and maintain that the hands
of the Committee on Appropriations had already been tied by the
action on this bill?
The Chairman: Before there could be any activity under the
provisions of this bill, there must be appropriate action by the
Congress making money available for the purposes therein set forth.
Membership in International Organization
Sec. 4.42 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing ``that the President is hereby authorized to accept
membership for the United States in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the Constitution of which
was approved in London on November 16, 1945, by the United Nations
Conference for the establishment of an Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, and deposited in the Archives of the
Government of the United Kingdom'' was held not to involve an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently
clause 5) merely because the constitution of the organization
provided that ``the general conference shall approve and give final
effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the organization . . .
.'' since a subsequent appropriation was authorized by the bill.
On May 21, 1946,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 305, relating to United States
participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization. The following proceedings took place as the
joint resolution was considered for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 5388-95, 79th Cong. 2d Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, etc., That the President is hereby authorized to
accept membership for the United States in the United Nations
Educational, Scientific,
[[Page 5074]]
and Cultural Organization (hereinafter referred to as the
``Organization''), the constitution of which was approved in London
on November 16, 1945. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against section 1 of the bill, beginning in line 3 on page 1,
and ending in line 2 on page 2. . . .
I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that it
is an appropriation coming from a committee not authorized to
report appropriations to the House. That kind of a point of order
can be made at any time during the consideration of the bill.
I call the attention of the Chair to article IX of the
constitution of this Organization which appears in the report of
the committee on page 9.
It says:
The General Conference shall approve and give final effect
to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the Organization
subject to such arrangement with the United Nations as may be
provided in the agreement to be entered into pursuant to
article X.
Let me call attention to the fact that this authorizes the
validation of that article. . . .
The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against section
1 of the resolution on the ground that it appropriates money and
comes from a committee not authorized to make appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Colmer (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No appropriation is made in section 1 of the bill.
Section 4 of the joint resolution would authorize an
appropriation at a later date to be appropriated by the appropriate
committee.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sec. 4 stated in part:
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually to
the Department of State, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the
payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of
the Organization as apportioned by the General Conference of
the Organization in accordance with article IX of the
constitution of the Organization, and such additional sums as
may be necessary to pay the expenses of participation by the
United States in the activities of the Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. [Frank A.] Mathews [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mathews: The point of order is as follows: As I understand,
upon the adoption of this resolution the United States of America
authorizes the President to make it, the United States, a member of
this Organization whose constitution is set forth in the report of
the committee.
Under article IX of that constitution headed ``Budget'' the
following appears:
Sec. 1. The budget shall be administered by the
Organization.
2. The General Conference shall approve and give final
effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the Organization--
[[Page 5075]]
And so forth. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that in effect
practically delegates the power of appropriation of this body to an
organization or a part of an organization which is not composed of
Members of this body and not acting officially. I contend further,
therefore, that we have no right constitutionally to so delegate
liability for those appropriations or expenditures. . . .
Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: May I suggest to the
gentleman from New Jersey that the Chair has already ruled on
practically an identical point of order.
Mr. Mathews: That was not the same point.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair, in
construing a point of order raised by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Taber) on a similar proposition, ruled that it was not an
appropriation and, therefore, the point of order did not lie. The
Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from New Jersey to the
fact that section 4, page 5, is the authorization section of the
joint resolution, and that money could not be appropriated until it
was authorized by that section.
The point of order is overruled.
Loans From Public Debt Proceeds
Sec. 4.43 A discussion of the nature of an ``appropriation'' took place
in the House when language in a housing bill authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to use proceeds of public-debt issues for
the purpose of making loans was held not to be an appropriation and
not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On June 27, 1949,(21) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole to consider the Housing Act of
1949.(22) During the committee's consideration, the
following language was read: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 8451, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
22. H.R. 4009.
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 8480, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) To obtain funds for loans under this title, the
Administrator, on and after July 1, 1949, may, with the approval of
the President, issue and have outstanding at any one time notes and
obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury in an
amount not to exceed $25,000,000. . . .
(f) Notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator
under this title shall be in such forms and denominations, have
such maturities, and be subject to such terms and conditions as may
be prescribed by the Administrator, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall
bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the
last day of the month preceding the issuance of such notes or other
obligations. The Sec
[[Page 5076]]
retary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any
notes and other obligations of the Administrator issued under this
title and for such purpose is authorized to use as a public debt
transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued
under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under such act, as amended, are
extended to include any purchases of such notes and other
obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any
of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this
section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of
the Treasury of such notes or other obligations shall be treated as
public debt transactions of the United States.
On the next day, Members discussed the effect of such language:
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at pp. 8536-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the
point of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section
102 in title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the
Federal Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is
without jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under
clause 4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution
carrying appropriations shall be reported by any committee not
having jurisdiction to report appropriations.
This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in
consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this
proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting
funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree.
The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the
Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must
follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury
is an appropriation.
I invite the attention of the Chairman to the fact that
subparagraph (e) states:
To obtain funds for loans under this title, the
Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any one time
notes and obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the
Treasury in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, which limit on
such outstanding amount shall be increased by $225,000,000 on
July 1, 1950, and by further amounts of $250,000,000 on July 1
in each of the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively--
Within the total authorization of $1,000,000,000.
Further that subparagraph (f) provides that--
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed--
And I call particular attention to the use of the words ``and
directed''--to purchase any notes and other obligations of the
Administrator issued under this title and for such purpose is
authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from
the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond
Act, as amended--
And so forth. The way in which this particular language extends
this device of giving the Secretary authority to subscribe for
notes by some authority
[[Page 5077]]
is this: It includes the words ``and directed.''
In other words, the Secretary of the Treasury has no
alternative when the Administrator presents to him some of these
securities for purchase but to purchase them. The Secretary of the
Treasury is not limited to purchasing them by proceeds from the
sale of bonds or securities. He is directed to purchase these notes
and obligations issued by the Administrator. That means he might
use funds obtained from taxes, that he might use funds obtained
through the assignment of miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury,
that he might use funds obtained through the proceeds of bonds. . .
.
Mr. Chairman, this is not, as I said earlier, a casual point of
order; we are here dealing with the fundamental power of the
Congress to control appropriations. No such device has ever before,
so far as I can find out, been presented to the Congress for
getting money in the guise of a legislative bill without its having
been considered by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a
mandatory extraction of funds from the Public Treasury, and,
consequently, constitutes an appropriation and is beyond the
authority or the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and
Currency to report in this bill. . . .
Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the raising of
funds by public debt transaction has been frequently authorized by
the Congress: The Export-Import Bank raises funds by that method;
the Bretton Woods Agreement, in my recollection, is carried out by
that method; the British loan was financed by that method, and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was also financed by that
method. It does not seem to me that this is a seasonable objection.
This has been the policy of the Congress for years.
Mr. Chairman, this is not raising money to be appropriated for
the purposes that ordinary appropriation bills carry. All of this
money is to be used as loans.
The gentleman says that in other acts the Secretary of the
Treasury is ``authorized'' but not ``directed''. I contend that the
meaning of ``authorized'' and ``directed'' in this act is
absolutely the same.
Do you think when you authorize the Secretary of the Treasury
to raise funds to carry out a great public purpose it is in his
discretion whether he shall raise those funds and that that shall
depend on the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury? I say
``authorized'' in this sense means ``directed.'' It could not mean
anything else, otherwise you would be delegating to an officer of
the Government entire discretion as to whether or not great
national acts should be carried out and the purposes of Congress
should be subserved.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, in most of the acts
which the gentleman has suggested, points of order were waived, and
I refer to Bretton Woods and some of the other bills. But as to the
particular point here in issue, the question whether the words
``and directed'' have any meaning, if they do not have any meaning
why are they there? The present housing act merely authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to purchase. It does not say ``and
directed.'' The very inclu
[[Page 5078]]
sion of the words ``and directed'' is evidence of the fact they
have a special meaning They create a mandatory extraction of funds
from the Public Treasury.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I still contend unless you would make
our acts a nullity ``authorized'' and ``directed'' have exactly the
same meaning when applied to a public official charged with
carrying out a great national act. I do not think there can be any
reasonable construction that would hold otherwise. . . .
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
agree with my friend who has raised the point of order that this is
not a casual one, but, on the contrary, is a very sincere one. It
presents a new question from a legislative angle to be passed upon
in the direct question raised by the point of order.
The gentleman from South Dakota has referred to the
Constitution. The Constitution says:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of appropriations made by law.
The word ``appropriations'' is used.
The rule referred to, clause 4, rule 21, says:
No bill or resolution carrying appropriations shall be
reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations.
You will note the word ``appropriations'' is used. Now, let us
see what ``appropriations'' means.
I have before me Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary and
``appropriations'' is defined as follows: To set apart for a
particular use. To take for one's own use.
The provisions of this bill are not taking for one's own
use, because this is a loan designed purely for loan purposes.
It is not a definite appropriation. It is giving authority to
utilize for loan purposes and the money comes back into the
Treasury of the United States with interest.
Again, the word ``appropriations'' is defined:
Something, as money, appropriated--
I call particular attention to those words ``something, as
money, appropriated''--
or set apart, as by a legislature, for a special use.
I repeat ``something, as money.''
The provision in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a
point of order against relates entirely to loans. As we read
section 102 of title I it starts out with loans. Throughout the
bill, a number of times, there is reference to loans.
Paragraph (e) says:
To obtain funds for loans under this title.
It is a loan.
The meat of the two paragraphs, as I see it, is this:
Paragraph (f), line 23, page 8, says:
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to
purchase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator
issued under this title and for such purpose is authorized to
use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of
any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as
amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued
under such act, as amended, are extended to include any
purchases of such notes and other obligations.
[[Page 5079]]
It seems to me that that is the meat. Certainly, the language
there does not amount to an appropriation. It is entirely for loan
purposes. . . .
Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: The gentleman has
discussed the point--the difference between the word ``authorized''
and ``directed.'' Does not the gentleman realize that he is
``authorized'' to appear on the floor and ``authorized'' to make
statements? The gentleman is not ``directed'' to. Now, following
further, the Committee on Appropriations of this House is
``authorized'' to do certain things, but the gentleman must realize
that the Committee on Appropriations is not ``directed'' to do
certain things. There is a real difference, a constitutional
difference between the words ``authorized'' and ``directed.'' The
gentleman is ``authorized'' to walk down the street and
``authorized'' to do many things. But the gentleman would fight for
his right not to be ``directed'' to do what he is ``authorized'' to
do. The gentleman's argument is farfetched. This is a serious
situation.
Mr. McCormack: There is nothing the gentleman has said that I
can disagree with except that everything the gentleman has said has
no application to the matter pending now. The basic question here
is whether or not this is an appropriation within the meaning of
the rules or money that is going to be utilized for loan purposes
and recovered back into the General Treasury. So the gentleman's
observations, as I see it, respecting the gentleman as I do, have
no application at all to the basic and pertinent question presented
to the Chair by the point of order raised by the gentleman from
South Dakota. . . .
Mr. [John] Phillips of California: The question has to do with
the meaning of ``authorized and directed.'' Within the past 6 weeks
I have had a bill before one of the major committees of this House.
The county counsel of my home county raised the question of whether
the wording should be ``authorized`` or ``authorized and directed''
in four different places in the bill. It was taken up with the
attorneys for the Interior Department. The attorneys recognized the
distinction between ``authorized'' and ``authorized and directed,''
and agreed upon the inclusion in certain instances and not in
others. There is a recognized distinction, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the
point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a
matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain,
this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this
issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns
on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in
its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of
the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of
the general functions of Government. The language before us does
not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
to use proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making
loans. Under the language, the Treasury of the United
[[Page 5080]]
States makes advances which will be repaid in full with interest
over a period of years without cost to the taxpayers.
Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not
constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order. . .
.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that
language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the
proceeds of the securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act
and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous
receipts or tax revenues?
The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that
distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has
been raised. . . . The Chair can make a distinction between the
general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific
purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved
here.
Future Foreign Currency Proceeds From Exports
Sec. 4.44 To a bill reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, an
amendment earmarking a specified amount of the funds authorized by
the bill to be used specifically for the purchase and export of
surplus agricultural commodities and providing that future foreign
currency proceeds therefrom would be used for the purposes of the
act was held not to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On June 29, 1954,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954. An
amendment was offered and a point of order raised as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 100 Cong. Rec. 9238, 9239, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Judd:
Page 29, line 15, strike out all on lines 15 through 23 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
``Sec. 402. Earmarking of funds: Of the funds authorized to
be made available pursuant to this act, not less than $500
million shall be used to finance the purchase and export of
surplus agricultural commodities or products thereof produced
in the United States and foreign currency proceeds therefrom
shall be used for the purposes of this act pursuant to section
104 of the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Clarence J. Brown (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the . . . point of order that
it involves an appropriation of funds, and I call attention to the
fact that the language says that these funds that are realized from
the sale of these products can be used for a particular purpose.
That makes an appropriation out of it.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be
heard?
Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page 5081]]
This is not an appropriation. The total bill authorizes the
appropriation of about $3.4 billion. This section is a limitation
or earmarking of funds that may be appropriated under the
authorization. It says that of the $3.4 billion, if and when it is
appropriated, not less than $500 million shall be used for a given
purpose. This is language that is almost word for word the same as
section 550 of the act last year, except the act last year said not
less than $100 million and not to exceed $250 million should be
used for this purpose of purchasing surplus agricultural
commodities to be used as aid instead of dollars. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
On a careful reading of the amendment as modified--and I wish
to read the wording of it--``of the funds authorized to be made
available pursuant to this act not less than,'' and so forth--it is
the ruling of the Chair that this amendment should be interpreted
to mean that unless the appropriation is first authorized, the
amendment has no effect whatsoever and therefore the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.23, supra, where language
authorizing new use of existing foreign currency proceeds already
available for a different purpose under existing law was ruled out as
an appropriation.
Reconstituted Area Redevelopment Fund
Sec. 4.45 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency repealing the public-debt financing
provisions of the Area Redevelopment (revolving) Fund, and, in lieu
thereof, authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted Area
Redevelopment Fund, was held not to be an appropriation within the
purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) where another
section of the bill authorized subsequent appropriations for the
fund.
On June 12, 1963,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4996, a bill amending the Area Redevelopment Act. At
one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was raised as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 10721, 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6. (a) Subsection (a) of section 9 of the Area
Redevelopment Act is repealed.
(b) Subsection (b) of section 9 of such Act is redesignated as
subsection (a), and the first sentence of such subsection as so
redesignated is amended to read as follows: ``There shall be in the
Treasury of the United States an area redevelopment fund
(hereinafter referred to as the `fund') which shall be available to
the Secretary for the purpose of extending financial assistance
under sections 6 and 7 and for repayment of all obligations and
expenditures arising therefrom.''. . .
[[Page 5082]]
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Iowa will state
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 5, line 18, beginning with the words ``and the
first sentence of such subsection as so redesignated is amended to
read as follows:''. . .
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this constitutes,
in fact, an appropriation in a legislative bill
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this just merely
restates existing law. It just creates a fund which already exists,
really, and the fund will be supplemented by the amount
appropriated through regular channels. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
whether or not additional appropriations are required for this
fund?
Mr. Patman: Yes, sir; they are required.
The Chairman: They are required?
Mr. Patman: Yes; section 10 says:
Funds appropriated for the purpose of extending financial
assistance under sections 6 and 7 shall be deposited in the
Area Redevelopment Fund in the Treasury of the United States.
The Chairman: Additional legislation would be necessary to
appropriate funds. The Chair holds this is an authorization and
overrules the point of order.
Use of Loan Repayments
Sec. 4.46 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency repealing the public debt financing
provisions of the Area Redevelopment Act fund, in lieu thereof
authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted fund, and applying
receipts from the repayments of loans to the credit of available
appropriations was held not to be an appropriation within the
purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) upon
assurances that such receipts could not be reused without a
subsequent appropriation.
On June 12, 1963,(8) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Area Redevelopment Act amendments (H.R.
4996) a point of order was raised against the following language, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. Section 11 of the Area Redevelopment Act is amended--
(1) by striking out ``$4,500,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$10,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ``The
Secretary, in
[[Page 5083]]
his discretion, may require repayment of the assistance provided
under this section and prescribe the terms and conditions of such
repayment. Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the
appropriation available for assistance under this section which is
current at the time of repayment.''. . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language found on page 6 of the bill, line 23, which reads as
follows:
Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the
appropriation available for assistance under this section which
is current at the time of repayment.
I again make the point of order that this constitutes in fact
an appropriation in a legislative act.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this concerns
repayment and disposal of it after it has been repaid from which it
was originally appropriated. I do not believe the gentleman's point
of order is well taken.
The Chairman: May the Chair inquire whether these funds can be
reused?
Mr. Patman: I am sure they have to be reappropriated. The funds
received cannot be reused, they have to be reappropriated.
The Chairman: Relying upon that assurance, the Chair overrules
the point of order because additional legislation would be
necessary.
Senate Ruling on Public Debt Transaction Financing
Sec. 4.47 The Presiding Officer of the Senate ruled that a provision in
a bill authorizing use of proceeds of public debt transactions for
financing loans to the Development Loan Fund did not constitute an
appropriation in a legislative bill in contravention of Senate Rule
XVI.
On July 1, 1959,(10) the following point of order was
raised, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12435-37, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
See also Sec. 4.43, supra, for a similar ruling under the
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. President, I desire
to make a point of order regarding the language which appears on
page 16, beginning in line 13, and through line 13 on page 17. That
part of the bill is section 203; and I make the point of order
against it. . . .
The point of order is that that provision constitutes an
appropriation, and that an appropriation cannot be made in a
legislative bill reported by the Foreign Relations Committee. . . .
I invite the attention of the Chair to the language of the
provision itself:
(b) For purposes of the loans provided for in this section,
the Sec
[[Page 5084]]
retary of the Treasury is authorized to use the proceeds of the
sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act
as now in force or as hereafter amended, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond
Act are hereby extended to include this purpose. The President
shall determine the terms and conditions of any advances or
loans made to the Fund pursuant to this section. . . .
The amount of such obligations also may not exceed the
limitations specified in section 203(a) of this Act except
that, to the extent that assets of the Fund other than
capitalization provided pursuant to section 203(a) are
available, obligations may be incurred beyond such limitations.
. . .
The Presiding Officer: (11) The Chair has not had an
opportunity to study the point of order. After discussion with the
Parliamentarian, the Chair believes it may be necessary to examine
the precedents in connection with this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank E. Moss (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair wonders whether the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee has any comment to make in connection with this matter.
Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I
think the precedents are so clear that the Chair would not need to
study the matter. There have been many precedents. The form of this
provision is precisely the same as the language used 2 years ago
when the Senate voted to approve this very operation of borrowing
through the public debt transactions. . . .
The Presiding Officer: In view of the precedents of other
legislation which has passed this body, including revolving funds
created thereunder, even though the point of order was not squarely
raised before, the Chair feels disposed to follow the precedents,
and overrules the point of order.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 5. Contingent Fund Expenditures
Money appropriated for the contingent fund of the House is used for
such miscellaneous purposes as employees salaries or salary increases,
including those of committee investigative personnel; certain
allowances (12) housekeeping actions (13) and the
like. Simple House resolutions, which provide for expenditures from the
contingent fund, are reported by the Committee on House Administration
and called up as privileged.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. On one occasion, expenses incident to a special session of
Congress, including mileage for the Vice President, Senators,
and Representatives, and payments to pages, were provided for
by appropriations made in a joint resolution. See Sec. 8.21,
infra.
13. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ch. 6
Sec. Sec. 10-13 (4th ed.).
14. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, a resolution not formally reported by the Committee on
House Administration, providing for payment from the contingent fund of
salaries of in
[[Page 5085]]
vestigative personnel of standing and select committees for a three
months period (pending adoption of annual committee funding
resolution), is called up and agreed to by unanimous
consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 4.4
(4th ed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration formerly had authority to fix
allowances without subsequent House approval. Such authority, except
for cost of living adjustments, was withdrawn on July 1, 1976, by a
House resolution thereafter enacted into law. Subsequent House approval
is presently required for Committee on House Administration orders
fixing allowances beyond the 94th Congress.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 4.5
(4th ed.) -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged Resolution
Sec. 5.1 A resolution reported by the Committee on House Administration
providing for an expenditure from the contingent fund is called up
as privileged.
On June 16, 1965,(1) a resolution (2)
authorizing each Member and the Resident Commissioner to employ a
``summer Congressional Intern'' and permitting payment from the
contingent fund of amounts required to carry out the resolution, was
reported by the Committee on House Administration and called up as
privileged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. H. Res. 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up House
Resolution 416, with amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 416
Resolved, That (a) notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each Member of the House of Representatives and the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico are authorized to hire .
. . one additional employee. . . . For this purpose each Member
of the House of Representatives and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico shall have available for payment to such
intern a gross allowance of $750 . . . payable from the
contingent fund of the House until otherwise provided by law.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, indicated that such a report, privileged under Rule
XI, may be called up for consideration on the same day reported, and
unanimous consent is not required.
Parliamentarian's Note: Such reports are now subject to the
[[Page 5086]]
three-day layover requirement of Rule XI clause 2(l)(6).
Sec. 5.2 A resolution reported by the Committee on House
Administration, providing for payment from the contingent fund of
additional compensation for certain positions created by House
resolution, was called up as privileged.
On Aug. 5, 1970,(3) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27449-51, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on House Administration, I [call up] a privileged report
(Rept. No. 91-1378) on the resolution (H. Res. 1117) relating to
the compensation of two positions created by House Resolution 543,
89th Congress, and ask for immediate consideration of the
resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1171
Resolved, That, until otherwise provided by law, effective
as of January 1, 1970, the per annum (gross) rate of
compensation (basic compensation plus additional compensation
authorized by law) of each of the two positions referred to in
House Resolution 543, Eighty-ninth Congress, shall not exceed
the annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive
Schedule of section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. The
contingent fund of the House of Representatives is made
available to carry out the purposes of this resolution.
[The resolution was rejected.]
Surplus Contingent Funds
Sec. 5.3 The House agreed to a resolution authorizing the transfer of
surplus 1960 contingent funds to liquidate 1962 contingent fund
obligations of the House.
On June 21, 1962,(4) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 11314, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
See also 109 Cong. Rec. 11462, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1963, for
a resolution authorizing transfer of surplus 1961 contingent
funds to liquidate 1963 contingent fund obligations of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 694) authorizing the transfer of certain funds
within the contingent fund of the House of Representatives, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That such funds as may be necessary to liquidate
the 1962 obligations may be transferred, within the contingent
fund of the House of Representatives, from ``Miscellaneous
Items, 1960'', to ``Special and Select Committees, 1962''.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 5087]]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status
The rules (5) give a privileged status to reports on
general appropriation bills. Under the rules, the Committee on
Appropriations is given ``leave to report at any time'' on general
appropriation bills. But the privilege is subject to the requirement
under another rule (6) that general appropriation bills not
be considered in the House until printed committee hearings and a
committee report thereon have been available for the Members for at
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays). Of course, the rule requiring printed hearings and the
committee report to have been available for three days may be waived by
unanimous consent.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1981).
See Sec. 5, supra, for discussion of the privileged status
of resolutions reported by the Committee on House
Administration that provide for expenditures from the
contingent fund of the House.
6. Rule XXI clause 6 (subsequently clause 7), House Rules and Manuals
Sec. 848 (1981).
7. See 108 Cong. Rec. 19237, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962
(proceedings relating to H.R. 13175).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The precedence of appropriation bills is also recognized in
provisions relating to the order of business in Committee of the
Whole.(8) But the usual practice is to consider general
appropriation bills under the rule giving privileged status to a motion
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
purpose of considering general appropriation bills.(9) The
motion ordinarily designates the particular bill to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Rule XXIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (1981).
9. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1981). Under
the rule, the motion to consider general appropriation bills
and the motion to consider revenue bills are of equal
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be emphasized that the right of the Committee on
Appropriations to report at any time is confined strictly to general
appropriation bills, and does not include appropriations for specific
purposes or resolutions extending appropriations. An example of
measures not considered ``general appropriation bills,''and therefore
not reported or called up as privileged, is a joint resolution
providing continuing appropriations for departments and agencies of
[[Page 5088]]
government, to provide funds until the regular appropriation bills are
enacted.(10) Similarly, a joint resolution providing an
appropriation for a single government agency is not a general
appropriation bill and is not reported as privileged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 8.9, infra.
11. See Sec. 7.4, infra; and 111 Cong. Rec. 9518, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.,
May 5, 1965.
The Committee on Appropriations filed as privileged a joint
resolution making supplemental appropriations to two diverse
departments for the balance of the fiscal year. See Procedure
in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 1.2 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, consideration of nonprivileged appropriation bills may
be made in order by unanimous consent. Thus, a joint resolution
continuing appropriations for a fiscal year may be called up as if
privileged pursuant to a special order entered into by unanimous
consent, even where such joint resolution has been reported pursuant to
the rule (12) relating to the filing of nonprivileged
reports.(13) Similarly, by unanimous consent, the House may
make in order the consideration of a resolution providing supplemental
appropriations for a single government agency.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1981).
13. See Sec. 8.8, infra. Joint resolutions continuing appropriations
pending enactment of regular annual appropriation measures are,
by unanimous consent, generally considered ``in the House as in
Committee of the Whole,'' but are sometimes considered in
Committee of the Whole to permit more extensive general debate.
See 115 Cong. Rec. 31867, 31886, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28,
1969 (H.J. Res. 966).
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 30, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All bills that make appropriations--in fact all proceedings
touching appropriations of money--require consideration first in
Committee of the Whole, and a point of order made pursuant to this rule
is good at any time before the consideration of a bill has
commenced.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865
(1981). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Privilege
Sec. 6.1 The House having agreed that consideration of a general
appropriation bill take priority over all business except
conference reports, it was held that such agreement gave a higher
privilege to the appropriation bill than to consideration of a
resolution disapproving reorganization plans of the Presi
[[Page 5089]]
dent, business in order under the ``21-day rule,'' and other
business
On May 9, 1950 (16) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the House is not proceeding in the regular
order because under section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which
is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any
Member of the House is privileged, and this is a highly privileged
motion, to make the motion that the House proceed to the
consideration of House Resolution 516.
The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this
highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be
recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the
question put before the House, and my motion is that the House
proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) That is the resolution
disapproving one of the reorganization plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516
disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon (of Texas): Mr. Speaker, on April 5,
1960, as shown at page 4835 of the daily Record of that day, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cannon) asked and received unanimous consent that the
appropriation bill should have the right-of-way over other
privileged business under the rules until disposition, with the
exception of conference reports. Therefore, I believe the regular
order would be to proceed with the further consideration of H.R.
7786. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Under the estabished rules of
practice of the House, when a special order like that is granted,
like that which was granted at the request of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cannon), if those in charge of the bill do not
present on any occasion a motion to go into Committee of the Whole,
it is in order for the Speaker to recognize other Members for other
items that are in order on the calendar. That does not deprive the
holder of that special order of the right, when those items are
disposed of, to move that the bill be considered further in
Committee of the Whole. . . .
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: If the 21 resolutions
that were presented to the House by the President, a great many of
which have been considered by the Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments--of which the chairman is a member, and which
have been acted on by that committee--are not presented to the
House before the twenty-fourth of this month, they become law. The
general appropriation bill does not necessarily have to be passed
until the 30th of June, but it is necessary that the 21 orders of
the President be brought before the House so they can be acted on
by the twenty-fourth of this month, and it seems to me that they
ought to take precedence over any other bill. . . .
[[Page 5090]]
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be
heard on the point of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Rankin: I was going to say that if this is of the highest
constitutional privilege it comes ahead of the present legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the
substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that
someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a
disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes
precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by
the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very
serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that
it is well that he did so.
The question involved is not a constitutional question but one
relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1949.
. . . The Chair calls attention to the language of paragraph
(b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization Act of 1949
which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the
constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as
relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such
House.''. . .
On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent
request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a
rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the
consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before
the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation.
The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was
``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have
right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules
until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and
interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a
further unanimous-consent request.
The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:
Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday,
the first column carrying the special order made by the House
last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a
special order privileged above all other business of the House
under the rule until disposition. The order made was until
final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and
Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the
floor of the House yesterday.
The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and
there was no objection.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
We for the first time this year have all the appropriations in
one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration under the 5-minute
rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the Congress off
[[Page 5091]]
entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? So we do have
a constitutional right to consider these propositions without
having them smothered in this way.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House
always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into
the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any Member, so
that the House is capable of carrying out its will, whatever may be
the will of the majority of the House.
Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the
present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by
the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member
of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to
consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over
any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House
decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it
has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.
Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understood the statement of the gentleman from Missouri on
April 6 was that the appropriation bill would take precedence over
all legislation and special orders until entirely disposed of. Does
that include conference reports?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: A conference report is in a privileged
status in any event.
Mr. Taber: They were specifically exempted.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: They were specifically exempted. In
relation to the observation made by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Hoffman) that because other business has been brought up and
that therefore constitutes a violation of the unanimous-consent
request, the Chair, recognizing the logic of the argument,
disagrees with it because that action was done through the
sufference of the Appropriations Committee and, in the opinion of
the Chair, does not constitute a violation in any way; therefore
does not obviate the meaning and effect of the unanimous-consent
request heretofore entered into, and which the Chair has referred
to.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.
. . .
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: I believe I am correct, Mr. Speaker, in stating
that since the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon] was granted, that the House took up a measure
under the new 21-day rule. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,
whether or not that was taken up because of its high privilege or
whether it was taken up because of the sufferance of the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Cannon].
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair, of
course, is unable to look into the mind of the Speaker who was
presiding at the time. But from the knowledge that the Chair has,
which, of course, is
[[Page 5092]]
rather close, it was because the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations permitted it to be done through sufferance. In other
words, if the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations had
insisted on going into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, and if the present occupant of the chair had
been presiding, there is nothing else that could have been done
under the unanimous-consent request, in the Chair's opinion, but to
recognize the motion.
Mr. Eberharter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. .
. .
As I understand the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman
from Missouri, it was that the appropriation bill would take
preference over any other matters having a high privilege. My
understanding of the new 21-day rule is that that is a matter of
the highest privilege, and therefore I am wondering whether the
same rule applies.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct, but that
rule can be changed just like any other rule of the House can be
changed. . . .
The unanimous-consent request . . . appears in the Record of
April 6, that the general appropriation bill shall be a special
order privileged above all other business of the House under the
rule until disposition. The order made was ``until final
disposition.''
House Determines Question of Consideration
Sec. 6.2 An automatic roll call was had on the motion to go into the
Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill after a
motion to adjourn was rejected.
On Feb. 14, 1946,(18) a Member addressed Speaker pro
tempore John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1324, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Louis T.] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5452) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other
purposes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Indiana.
Te question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Cochran) there were--ayes 103, no 1.
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. (After
counting.) One hundred and seventy-four Members present; not a
quorum.
Mr. [Compton I.] White [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. White)
there were--ayes 31, noes 103.
So the motion was rejected.
[[Page 5093]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow].
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 243, nays 16, not
voting 171.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations--``Continuing'' Appropriations
The right of the Committee on Appropriations to report at any time
is confined strictly to general appropriation bills.(19)
This section discusses the consideration of appropriations not falling
within the category of general appropriation bills. For example, joint
resolutions continuing appropriations pending enactment of general
appropriation bills for the ensuing fiscal year are not ``general''
appropriation bills and therefore are not reported or called up as
privileged.(20) Similarly, supplemental appropriations for a
single agency or department of government do not comprise a ``general''
appropriation bill, though bills making supplemental appropriations for
diverse agencies are considered general appropriation
bills.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the discussion at the beginning of Sec. 6, supra; and the
precedents in this section.
20. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2
(4th ed.). See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2282, et seq. In
1981, rule XI clause 4, was amended to allow continuing
appropriation bills to be reported as privileged after
September 15 (H. Res. 5, 97th Cong.). Precedents arrising under
this new rule will appear in later volumes.
1. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Continuing Appropriations
Sec. 7.1 Where appropriations for certain operations of the Federal
Government have remained unprovided for at the beginning of a
fiscal year, through the failure of enactment of the supply bills
customarily providing for such operations, a bill to extend
appropriations for a limited time period for the same operations as
those previously provided for, and under the same conditions,
restrictions, and limitations has been considered by unanimous
consent.
On June 30, 1937,(2) the following actions took place in
the
[[Page 5094]]
House prior to passage of H.R. 7726:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 81 Cong. Rec. 6611, 6612, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I call up . . .
H.R. 7726 . . . and ask unanimous consent that the bill may be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, as I understand it, the Senate has adjourned until
tomorrow, so that it is absolutely impossible to have all the
appropriation bills passed before the 1st of July. I have never
known of this kind of a situation arising before.
The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That for defraying during the first
half of the month of July 1937 all expenses of the necessary
operations of the Federal Government, which, on July 1, 1937,
remain unprovided with appropriations through the failure of
enactment on or before such date of the supply bills
customarily providing for such operations, there are hereby
extended for and during such period all appropriations
available for obligation for such expenses during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1937, in the same detail and under the
same conditions, restrictions, and limitations as such
appropriations were provided for on account of such fiscal
year. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year ends at
midnight tonight, and all departments for which supply bills have
not been enacted by that time are without authority to operate.
They can spend no money; they cannot enter into contracts; they
cannot employ assistants, rent quarters, buy supplies, or legally
transact business of any character.
All of the supply bills have been enacted with the exception of
two War Department bills and the Interior bill.
It is our hope that they will be ready, in the next day or two,
but in the meantime, in order to provide for the maintenance of the
War Department and the Interior Department, it is necessary to pass
a continuing resolution.
This is the usual bill, prepared in the regular form, and has
been submitted to, and approved by, the Comptroller and the
Director of the Budget.
Continuing Appropriations Not Privileged
Sec. 7.2 A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for
departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until the
regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general
appropriation bill,'' and is not reported as privileged.
Whereas general appropriation bills are normally called up as
privileged, consideration of joint resolutions continuing
appropriations is usually made in order by unanimous consent, since
such resolutions are not reported as privileged. The following pro
[[Page 5095]]
ceedings (4) are illustrative of the manner in which bills
providing for continuing appropriations for departments or agencies of
government are made in order for consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1967. See
also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2282 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Wednesday, September 27, or any
day thereafter, for the House to consider a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, I wish to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is this: Is a
continuing resolution subject to amendment when it is brought onto
the floor of the House, if the amendment is germane?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that any germane amendment
will be in order. It would have to be a germane amendment.
Mr. Bow: I thank the Speaker, and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the
right to object, I would assume the Speaker could add to that the
statement: ``If the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of
offering an amendment.''
Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry is that not correct? .
. .
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers
itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of
recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the Speaker.
. . .
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this is the third continuing resolution
to be considered by the House this year.
I would also say in this case, as in former cases, that the
continuing resolution would be considered in the House under the 5-
minute rule, and I assume any relevant amendment could be offered.
. . .
Mr. Gross: . . . I assume the continuing resolution is for a
month or is it for a longer period?
Mr. Mahon: It would probably be for 1 month. The committee
meets next week to consider the matter. We are pushing to get our
bills through, but there are three appropriation bills which we
have not been able to report. One of them is military construction;
another is foreign assistance; both of these are awaiting
authorization; another is the final supplemental which will include
the poverty program for which authorization legislation has not
been considered. There is other legislation to be worked on before
the supplemental appropriation bill can be reported. . . .
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman
says the 5-
[[Page 5096]]
minute rule will prevail and that any germane amendments will be in
order to the continuing resolution, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Mahon]?
There was no objection.
Appropriation for Specific Purpose
Sec. 7.3 A joint resolution making an appropriation to a department for
a specific purpose is not a ``general'' appropriation bill within
the meaning of Rule XI clause 22 [now clause 4(a)] and is therefore
not privileged for consideration when reported by the Committee on
Appropriations. For this reason the Committee on Rules may provide
for the immediate consideration of a special bill reported from the
Committee on Appropriations.
On Aug. 4, 1971,(6) the following proceedings took place
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 29384, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up [House Resolution 577] and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 577
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 833) making an appropriation for the Department of Labor
for the fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes. . . .
The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from California (Mr.
Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sisk: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 577 provides an
open rule with 1 hour of debate on House Joint Resolution 833,
which implements the emergency assistance Employment Act of 1971.
House Joint Resolution 833, being for a single purpose, is not
regarded as a general appropriation bill. For this reason it was
necessary to grant a rule providing for its consideration.
Supplemental Appropriations
Sec. 7.4 A joint resolution making a supplemental appropriation for a
single department of the government is not a ``general
appropriation bill,'' and not reported as privileged, and is
therefore brought up for consideration in a different manner.
On Jan. 30, 1962,(8) a joint resolution was made in
order by unanimous consent, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5097]]
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that a joint resolution providing appropriations for the
Veterans' Administration may be in order for consideration
tomorrow.
The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
On the next day,(10) proceedings were as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 1385, 87th Cong. 2d Sess, Jan. 31, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I call up the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 612) making supplemental appropriations for
the Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1962, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
The reference of the joint resolution to the Union Calendar was
carried in the Record as follows:
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were
delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
Mr. Thomas: Committee on Appropriations. House Joint Resolution
612. Joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for the
Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962,
and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1294).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: Proposals for supplemental appropriations, normally requested
by a communication from the President (31 USC Sec. 14) are
sometimes requested by message. The usual practice is for the
President to transmit letters requesting such appropriations to
the Speaker, who refers them to the Committee on Appropriations
and orders them printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Supplemental Appropriations
Sec. 7.5 The House has given unanimous consent to make in order
``tomorrow, or on a subsequent day this week,'' consideration of a
joint resolution providing supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense, pursuant to a message from the President.
On May 4, 1965,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 9390, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order tomorrow, or on a subsequent day
this week, to consider a House joint resolution making
[[Page 5098]]
a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Defense.
The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, it is my understanding that the message from
the President of the United States which has been just submitted
will satisfy the Budget and Accounting Act as far as a budget
estimate is concerned.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is
certainly my opinion, and I am sure the gentleman is correct. This
is a request for $700 million by the President. It follows one of
the procedures used by the Executive in submitting budget estimates
and I consider this, and I am sure the gentleman does, a budget
request from the President.
Mr. Laird: I would like to state to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Mahon] that it was my understanding yesterday that before we
considered this we would have a budget estimate. I wholeheartedly
support the principle of following the regular procedure in seeing
that these funds are appropriated, and if this satisfies the Budget
and Accounting Act, I certainly would have no objection to its
being considered either tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Bill Reducing Appropriations
Sec. 7.6 A bill reported from the Committee on Appropriations reducing
certain appropriations and contract authorizations available for
fiscal 1946 was held not to be a general appropriation bill and a
germane amendment rescinding appropriations was permitted.
On Oct. 19, 1945,(14) a bill (15) as
described above was under consideration. The bill contained a paragraph
appropriating money for grants to states for unemployment compensation
benefits and related expenses. During consideration of the bill, an
amendment was offered, and a point of order made against the amendment.
During the ensuing debate on a point of order, a question arose as to
the nature of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 9851, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 4407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
social security board
There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1946, for grants to States for administration of unemployment
compensation and employment service facilities operated in
conjunction therewith, as authorized in title III of the Social
Security Act, approved August 14, 1935, as amended,
$30,000,000, which shall be in addition to the amounts
appropriated for such purposes in title II
[[Page 5099]]
of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1946.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: On page 8, line 10,
after the period, strike out lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
``On July 1, 1946, any unobligated balance of the
appropriation made in the first paragraph under the heading
`Employment Office Facilities and Services' in title VII of the
Labor-Federal Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the
surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, and after June 30,
1946, appropriations shall be made only for grants to States
for administration of unemployment compensation and employment
service facilities as authorized in title III of the Social
Security Act, approved August 11, 1935, as amended, and in the
act of June 6, 1933, as amended, known as the Wagner-Peyser
Act.''. . .
Mr. [Everett M.]. Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the amendment is not germane, that it is
legislative in character.
The Chairman: (16) In the opinion of the Chair, the
amendment is obviously germane. It relates to the same subject as
specified in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make
an additional point of order. If I understood the amendment
correctly, it makes an appropriation. Has this bill not been
regarded as a legislative bill?
The Chairman: The paragraph under consideration makes an
appropriation of $30,000,000.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind,
is the situation: The amendment is a rescission. The paragraph
which is made in order under the rule is an appropriation;
therefore the amendment is not in order.
The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment
offered is germane to the paragraph which deals with appropriations
for this purpose. The amendment offered also deals with
appropriations for the same purpose. In the opinion of the Chair
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is
clearly germane and the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Has the Chair ruled at any time
whether this is an appropriation bill or a legislative bill?
The Chairman: The Chair does not have to rule upon that
question. This is a question with reference to rescission of funds
and incidentally involves appropriations, as does this particular
paragraph. The Chair, in a bill of this character, which is not a
general appropriation bill, is simply called upon to pass upon the
question of germaneness. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I do not question the germaneness,
but I heard the bill referred to as a legislative bill, and if it
is interpreted as a legislative bill, the amendment making an
appropriation, of course, would not be in order.
The Chairman: This certainly is not a general appropriation
bill but a bill with reference to rescission of appropriations. The
only question which could occur from a parliamentary
[[Page 5100]]
standpoint would be the question of germaneness. . . . The Chair
overruled the point of order. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As a matter of fact, the
rule waiving points of order would apply to any point of order that
an amendment was legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is not at all passing upon that
question. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, since that question has
been raised, may we have a ruling on the question whether or not
the rule waives points of order as against amendments or merely
waives points of order against the contents of the bill?
The Chairman: The Chair is called upon to rule only upon the
point of order made and cannot rule upon other points of order not
pertinent to the pending amendment. The Chair has overruled the
point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: A special rule (see 91 Cong. Rec. 9813,
79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945) had provided that the
above bill be considered for amendment by appropriation titles.
Appropriation bills are, of course, generally read for
amendment by paragraphs. See Sec. Sec. 11.8-11.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 8. Consideration Made in Order by Special Rule or Unanimous
Consent
Special Orders
Sec. 8.1 The form of a modified closed rule reported from the Committee
on Rules making in order consideration of a joint resolution
providing temporary appropriations, fixing debate, and limiting
amendments to those offered by direction of the Committee on
Appropriations.
On June 28, 1951,(18) a resolution was called up as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 7408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J
Res. 277) making temporary appropriations for the fiscal year
1952, and for other purposes. That after general debate, which
shall be confined to the joint resolution and continue not to
exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the joint resolution shall be read for
amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said joint
resolution except amendments offered by the direction of the
Committee on Appropriations. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the joint resolution for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
pre
[[Page 5101]]
vious questions shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8.2 The form of a resolution providing for consideration of a
general appropriation bill and waiving points of order against the
bill or any of the provisions contained therein, excepting a
specific paragraph, is set out below.
On Apr. 7, 1949,(1) the following resolution was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 4113, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution,
notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 4046) making appropriations to supply
deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1949, and for other purposes, and all points of order
against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein are
hereby waived excepting the provision appearing on page 19, lines
18 to 21, inclusive, in the paragraph under the heading ``General
Provisions.'' That after general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Deficiency Appropriations
Sec. 8.3 An illustrative resolution, making in order consideration of
the first deficiency appropriation bill of 1949, notwithstanding
the requirement that committee reports and hearings on
appropriation bills be made available three calendar days before
consideration, is set out below.
On Feb. 15, 1949,(2) a resolution was called up as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under Sec. 139(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, committee reports and
hearings were required to be made available three calendar days
before general appropriation bills were to be considered. See
Rule XXI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 (1981)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adoplh J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 5102]]
Resolved, That, notwithstanding any rule of the House to
the contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, February 15,
1949, to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration
of the bill (H.R. 2632) making appropriations to supply urgent
deficiencies for the fiscal year 1949, and for other purposes,
and all points of order against the bill or any of the
provisions contained therein are hereby waived. That after
general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue
not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the
5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8.4 Pursuant to a special order previously agreed to, a joint
resolution continuing appropriations has been called up as if
privileged and considered in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole.
On June 24, 1969,(3) the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 115 Cong. Rec. 17015-17, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong.
Rec. 20361, 20362, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 1963
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
order of the House of June 19, 1969, I call up House Joint
Resolution 790, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 1970 and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it
be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution.
Special Order Rejected
Sec. 8.5 The House has rejected a resolution providing for
consideration of a joint resolution continuing appropriations.
On Oct. 1, 1964,(5) a Member called up a resolution as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23363, 23364, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 892, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consider
[[Page 5103]]
ation of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1183), making
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1965, and for
other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be
confined to the joint resolution and continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the
joint resolution shall be read for amendment. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the joint resolution for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit. . . .
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question
The previous question was ordered
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 160, nays 193, not
voting 78. . . .
So the resolution was rejected.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Note: A prior continuing resolution had expired, and the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations had requested a special rule
from the Committee on Rules for consideration of a resolution
to extend the continuing resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Special Orders
Sec. 8.6 Rejection of the previous question on a special rule was
sought for purposes of opening the special rule to amendment and
further debate.
On Oct. 3, 1967,(8) a simple resolution was called up
providing for consideration of a joint resolution continuing certain
appropriations. It was desired by some Members to vote down the
previous question on the special rule, thereby opening it for amendment
and debate.(9) The following proceedings took place during
consideration of the special rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 113 Cong. Rec. 27644, 27652, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. For discussion of special rules and their consideration, generally,
see Ch. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 938
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 938
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 853)
making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1968, and
for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to
exceed one hour, to be equally divided and con
[[Page 5104]]
trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations, the joint resolution shall be read
for amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the
joint resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the joint resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (10) The gentleman from Mississippi is
recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the previous question is rejected, then
the rule will be open to amendment and there will be debate on any
amendments to the rule. Is that correct?
The Speaker: Of course, the gentleman's question answers
itself. But the answer, specifically and directly, is ``Yes.''
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I thank the Speaker
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 205, not
voting 14. . . .
So the previous question was ordered. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Consideration by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 8.7 Pursuant to unanimous consent previously obtained, a joint
resolution continuing appropriations (or making a special
supplemental appropriation) may be called up as if privileged and
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
On Aug. 18, 1964,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 20055, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
See also 116 Cong. Rec. 21239, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June
24, 1970 [H.J. Res. 1264]; 115 Cong. Rec. 17015-17, 91st Cong.
1st Sess., June 24, 1969 [H.J. Res. 790]; 111 Cong. Rec. 26881,
89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1965; and 111 Cong. Rec. 25342,
89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
unanimous-consent agreement obtained yesterday, I call up the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 1160) making continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 1965, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that it be considered in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole.
[[Page 5105]]
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (c)
of section 102 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1964 (Public
Law 88-325), is hereby amended by striking out ``August 31,
1964'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1964''.
The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word.
On Mar. 25, 1969,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House with respect to a joint resolution making a supplemental
appropriation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 7378, 7383, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent
agreement on yesterday, I call up House Joint Resolution 584,
making a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that
the joint resolution be considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 584
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sum is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to supply a supplemental
appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for
other purposes; namely:
Department of Agriculture
Commodity Credit Corporation
For partial restoration of capital impairment of the
Commodity Credit Corporation for costs heretofore incurred,
$1,000,000,000.
Sec. 8.8 Parliamentarian's Note: A joint resolution continuing
appropriations for a fiscal year may be called up as if privileged
pursuant to a previous order entered into by unanimous consent,
although it had been reported pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2 as
nonprivileged by filing in the hopper.
Procedures like those described above took place on June 28,
1965,(14) with respect to a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1966:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 111 Cong. Rec. 14846-50, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House
Joint
[[Page 5106]]
Resolution 553 making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
1966, and for other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that it
be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
The Clerk read the House joint resolution as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or
other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several
departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational
units of the Government for the fiscal year 1966, namely: . . .
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move
to strike out the last word. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Consideration on Specified Day
Sec. 8.9 A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for
departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until the
regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general
appropriation bill,'' and not called up as privileged, but a
unanimous-consent request may be granted that it be in order for
the House to consider such a resolution on a specified day.
On Sept. 21, 1967,(16) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
made the following unanimous-consent request, which was granted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on
Wednesday, September 27, or any day thereafter, for the House to
consider a joint resolution making continuing appropriations.
Sec. 8.10 Unanimous consent of the House has been obtained on one day
to make in order on the following day consideration of a joint
resolution providing for continuing appropriations.
On July 25, 1962,(1) the following unanimous-consent
request was made and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 108 Cong. Rec. 14731, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it may be in order tomorrow to take up for
consideration a House joint resolution to provide con
[[Page 5107]]
tinuing appropriations for the month of August.
The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 8.11 Consideration of a bill making appropriations for a single
agency of government for the fiscal year was, by unanimous consent,
made in order on a designated day, or any day thereafter.
On Aug. 15, 1967,(3) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 22678, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it may be in order on Tuesday next or any
day thereafter for the House to consider the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration appropriation bill for 1968.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 8.12 A unanimous-consent request has been granted making in order,
on a specified day or on any day subsequent thereto, consideration
of a joint resolution continuing appropriations.
On Aug. 21, 1967,(5) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 23279, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it be in order on Thursday, August 24, or any
subsequent day, to consider a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for the month of September.
The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 8.13 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill, providing
funds for a single government agency, was made in order on a
designated day by unanimous consent of the House.
On Mar. 24, 1969,(7) a unanimous-consent request was
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 115 Cong. Rec. 7147, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec.
23971, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1963 (foreign aid
appropriation bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Tuesday, March 25, for the House
to consider a House joint resolution making appropriations for the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5108]]
There was no objection
Special Order Superseded
Sec. 8.14 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill was made
in order, by unanimous consent, on a day certain, even though the
House had earlier agreed to a special order establishing a
different date for taking up the bill.
On Oct. 11, 1965,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 26528, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Thursday, October 14, to
consider the supplemental appropriation bill for 1966.
The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: The House had, on Oct. 7, agreed to take up this bill on Oct.
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports Not Available for Three Days
Sec. 8.15 General debate on two general appropriation bills was made in
order on a day certain during the following week by unanimous
consent, although reports on those bills would not be available for
the three days required by the rule.
On June 15, 1972,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 21150, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 94 Cong. Rec
2844, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1948 (agriculture
appropriations bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order in the House on Tuesday next--
clause 6 of rule XXI to the contrary notwithstanding--to have
general debate only on the bill making appropriations for public
works for water and power development, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and certain other agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, and to have general debate only on the bill making
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the
Executive Office of the President, and certain independent
agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Consideration Within Same Week
Sec. 8.16 The House has given unanimous consent making in order ``on
any day later this week'' consideration of a joint resolution
continuing appropriations.
[[Page 5109]]
On Aug. 24, 1965,(14) a unanimous-consent request was
made and agreed to as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 21545, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on any day later this week to
consider a House joint resolution making continuing appropriations
for the month of September.
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 8.17 The unanimous consent of the House has been obtained to make
it in order to call up at any time during the week a joint
resolution providing continuing appropriations for departments and
agencies of government where the regular appropriation bills had
not been passed for the fiscal year.
On June 22, 1962,(16) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 11410, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it may be in order any time next week to
call up a joint resolution to provide continuing appropriations for
the various Government departments and agencies for the fiscal year
beginning July 1.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Missouri? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
During Following Week
Sec. 8.18 The House has given its consent to make in order
consideration during the following week of a joint resolution
providing for continuing appropriations
On June 20, 1963,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 11236, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 Cong Rec.
16630, 16631, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it may be in order during the coming week to
consider a joint resolution providing continuing appropriations.
The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, what is the nature of the continuing resolution?
Mr. Cannon: I will say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa
it is the stereotyped continuing resolution such as has been
presented, I am sorry to say, every year for a number of years, due
to our failure to get all of the appropriation bills through before
the
[[Page 5110]]
end of the fiscal year. It follows in general the language of every
previous continuing resolution.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Consideration During Current Month
Sec. 8.19 Consideration of a joint resolution providing continuing
appropriations was made in order, by unanimous consent, on any day
during the current month
On June 20, 1967,(4) the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 113 Cong. Rec. 16420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Monday, June 26, or any
succeeding day in June, to consider a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
At Any Time
Sec. 8.20 By unanimous consent, a House joint resolution continuing
certain appropriations for a department of the government has been
made in order for consideration at any time.
On Oct. 11, 1962,(6) a Member addressed Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 108 Cong. Rec. 23206, 23207, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Appropriations I submit a report
(Rept. No. 2551) on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 903) making
continuing appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for
other purposes and ask unanimous consent that it may be taken up at
any time
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is
appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, and out of applicable corporate and other
revenues, receipts, and funds, such amounts as may be necessary
for continuing projects or activities which were conducted in
the fiscal year 1962 by the Department of Agriculture. . . .
The Speaker: The joint resolution is referred to the Union
Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] that it be in order to consider the joint
resolution at any time? . . .
[[Page 5111]]
There was no objection.
Immediate Consideration When Introduced
Sec. 8.21 A joint resolution providing appropriations for mileage for
the Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and for other
expenses incident to a special session of Congress, was given
immediate consideration.
On Sept. 25, 1939,(7) a Member introduced a resolution
as follows, and proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 85 Cong. Rec. 16, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a joint resolution and ask unanimous consent for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
House Joint Resolution 384
Resolved, etc., That the following sums are hereby
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the payment of expenses incident to the
second session of the Seventy-sixth Congress, namely:
For mileage of the President of the Senate and of Senators,
$51,000.
For mileage of Representatives, the Delegate from Hawaii,
and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and for
expenses of the Delegate from Alaska, $171,000.
For the payment of 21 pages for the Senate and 48 pages for
the House of Representatives, at $4 per day each, for the
period commencing September 21, 1939, and ending with the last
day of the month in which the Seventy-sixth Congress adjourns
sine die at the second session thereof, so much as may be
necessary for each the Senate and House of Representatives.
The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Colorado?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 9. Waiver of Points of Order--by Resolution
Waiver Agreed to After General Debate
Sec. 9.1 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain
provision in a supplemental appropriation bill was considered and
agreed to by the House after general debate on the bill had been
concluded and reading for amendment had begun in the Committee of
the Whole.
On May 21, 1969,(9) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246, 13251, 13252, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414
and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 5112]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 414
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of
order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.
Mr. Colmer: . . . The language that the rule waives the point
of order against is found in title IV of the bill. Title IV of the
bill places a ceiling upon the amount of the expenditures that the
Chief Executive can make within the fiscal year. Now, that amount
is, roughly, $192 billion. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 326, nays 53, not
voting 54. . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R.
11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill H.R. 11400, with Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]
in the chair.
The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday, the Clerk
had read through line 7 on page 2 of the bill.
Points of Order Against All Provisions But One
Sec. 9.2 The form of a resolution waiving all points of order against
consideration of an appropriation bill, waiving points of order
against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein
excepting a specific paragraph is set out below.
On Apr. 7, 1949,(2) the Clerk read the following
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 95 Cong. Rec. 4113, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution,
notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it shall
be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4046) making appropriations to
supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1949, and for other purposes, and all
points of order against the bill or any of the provisions
contained therein are hereby waived excepting the provision
appearing on page 19, lines 18 to 21, inclusive, in the
paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions.'' That after
general de
[[Page 5113]]
bate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to
exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the
5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Certain Legislative Language Made in Order
Sec. 9.3 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against the
independent offices appropriation bill, and making in order a
legislative amendment described in general terms in the text of the
resolution is set out below.
On June 17, 1947,(3) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7166, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Forest A.] Harness [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
3839) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry
independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and
offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for
other purposes, all points of order against the bill or any
provisions contained therein are hereby waived; and it shall
also be in order to consider without the intervention of any
point of order any amendment to said bill prohibiting the use
of the funds appropriated in such bill or any funds heretofore
made available, including contract authorizations, for the
purchase of any particular site or for the erection of any
particular hospital.
Waiver of Three-day Availability Requirement
Sec. 9.4 The House has considered a resolution on the same day reported
making in order consideration of an appropriation bill,
notwithstanding the fact that the bill and report have not been
available for three calendar days as required by Rule XXI clause 6
(subsequently clause 7) and waiving all points of order against the
bill.
On Sept. 19, 1968,(4) a Member addressed Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 27646, 27647, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution
1308 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 5114]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1308
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution,
notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it shall
be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 19908) making appropriations
for Foreign Assistance and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, and all points of
order against said bill are hereby waived.
The Speaker: The question is, will the House now consider House
Resolution 1308?
The question was taken.
Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I
object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 293, nays 58, not
voting 80. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 1308. . . .
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, the House has just voted to consider
the resolution which provides for consideration, in turn, of the
foreign aid appropriation bill.
Frankly, I do not subscribe to this procedure generally. I do
subscribe to this procedure in this particular instance.
This matter was presented to the committee only this morning
The conference report on the authorization bill was adopted only a
few hours ago by the House. But it is anticipated that the other
body will approve it and that it will go to the White House for the
President's signature. . . .
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: . . . [B]y way of a
simple review of the matter, the last vote was for two-thirds to
consider this particular resolution, House Resolution 1308.
Otherwise it would have had to have laid over until tomorrow or
next week.
Mr. Speaker, this procedure is as the chairman of the Committee
on Rules said, unorthodox and unusual, and insofar as I am
concerned I doubt that there will be any other type of piece of
legislation that I would agree to this particular procedure being
worked upon a bill.
After all, the bill is here and the conference report has been
adopted. Further, if we are ever going to adjourn we will have to
proceed in this particular manner even though it is a little
unusual.
The matter we have under consideration right now is House
Resolution 1308 that waives points of order on the foreign
assistance bill; namely, H.R. 19908. If this rule is adopted by a
majority vote then we can proceed to its consideration with 2 hours
of debate, proceed to the consideration of the Foreign Assistance
Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, with the time equally
divided.
Waiver of Points of Order Against Bill or Provisions
Sec. 9.5 The form of a resolution waiving all points of order
[[Page 5115]]
against a general appropriation bill or any provisions contained
therein is set out below.
On June 26, 1945,(5) a resolution was called up, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 6766, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe B.] Bates [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House
Resolution 301 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
3579) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, and
for prior fiscal years, to provide supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1945, and June 30, 1946,
to provide appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1946, and for other purposes all points of order against the
bill or any provisions contained therein are hereby waived.
Specific Paragraph of Supplemental Appropriation Bill Protected
Sec. 9.6 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against a
specific paragraph of a supplemental appropriation bill (language
making certain funds that were available for construction also
available for purchase of furniture for the new Rayburn Office
Building) is set out below.
On Apr. 9, 1963,(6) a Member called up a resolution, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 6043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 311 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
5517) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes, all points of
order against the provisions contained in lines 5 through 10,
page 22, are hereby waived.
Points of Order Against Committee Amendments
Sec. 9.7 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against a
supplemental appropriation bill or any of the provisions contained
therein, and waiving points of order against any amendment offered
by direction of the Committee on Appropriations is set out below.
On June 9, 1948,(7) the following resolution was called
up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 7603, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 83 Cong. Rec 6777,
75th Cong. 3d Sess., May 12, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leo E.] Allen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House
Resolution
[[Page 5116]]
651 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
6829) making supplemental appropriations for the Executive
Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards,
commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1949, and for other purposes, all points of order against the
bill or any provisions contained therein are hereby waived, and
it shall be in order to consider without the intervention of
any point of order any amendment offered by direction of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Waiver Against One Title of Bill
Sec. 9.8 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against part
of a military establishment appropriation bill is set out below.
On June 4, 1947,(8) a resolution was called up, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 93 Cong. Rec. 6346, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R
3678) making appropriations for the Military Establishment for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes,
all points of order against title II of said bill or any
provisions contained therein are hereby waived.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 10. General Appropriation Bills Considered by Unanimous Consent
Generally
Sec. 10.1 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill, without
the intervention of any point of order against the provisions of
the bill, was made in order on the following Tuesday or any day
thereafter, by unanimous consent.
On Dec. 6, 1967,(9) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 35164, 35165, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the
unanimous-consent requests in Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Tuesday next or any subsequent
day next week to consider a bill making supplemental appropriations
for fiscal year 1968 and that all points of order against the bill
or any provisions contained therein be considered as waived.
The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: I am glad that point has just
been clarified. As I understand it, the reason for waiving points
of order is be
[[Page 5117]]
cause the authorization bill for the Office of Economic Opportunity
will not have become law through the signature of the President at
the time specified? In other words, that is the only reason that
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon] asks to waive all points of
order?
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio will yield
further, the gentleman from Michigan is correct. This is the only
reason for the request. There is nothing else that I can envisage
in the appropriation bill where a point of order might obtain.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Mahon].
There was no objection.
Three-day Availability Requirement
Sec. 10.2 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill was made
in order on the following Tuesday or any day thereafter, by
unanimous consent, despite the fact that the bill and report would
not be available for three calendar days as required by Rule XXI
clause 6 (now clause 7).
On Feb. 15, 1968,(11) a Member addressed Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 3022, 3023, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until
midnight Monday, February 19, to file a privileged report on the
urgent supplemental appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1968.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas? . . .
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks during the colloquy just held to make it in order
for the House to consider the urgent supplemental appropriations
bill for 1968 on Tuesday, February 20, or any day subsequent
thereto. . . .
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Sec. 10.3 By unanimous consent, the rule [Rule XXI clause 6 (now clause
7)] prohibiting consideration of general appropriation bills until
printed committee hearings and the committee report have been
available for three days was waived.
On Sept. 12, 1962,(12) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 19237, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I take this
time
[[Page 5118]]
in order to announce that it is our intention to report the foreign
aid appropriation bill for 1963 to the House on Tuesday, September
18. I therefore now ask unanimous consent that the 3-day rule be
waived and that the bill be considered in the House on Thursday,
September 20.
The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments
Motion to Close Debate
Sec. 11.1 A motion to fix the time of general debate on an
appropriation bill is not in order prior to resolving into the
Committee of the Whole; but after there has been debate in the
Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises, the motion is in
order in the House.
On Feb. 18, 1947,(14) a Member addressed Speaker Joseph
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, as follows and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968)
making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cannon] and myself.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, is this the bill that contains the cuts of
appropriations for OPA?
Mr. Taber: Yes.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then I object, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: The House may go into the Committee of the Whole and
later, after debate has occurred, rise, and then a motion would be
in order to close debate; but otherwise a motion would not be in
order at this time to close?
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York states the situation
accurately. The House must first go into Committee and have general
debate, and then rise and fix the time of debate by vote.
Consideration of Senate Amendments
Sec. 11.2 The House has considered Senate amendments to a
[[Page 5119]]
general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole under the
five-minute rule.
On July 12, 1945,(1) a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 7474, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong. Rec.
7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945. For further
discussion see Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368)
making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments.
Pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with general debate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean,
of course, that there could be no debate on amendments?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the
5-minute rule.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments, with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure is different from
consideration in the House as in Committee of the Whole, where motions
under Rule XVI clause 4 are in order.
Terms of Debate
Sec. 11.3 Before consideration of the general appropriation bill, 1951,
containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of the
government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that general debate
run without limit to be equally divided between the Chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and
that following the reading of the first chapter of the bill not to
exceed two hours general debate be had before the reading of each
subsequent chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and
one-half by the ranking
[[Page 5120]]
minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter.
On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes; and
pending that I ask unanimous consent that time for general debate
be equally divided, one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half by myself; that debate be
confined to the bill; and that following the reading of the first
chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours general debate be had
before the reading of each subsequent chapter, one-half to be
controlled by the chairman and one-half by the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter. . . .
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will
not object, except to say that I trust and am sure the majority of
the Members of the House hope that the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] will not make
points of order against Members on the ground that they are
speaking out of order when so much is involved in this bill. I
think we should have the greatest leeway to discuss these things.
The Speaker: The Chair would think that this appropriation bill
actually being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the
Government, a Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide
range.
Mr. Jensen: I thank the Speaker. I was hoping the Speaker would
say just that.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentlman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.4 During the consideration of the general appropriation bill,
1951, terms of consideration were agreed upon, including: that a
chapter then under consideration be considered as read and open to
points of order and amendment; and that a certain Member be
authorized to offer a blanket amendment to a part of the chapter.
On Apr. 27, 1950,(3) the following unanimous-consent
requests were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that--
The chapter on agricultural appropriations be considered as
read and open to points of order and amendment; that the gentleman
from Min
[[Page 5121]]
nesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen] have consent to offer a blanket
amendment relating to administrative expenses;
That when the House adjourns on Friday it adjourn to meet on
Monday next;
That no debate be in order on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday
except general debate;
That general debate on the civil functions appropriations bill
be confined to Tuesday;
That when the House adjourns on Tuesday next all general debate
be concluded on the entire bill.
There was no objection to the request.
House as in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 11.5 On numerous occasions the House has by unanimous consent
provided for the consideration of a nongeneral appropriation bill
in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On June 14, 1962,(4) the following request was made in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 10481, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I ask for the
immediate consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 745),
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1962; and I
ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that it be considered in the
House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.6 Unanimous consent was granted that a joint resolution
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of Labor
be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
On Mar. 24, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 6096, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with the unamimous consent granted yesterday, I call up
House Joint Resolution 962, making a supplemental appropriation for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for the Department of Labor,
and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
[[Page 5122]]
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sum is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, namely:
department of labor
Bureau of Employment Security
Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and ex-
Servicemen
For an additional amount for ``Unemployment compensation
for Federal employees and ex-servicemen'', $42,000,000.
Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 11.7 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions
of the 1943 agriculture appropriation bill, the House adopted a
motion to suspend the rules and pass a new bill containing matters
in the original bill not in controversy.
On July 2, 1942,(8) a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the
Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for
other purposes.
The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second
be considered as ordered.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Tarver]?
There was no objection.
After some discussion,(9) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at pp. 5954-60.
10. Id. at p. 5960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments--Reading Bill
Sec. 11.8 General revenue and appropriation bills are considered by
paragraph for amendment and all other bills are considered by
sections, including bills making appropriations for specific
purposes.
On May 21, 1940,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 544,
[[Page 5123]]
a relief appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of
amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this bill comes from the
Appropriations Committee. Ordinarily bills coming from the
Appropriations Committee are read by paragraph. Bills coming from
other committees are read by sections. I want to ask the Chairman,
so that all Members may know as we approach the reading of the
bill, how this bill will be read, so that they may know where to
offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair will state, in response to the
parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, under the
rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills are
considered by paragraph and that all other measures are considered
by sections. Consequently, the pending bill will be considered by
sections and amendments offered by sections rather than by
paragraphs.
Sec. 11.9 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments are
in order only to the paragraph just read, not to the entire subject
matter under a heading in an appropriation bill.
On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill.
Proceedings took place as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec.
11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1970 (proceedings relating
to H.R. 16916).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: A parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Luce: May I ask where the proper place would be to insert
an amendment before the next part of the bill headed by capitals?
The Chairman: The Chair was unable to hear all of the inquiry
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Luce: May I ask how far the bill has been read?
The Chairman: Down through the bottom of page 50. The only
paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing Authority''
that would now be subject to amendment would be the last four lines
on page 50.
Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the
House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for
amendment.
The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time
immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs
Sec. 11.10 The rule of germaneness applies to amendments to
appropriation bills; and an amendment proposing a specific
appropriation must be
[[Page 5124]]
offered when the paragraphs dealing with that subject are being
considered
On Jan. 31, 1938,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. An
amendment was read and a point of order raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of
amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public utilities commission
For two commissioners, people's counsel, and for other personal
services, $76,000, of which amount $1,620 shall be available for
the employment of a secretary to the people's counsel, and not to
exceed $5,000 may be used for the employment of expert services by
contract or otherwise and without reference to the Classification
Act of 1923, as amended.
Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the language on page 7, line 3, after
``$76,000'', beginning with the words ``of which'' and ending with
the word ``amended.''. . .
The Chairman: (16) In the opinion of the Chair, very
clearly this is an attempt to impose legislation on an
appropriation bill, and the point of order is therefore sustained.
. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
For general advertising, authorized and required by law,
and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in
regulations, $9,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall
not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers
published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding
the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law.
. . .
Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On
page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs as
follows:
``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel
before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel,
$5,000.''. . .
Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of order against
the language on page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to
the end of the paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the
ground that it was legislation in an appropriation bill. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut would restore
the language that was stricken out on the point of order; not only
that, but we have passed that particular section and the amendment
comes too late. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland bases his point of
order on two grounds. . . .
The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that
the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the
paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.
When Paragraph Is Considered Passed
Sec. 11.11 In reading a general appropriation bill under the
[[Page 5125]]
five-minute rule, a section or paragraph is considered as having
been passed for an amendment when an amendment in the form of a new
section or paragraph has been agreed to. On appeal, the Chair's
ruling that the adoption of an amendment adding a new paragraph
precludes further amendments to the prior paragraph of the bill was
sustained.
On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6448, a supplemental appropriation bill for national
defense. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 607, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount for
the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for (1) the
construction of a hydroelectric project on the French Broad River
near Dandridge, Tenn., (2) the purchase or building of transmission
facilities needed to connect this project to the existing
transmission system of the Authority, and (3) the acquisition of
land necessary for and the relocation of highways in connection
with the accomplishment of the above project; $30,000,000, to be
available for the administrative objects of expenditure and subject
to the conditions specified under this heading in the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act, 1942.
Mr. Lambertson rose.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Page 4, after
line 9, insert:
``Department of State
``Transportation Foreign Service: For an additional amount
for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942,
including the objects specified under this head in the
Department of State Appropriation Act, 1942, $800,000.''
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this
amendment is to make provision for a deficiency which was not
foreseen, and which has occurred as the result of the declaration
of war. We have in all parts of Europe and Asia diplomatic and
consular representatives and attaches who must be brought home,
together with their families and clerks and office staffs. They
have to be shifted as a result of a change in the status brought
about by the declaration of war. In the original appropriation
there was something in excess of $700,000 in this fund--an amount
which would have sufficed under normal conditions, but under recent
developments there have been such heavy expenditures that only
about $17,000 remains, which is insufficient to carry the Service
beyond the 1st of the month. I offer this amendment to make
provision for the unexpected deficiency.
The Chairman: (18) The question is on agreeing to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5126]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lambertson: Page 3, line 22,
strike out lines 22, page 3, to and including line 9 on page 4.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order
that the amendment comes too late. We have passed that paragraph.
We have adopted an amendment since the paragraph was read and it is
no longer subject to amendment.
Mr. Lambertson: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet standing alone
before the gentleman from Missouri rose. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from Missouri, but I had the floor ahead of him.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, it is my
impression that the gentleman from Kansas was on his feet, and,
seeing that the chairman of the subcommittee rose, he deferred to
him to offer an amendment first.
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee was recognized by
the Chair. The Chair asks the gentleman from Missouri if he insists
upon his point of order
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must
insist on the point of order.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on
the point of order?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Kansas was on his feet asking for
recognition at the time and on top of that the amendment was
offered by the gentleman from Missouri, but that would not preclude
this amendment from being offered. This is an amendment to strike
out the previous paragraph. The amendment that the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon], added was an amendment adding an additional
paragraph.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not
address the Chair at all. He at no time addressed the Chair until
after the Clerk had concluded the reading of the new paragraph and
the committee had adopted it.
Mr. Lambertson: I beg your pardon; I did. I did stand and I did
address the Chair. I was standing before he ever started to get up.
The Chairman: The Chair was aware of the fact that the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] was on his feet, and the
Chair would like to overrule the point of order, but feels that
technically the point of order is well taken, and it being insisted
upon by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Chair
is constrained to sustain the point of order.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the
Chair.
The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr.
Taber] there were ayes 75 and noes 62.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Cannon of
Missouri and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there
were ayes 126 and noes 89.
[[Page 5127]]
So the decision of the Chair was sustained.
Sec. 11.12 If an amendment affects, in part, a paragraph of an
appropriation bill not yet read by the Clerk, but no point of order
is made against the amendment, it is considered, but further
amendments to intervening portions of text that have not been read
are not precluded.
On Apr. 3, 1957,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and
Welfare, and related agencies appropriation bill. At one point the
Clerk read as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pelly: I did not understand that the Clerk had read beyond
line 17. May I inquire if this amendment includes the figure on
line 20?
The Chairman: The amendment that the gentleman from Louisiana
offered was addressed to the language beginning on line 5 but does
touch on a sum included in the next paragraph beginning on line 18.
Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which
would apply to line 17. If this amendment were acted on, would that
prevent my amendment from being offered at the end of the paragraph
which begins on line 5 and ends on line 17?
The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman applies to that
portion between line 15 and line 17?
Mr. Pelly: That is correct.
The Chairman: It would be in order, because the Clerk has not
read the next 3 lines, 18, 19, and 20.
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: May I be heard, Mr.
Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Fogarty: It was my understanding that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Louisiana went down to and included the
language at the end of line 20 on page 25.
The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the
Clerk has not read those last three lines.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that
further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20
on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Hebert] takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down
to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his
amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but
the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was
read.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make is
that there were no objections raised when the amendment was offered
and considered down through line 20.
The Chairman: The portion of the gentleman's amendment having
to do
[[Page 5128]]
with those three lines, lines 18, 19, and 20, can have no effect
until those lines are read and then considered.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Fogarty: Is the gentleman's amendment in order when he has,
in one amendment, sought to cut three places in the bill, from
lines 5 to 20?
The Chairman: No point of order was raised against it.
Mr. Fogarty: I thought that would be a concession that those
lines had been read, the lines down to and including line 20.
The Chairman: It is no concession until such time as that
portion of the bill is read
Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no
objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my
amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the
amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
The Chairman: No.
Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment
Sec. 11.13 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill which
has been passed during the reading of the bill may be offered only
by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 14, 1970,(1) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the education appropriation bill (H.R 19616)
a point of order was raised against an amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec.
21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1972 (proceedings
relating to H.R. 15417).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Esch: Strike out lines 17 and 18
on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following ``titles I,
III, IV (except part F), part E of title V and title VI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, title I, including
section''.
And, on line 2 of page 4, strike out ``$899,880,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$992,100,000''
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment on precisely the same grounds.
The Clerk has now read past page 4, line 17, ``Community
Education.''
The gentleman was not on his feet. He did not address the
Chair. The amendment is clearly out of order.
Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet, and as soon as the
Clerk read ``higher education'' I said, ``Mr. Chairman.''
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely object to the fact that I am not
given recognition. I was on my feet, having recognized the
experience of the previous Member.
As soon as the Clerk read ``higher education,'' I said ``Mr.
Chairman'' twice.
The Chairman: (2) The Chair would like to protect
the gentleman in his
[[Page 5129]]
rights. If the gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair did not
hear the gentleman at that point. The gentleman may make a
unanimous-consent request that his amendment be considered although
the Clerk had passed it at the time he was recognized by the Chair,
and, if there is no objection, the amendment can be considered
under those circumstances. Does the gentleman make such a request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be considered.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I must protect the bill. I am pained,
but I must object.
The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to uphold the point of
order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair wants to be
fair, but the gentlemen in the Chamber that wish to offer their
amendments must be on their feet.
Amendment Affecting Previous Line in Paragraph
Sec. 11.14 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill being read
under the five-minute rule is open to amendment at any point; thus,
a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be
recognized to offer an amendment, even though an amendment proposed
by another Member affects a line occurring earlier in the
paragraph.
On July 23, 1970,(3) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: May I respectfully remind the Chair that I was
recognized, and that the Chair allowed a point of order to
intervene only, and I had been recognized. The Chair ruled that
since a point of order had been made, the Chair would dispose of
the point of order first.
The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of
order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The
Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of
their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman
from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 5130]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding
with line 3, page 39?
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my
amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the
gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my
information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman
from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the
same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the
amendment.
Language Previously Stricken
Sec. 11.15 A point of order having been sustained against an entire
paragraph in an appropriation bill, it is in order to offer an
amendment at that point in the bill to insert a new paragraph
containing the stricken language excepting those provisions which
were held in violation of the rules.
On July 23, 1970,(5) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R 18515), a
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: on
page 38, line 1, insert the following:
Office of Economic Opportunity
economic opportunity program
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved
August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus
reimbursements: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund
for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the purchase and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and for construction, alteration, and
repair of buildings and other facilities, as authorized by
section 602 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Provided
further, That this appropriation shall not be available for
contracts under titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for
more than twenty-four months. . . .
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the
amendment is that all of the language to which the amendment
addresses itself on page 38 of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been
stricken.
[[Page 5131]]
Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can amend something that
is not before the House.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has
offered a separate amendment to insert a new paragraph, and the
amendment is in order.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Changing Figures in Bill
Sec. 11.16 To a bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia
that were to be chargeable against revenues of the District for the
ensuing fiscal year, an amendment increasing the amount of the
appropriation for certain items included in the bill was held to be
in order.
On June 14, 1954,(7) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriations bill
(H.R. 9517), which made appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1955, a point of order was raised against an amendment, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 100 Cong. Rec. 8191, 8192, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dewitt S.] Hyde [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$1,124,365'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$1,393,665.''
On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$135,406'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$404,706.''
Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation
upon an appropriation bill. There is no authority of law for the
District of Columbia to enter into a new activity of this kind, and
a new business venture. Therefore, the subcommittee saw fit to
eliminate that from the bill, and I make a point of order against
it.
The Chairman: (8) Permit the Chair to make this
statement. The amendment, which is before the Committee and which
the Chair now has before him, simply increases the amount of money
in the bill. Does the gentleman from Indiana make a point of order
against increasing the amount of money in the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression
that it was for the purpose of starting the District of Columbia in
the parking business. If I may reserve my point of order until the
gentleman explains what the purpose of his amendment is, of course
I will be in a better position to speak against it. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I still insist on the point of order on the
ground that the appropriation is not authorized by law.
The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that if the money is
unauthorized it is ineffective. The Chair is also
[[Page 5132]]
of the opinion that the money can be used only for the items
included in the bill and as authorized by law.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: If a ceiling had been specified on total
authorized expenditures, an amendment which had the effect of exceeding
that total would not have been permitted. The amounts added to the
appropriation here did not cause a specific authorized total to be
exceeded, and the Chair took the view that the increase in the
appropriation would apply only to items included in the bill and
already authorized.
Sec. 11.17 Where the House has adopted an amendment changing a figure
in an appropriation bill, it is not in order to further amend such
figure.
On Mar. 11, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6736. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2270, 2272, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cochran: On page 7, line 5, after
the word ``law'', strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert
``$128,273,700.''
(The amendment was adopted.)
Mr. [James] Domengeaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 5, strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$145,933,700.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment on the ground that there has been a
change already in this figure and another change cannot be
considered.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman is correct. The
figure cannot now be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.18 Where a figure in an appropriation bill has been agreed to
(and hence cannot be altered by an amendment proposing a further
change in amount), an amendment inserted following the figure
agreed upon and providing funds ``in addition thereto'' is in order
if authorized.
On June 5, 1959,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7509, a bill making appropriations for the civil
functions administered by the Department of the Army. The Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 10057, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. (Fred) Wampler [of Indiana]: On page
21, line
[[Page 5133]]
7, after the amount shown add the following: ``And in addition
$52,000 for the following projects: Sugar Creek, West Terre Haute,
Clinton, and Conover Levee.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
language has been once amended.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York must have
misunderstood the reading of the amendment, because it follows the
amount and does not alter the amount.
The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his amendment.
Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 11.19 Where an appropriation bill is being read by paragraphs, a
subsitute for several paragraphs of the bill may be offered to the
first paragraph modified by the amendment only if notice is given
that, if the amendment is agreed to, motions will be made
subsequently to strike out the remaining paragraphs affected
thereby.
On July 29, 1969,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]:
On page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``For carrying out titles II, III, V, VII, and section 807
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended, section 402 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Admendments of 1967, and title III-A and V-A of the National
Defense Education Act of 1958, $254,163,000. . . . ''
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his
point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that the paragraph which it amends has not
yet been read. . . .
Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had
finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and
concludes on line 24, page 25.
At that point amendments to that paragraph were in order. But
the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois does not change so
much as a comma in that paragraph; it repeats it absolutely
verbatim. It is not an amendment to that paragraph. It is only in
subsequent paragraphs that any amendment is made.
[[Page 5134]]
I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the
gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is
read before he can offer an amendment to it.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois
on the point of order.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I submit that really all I am doing
is adding to the first paragraph; therefore, it is very much in
order.
The Chairman: The Chair has considered the arguments both for
and against the point of order. The Chair sees no inconsistency in
the gentleman's amendment repeating the paragraph on page 26 which
the Clerk had not yet read. It is a different paragraph, but the
Chair feels that the following paragraph can be consolidated with
an amendment to the total paragraph. . . .
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, when a
bill is to be read by paragraph and a Member wishes to amend a
paragraph that has been read and several succeeding paragraphs he
is permitted to offer an amendment at the time the first of those
paragraphs is read that he wants to amend and then at the same time
give notice that if his amendment, which goes beyond the first
paragraph and into several others, is adopted he will move to
strike the succeeding paragraphs.
In the first place, the gentleman from Illinois gave no such
notice, but let us not dwell on that. Let us dwell on the danger of
upholding the amendment he is offering.
The gentleman from Illinois, I am sure, will agree that he
makes no change whatsoever in the paragraph just read; absolutely
no change.
If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment
at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that
comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that
is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes
nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going
to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an
amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the
thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr.
Chairman.
I believe this is a very serious problem, and I most earnestly
ask the Chair to carefully consider his ruling, because otherwise
it might be possible to offer an amendment to repeat the language
for the next 25 pages until it gets to the things one seeks to
change. I believe it is terribly important that this amendment be
considered out of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is
presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He has
resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedent,'' volume V, page
404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:
When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for
several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by
paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph
with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to
strike out the remaining paragraphs.
The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give
such notice. The amendment goes beyond the para
[[Page 5135]]
graph which has been read and in effect modifies a paragraph which
has not yet been read.
The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.
The amendment in the form in which it is offered is not in
order.
Sec. 11.20 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several
paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been agreed to and notice
has been given that motions would be made to strike out ensuing
paragraphs of the bill as read, the paragraphs are subject to
perfecting amendments while such motions to strike are pending.
On June 15, 1972, during consideration of the Departments of Labor
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (15)
Mr. William D. Hathaway, of Maine, offered an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 15417.
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the
paragraph of the bill just read which is a single substitute for
several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Office of
Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed
to I will make motions to strike out the remaining paragraphs
beginning with line 14 on page 19 and extending through and
including line 17 on page 21.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hathaway: On page 19, strike out
lines 6 through 13 and substitute in lieu thereof: . . .
The amendment was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently,(18) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph
beginning on line 16, page 20, and extending down through line 8 on
page 21.
The Chairman: (19) Without objection, the motion is
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman reserving the
right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
. . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21,
line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down through the word
``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that amendment now that
the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
The Chairman: It is possible.
Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after
``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3.
The Chairman: The Chair was of the impression that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine had been agreed to,
striking out the
[[Page 5136]]
paragraph to which the amendment is offered. . . .
Mr. Quie: In my copy of the Hathaway amendment it was not
stricken out. If that is correct, the Hathaway amendment would put
a period after ``1974'' on line 1 and strike out the rest. It was
my understanding the Hathaway amendment put a period after the word
``Act'' on line 3 and struck out the proviso, which is the rest of
line 3 down through line 8.
It then appeared that the Chairman had not heard Mr. Quie's
reservation of objection. The following exchange occurred:
The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that the gentleman
rose too late. The motion had been offered by Mr. Hathaway, and
there was no objection and it was acceded to.
Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, the Chair asked if there was any
objection, and I reserved the right to object, which I am still
reserving, and on that I asked my parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The Chair must state that the Chair did not hear
the gentleman say he was reserving the right to object on the
Hathaway motion. . . .
The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the basis of his
statement which the Chair did not hear.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Further objection was made to the Quie amendment, however:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, my point
of order is that the committee has just agreed to this.
The Chairman: The committee has agreed to what?
Mr. Flood: The position taken by my friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Quie). I have here, for instance, that we voted not
to exceed $18 million for research and training, under part C of
said 1963 act. Now I had the clear impression, I am sorry to say,
that the committee just agreed to this. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment
offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning
on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was
agreed to.
Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the
bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a
perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a
motion to strike out is first offered.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is if a motion to
strike has been made, is it not then out of order to try to amend
the paragraph that the motion to strike applies to?
The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting
amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending.
Therefore the Chair rules that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) is in order on the basis that
it is
[[Page 5137]]
a perfecting amendment to the paragraph to which the motion to
strike is pending.
Separate Votes in House on Amendments
Sec. 11.21 Separate votes have been demanded on amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 4, 1957,(1) H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill was being
considered in the House after amendments had been adopted in the
Committee of the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5162, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. Note: The Committee on Appropriations furnished printed forms
containing all 18 amendments to the bill adopted in the
Committee of the Whole, with further pertinent information.
Fourteen rollcalls occurred in one day with respect to such
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unfinished business is the further consideration of the
bill H.R. 6287, which the Clerk will report by title.
[The Clerk read the title of the bill.]
Separate votes having been demanded on all amendments adopted
in the Committee of the Whole, the Clerk will report the first
amendment on which a separate vote was demanded.
Recommittal of Bill With Instructions
Sec. 11.22 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions was held not to be in
order in the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 3, 1957,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read a motion as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report the
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be reported
back to the House within 5 days with amendments which will indicate
the places and amounts in the budget where the committee believes,
in view of the statements made in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, that substantial reductions may best be
made and will meet the views of the House with the least
curtailment
[[Page 5138]]
of efficient administration by the Departments affected.
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order on the motion. . . .
The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Rhode
Island care to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the
motion, there is a matter of wording contained therein that is not
permissible under the rules governing procedure in the Committee of
the Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the
House.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard?
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want
to point out that there is a precedent for the motion and the rules
cite a precedent where that motion has been held to be proper in
the Committee
The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent,
but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained
in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be
entertained in the Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the
motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the
Chair sustains the point of order
Parliamentarian's Note: While the motion that the Committee rise
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
bill be recommitted may be in order when the bill is being considered
under the general rules of the House (see 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), it is not in
order in the form presented above (where inconsistent motions are
joined) nor is it in order when a bill is being considered under a
special rule (see 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10,
1950).
Sec. 11.23 On occasion a general appropriation bill has been
recommitted with instructions to report back forthwith with an
amendment; the bill has then been so reported, the amendment agreed
to, the bill again ordered engrossed and read a third time, and the
bill passed, in that order.
On June 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the House of
H.R. 3368, a war agencies appropriation bill, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 5832, 5833, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 97 Cong.
Rec. 6533, 6534, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (6) The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
[[Page 5139]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Taber: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Taber moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions to report the same back
forthwith with an amendment reducing the Office of War
Information by $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for
activities in Europe and the United States.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to recommit
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House
divided, and there were--ayes 120, noes 108.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 133, nays 128, not
voting 166. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
instructions of the House, I now report back to the House the bill
H.R. 3368, the war agencies appropriation bill, with the amendment
incorporated in the motion to recommit, and with the recommendation
that the amendment be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[Amendment reducing the Office of War Information by
$17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for activities in Europe
and the United States.]
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 252, nays 2, not
voting 178. . . .
So the bill was passed.
Sec. 11.24 A deficiency appropriation bill has been recommitted with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.
On Apr. 1, 1948,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6055. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 3994, 3995, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri) moves to recommit the bill
to
[[Page 5140]]
the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill back forthwith with an amendment as follows:
On page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 154, not
voting 78. . . .
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the instructions of
the House, I report the bill back with an amendment which is at the
desk.
The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will read the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Reduction of Total Appropriation
Sec. 11.25 The House has agreed to a motion to recommit an
appropriation bill with instructions to the Committee on
Appropriations to report back forthwith with an amendment reducing
the total appropriation to a figure not to exceed 95 percent of the
budget estimates.
On July 18, 1967,(9) during consideration in the House
of H.R. 11456, a Department of Transportation appropriation bill, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 19273-75, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that
committee to report it back forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new section as
follows:
``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies
provided for herein beyond 95 per centum of the total aggregate
net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H.
Doc 15).''
The Speaker: (10) Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page 5141]]
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 188, not
voting 30. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the instructions of the House, in the motion to
recommit, I report back the bill H.R. 11456 with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new
section as follows:
``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies
provided for herein beyond 95 percent of the total aggregate
net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H.
Doc 15).''
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Sec. 11.26 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill with instructions
to the committee to reduce the amount of the appropriation by $50
million is in order; but the committee, if the motion is adopted,
may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment
proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.
On May 15, 1939,(11) the House was considering H.R 6260,
a War Department civil functions appropriation bill. The Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey] moves to recommit the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of
the bill $50,000,000
Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do
indirectly what cannot be done directly.
The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals
$305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for
cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan
Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for
flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of
the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors
and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other
governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away
a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in
the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be
done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot
be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same
propositions that were voted on last
[[Page 5142]]
Wednesday, therefore is subject to a point of order.
The Speaker: (12) The Chair may state, in connection
with the point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi,
that the Chair understands the purpose of the motion to recommit,
one motion to recommit always being in order after the third
reading, is to give to those Members opposed to the bill an
opportunity to have an expression of opinion by the House upon
their proposition. It is true that under the precedents it is not
in order by way of a motion to recommit to propose an amendment to
an amendment previously adopted by the House, but the motion now
pending does not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on
Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion
that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not
subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the motion is
simply to reduce the bill $50,000,000.
The Speaker: The Chair understands the rule to be that the
House can adopt a motion to recommit with instructions to reduce
the amount of the appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee,
if this motion should be adopted, could not report the bill back to
the House with an amendment proposing a change in the amendments
adopted by the House.
Prohibition on Use of Appropriations
Sec. 11.27 The House has agreed to a recommittal motion which sought a
prohibition on the use of funds in a supplemental appropriation
bill (providing funds for the Department of Agriculture) to finance
the export of agricultural commodities to the United Arab Republic.
On Jan. 26, 1965,(13) the House was considering House
Joint Resolution 234. The Clerk read a motion to recommit and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois] moves to recommit House
Joint Resolution 234 to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with
the following amendment: On page 2, line 13, strike the period at
the end of the sentence and insert the following: ``: Provided,
That no part of this appropriation shall be used during the fiscal
year 1965 to finance the export of any agricultural commodity to
the United Arab Republic under the provisions of title I of such
Act.''
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: (14) The question is on the motion to
recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 204, nays 177, not
voting 53. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
[[Page 5143]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
instructions of the House, I report back to the House, House Joint
Resolution 234, with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, and was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 11.28 The House adopted an amendment, reported pursuant to a
recommittal motion, to prohibit the use of appropriations in the
bill to administer any program for the sale of agricultural
commodities to nations that sell supplies to North Vietnam.
On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) during consideration in the House
of H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8972, 8973, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois] moves that the bill be
recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report it back forthwith with the following
amendment: On page 36, on line 6 strike the period, insert a
colon and the following:
``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be
used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of
agricultural commodities pursuant to title I or IV of Public
Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which
sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its
registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment,
materials, or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed
by a Communist regime.''
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: (16) The question is on the motion to
recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 290, nays, 98, not
voting 44. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I
report back the bill H.R. 14596 with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
[[Page 5144]]
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 366, nays 23, not
voting 43.
Enrollment of Appropriation Bills
Sec. 11.29 Set out below is the form of a concurrent resolution
providing that in the enrollment of general appropriation bills
enacted during the remainder of a session the Clerk of the House
may correct chapter, title, and section numbers.
On July 4, 1952,(17) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, by
unanimous consent, submitted the following concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 239]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Jour. 746, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That in the enrollment of general appropriation bills
enacted during the remainder of the second session of the Eighty-
second Congress the Clerk of the House may correct chapter, title,
and section numbers.
The concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to. A motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the concurrent resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 12. Points of Order; Timeliness
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole has no authority
to delete by points of order portions of a bill referred to it by the
House absent reservation of that authority in the House at the time the
bill is first referred to the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union (the Union Calendar). Absent reserved
authority to delete provisions in violation of clauses 2 and 6 of Rule
XXI, the Committee of the Whole can merely recommend amendments to be
acted upon by the House to change general appropriation bills committed
thereto.
-------------------
Reservation of Points of Order
Sec. 12.1 Points of order are ordinarily reserved against general
appropriation bills prior to referral of the bills to the Committee
of the Whole, i.e., when placed upon the Union Calendar, and may be
reserved thereafter only by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 26, 1940,(18) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5145]]
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R 8341)
making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, to provide
supplemental appropriations for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes; and pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate shall continue for 2\1/2\ hours, to be confined to
the bill and the time to be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Woodrum)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, has this bill been reported?
Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Yes; it has been reported.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I desire to reserve all points of order
against the bill.
The Speaker: Without objection, the gentleman from New York
reserves all points of order against the bill.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous consent was requested since the
bill had been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the Speaker
when reported. That is the proper time to reserve points of order in
the House against a general appropriation bill. Once the bill is
referred to the Union Calendar, it is then too late absent unanimous
consent.
Sec. 12.2 The committee chairman obtained unanimous consent that the
committee have until midnight to file a report on an appropriation
bill, and a Member thereafter obtained unanimous consent to reserve
all points of order on the bill.
On Nov. 26, 1945,(20) the following unanimous-consent
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 10984, 10993, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have
until midnight tonight to file a report on the first deficiency
appropriation bill.
The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: I have been on the floor all morning, but I have
been advised that earlier in the day unanimous consent was given to
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to have until
midnight to file a report on the deficiency appropriation bill. I
did not hear that request.
[[Page 5146]]
The Speaker: The request was made and the consent was granted.
Mr. Michener: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, was in the
committee room, as I am advised, at the time. Had he been present
and known about it, he would have asked permission to reserve all
points of order on the bill.
I now ask unanimous consent to reserve all points of order on
the bill.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Precedence Over Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 12.3 A point of order against a paragraph in a general
appropriation bill takes precedence over any amendment (including a
pro forma amendment) to that paragraph.
On June 4, 1970,(2) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated or made available in
this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, shall be available for assistance to the United Arab
Republic, unless the President determines that such availability is
essential to the national interest of the United States.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I was
on my feet to make a point of order as to section 117 that was just
read.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Wisconsin has a
point of order on section 117?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Wisconsin
on his point of order.
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly defer to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) if I do not lose my opportunity to
make my point of order in so doing.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order
takes precedence.
Priority in Recognition
Sec. 12.4 Members of the committee reporting a bill have priority of
recognition in making points of order against proposed amendments
to bills.
On Mar. 30, 1949,(4) the Committee on the Whole was
considering H.R. 3838, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The
[[Page 5147]]
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On
page 47, line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon and the
following: ``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be
used to build, operate, or administer transmission lines to carry
power developed at Fort Randall Dam across the boundaries of the
State of South Dakota in which the power is produced, unless the
power so produced shall exceed the requests for power in that
State.''
Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Washington, a member of the committee, to state a point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order Against Two Paragraphs
Sec. 12.5 Because a general appropriation bill is read for amendment by
paragraphs, a point of order against two consecutive paragraphs
comprising a section in the bill can be made only by unanimous
consent.
On June 4, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 17867, a foreign assistance appropriation bill. A
Member stated as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, when the Clerk reads the next section, I propose
to raise a point of order against both clauses (a) and (b), and I
rise at this time to inquire if I can make the point of order
against both clauses and have it considered at the same time.
The Chairman: (7) The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Minnesota that that can be done only by unanimous
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Assertion That Bill Is Not ``General'' Appropriation Bill.
Sec. 12.6 In response to a point of order based on Rule XXI clause 2,
it was asserted that the bill under consideration was not a
``general'' appropriation bill and therefore not subject to the
rule; but the Chair ruled that such assertion should have been made
when the bill was first taken up as a privileged general
appropriation bill and was not timely made after
[[Page 5148]]
the stage of amendment was reached.
On June 21, 1939,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
considering an appropriations bill.(9) A point of order was
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 84 Cong. Rec. 7673, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. H.R. 6791, supplemental military establishment appropriation of
1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]:
Page 10, line 11, after the word ``thereof'', insert ``Provided
further, That of the amounts herein appropriated and authorized to
be obligated for the procurement of 2,290 airplanes, obligations
shall not be incurred for the procurement of more than 1,007
airplanes unless and until the President shall determine that the
interests of national defense require the procurement of any
portion or all of the number in excess of 1,007.''
A point of order having been raised, the following exchange took
place:
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, there
are two points on which this is in order. In the first place, it
proposes retrenchment; and, if so, comes under the Holman Rule. In
the second place, the bill before us is not a general appropriation
bill. The rule under which the point of order is made is rule XXI,
section 2, and that rule specifically says:
No appropriation shall be reported in any general
appropriation bill. . . . For any expenditure not previously
authorized by law. . . . Nor shall any provision in any such
bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order--
And so forth. The limitations apply only to recognized general
appropriation bills. In Cannon's Procedure, which I have in my
hand, on page 20, this point is specifically treated, and on page
20 the statement is flatly made:
The rule applies to general appropriation bills only.
The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. The
argument just made, if containing merit, should have been made
earlier, when the bill was taken up. It has been reported as a
general appropriation bill and so considered, and was reported
under the rules as a general appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order That Paragraph Has Been Passed
Sec. 12.7 A point of order that a paragraph has been passed and is
therefore not subject to amendment will not lie where a Member was
on his feet seeking recognition to offer an amendment, while the
Clerk continued to read.
On Apr. 3, 1957,(11) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
[[Page 5149]]
and Welfare appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) For what purpose does the
gentleman from North Carolina rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment which is at the Clerk's desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Idaho
rise?
Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has just been
recognized to offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 32, after line 21,
insert the following paragraph: ``Grants to States for training
public-welfare personnel: For grants to States for increasing
the number of adequately trained public-welfare personnel
available for work in the publicassistance programs as
authorized by section 705 of the Social Security Act, as
amended, $2,500,000.''
Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. I believe that section was passed, but I will
reserve the point of order.
Mr. Cooley: It was not passed. My amendment was at the Clerk's
desk, but the Clerk was reading so rapidly that he passed that
section inadvertently. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is not in order
at this point in the bill, the Clerk having read down to line 2 on
page 33; and, furthermore, that it is not authorized by law.
Mr. Cooley: May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Cooley: Do I understand the gentleman to base his point of
order upon the ground that this amount was not authorized by law?
Mr. Taber: Upon the ground that the amendment is not in order
at the point where the Clerk had finished reading.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on that point. The
gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet while the Clerk was
reading. The Clerk continued to read before the gentleman had a
chance to offer his amendment.
The gentleman was entitled to recognition.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
After Reading of Paragraph
Sec. 12.8 The time for making points or order against items in an
appropriation bill is after the House has resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph containing such
items has been read for amendment.
[[Page 5150]]
On July 5, 1945,(13) the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3649), making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
general debate in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill
contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not
in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the
Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, it is not.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order
is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?
The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.
Sec. 12.9 The proper time to raise a point of order against language in
a paragraph of a general appropriation bill is after the paragraph
has been read but before debate starts thereon. (Note: The Chair,
however, will not permit the reading of an amendment to preclude a
point of order made by a Member who has shown due diligence and who
sought recognition at the proper time.)
On May 24, 1960,(15) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Construction, General
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law. . . .
Mr. [Fred] Wampler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wampler: On page 4, line 16,
strike the amount ``$662,622,300'' and insert in lieu thereof
the amount ``$662,807,300''.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: I have a point of order against the language to be
found on this page. Will the discussion of this
[[Page 5151]]
amendment abrogate my right to make a point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, it would. If the
gentleman has a point of order, it would have to be urged at this
point.
Mr. Gross: The gentleman is trying to obtain recognition from
the Chair to make a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman to make the
point of order.
Sec. 12.10 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an
appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read
and amendments thereto have been considered.
On May 25, 1959,(17) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7176) the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 9013, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order.
The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vanik: I make a point of order to the language on page 9,
lines 5 and 6 ``from the Baltic countries.''
The Chairman: The Chair must advise the gentleman that the
point of order comes too late. That section has been read and
amendments to the section have been considered. The point of order
is overruled.
The Clerk will read.
Sec. 12.11 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an
appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read
and an amendment thereto has been agreed to.
On June 13, 1961,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7577, a bill making appropriations for the executive
office and the Department of Commerce. The Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 10177, 10178, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration, including hire of passenger motor
vehicles, $6,750,000. . . .
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: On page 28, lines 11 and
12, after ``exceed'', strike out ``$17,524,000'' and insert
``$18,447,000''.
Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the
committee accepts the amendment.
The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page 5152]]
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
For necessary expenses of the Subversive Activities Control
Board, including services as authorized by section 15 of the
Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a) . . . $305,000.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Is a point of order to the language on page 29 in
order?
The Chairman: If it is to language preceding line 5 on page 29
it is not in order.
Mr. Gross: It does precede line 5 on page 29. The Clerk did not
read the language on page 29, lines 1 to 5.
The Chairman: The Clerk has read and an amendment has been
adopted to the paragraph starting on page 28, line 8 and ending on
page 29, line 5.
Mr. Gross. Then a point of order to the language on page 29,
line 5, is not in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman it comes too
late at this time.
Bill Considered as Read
Sec. 12.12 Where the remainder of a general appropriation bill has been
considered as read and open to amendment at any point by unanimous
consent, points of order against any provision in that portion of
the bill must be made prior to debate or amendment to the remainder
of the bill.
On June 26, 1972,(1) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15586) the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 22428, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as
read in full and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, would that foreclose the making of a point of
order against a point that has not been reached in the bill?
A point of order can still be made?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, is it not necessary that the point of order be
made now?
Having dispensed with the reading of the bill, the point of
order has to be made now?
The Chairman: If the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman
from Tennessee is approved, the gentleman from Iowa is correct, the
point of order should be made at that time.
Points of Order Against Amendments
Sec. 12.13 Points of order against proposed amendments must
[[Page 5153]]
be made immediately after the amendment is read; after a Member has
been granted 15 minutes to address the Committee of the Whole on
his amendment, it is too late to make a point of order against it.
On Apr. 17, 1943,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2481, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: On page
65, line 6, after the colon, insert: ``Provided further, That no
part of said appropriation or any other appropriation carried in
this bill shall be used for incentive payments or subsidies or for
any expense for or incident to the payment of incentive payments or
any other form of subsidy payments.''
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to speak for 15 minutes.
The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick (of North Dakota): Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The Chairman: The point of order comes too late.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York): The regular order, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The gentleman
has been recognized and has been granted permission to proceed for
15 minutes. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Appropriations in Legislative Bills
Sec. 12.14 While Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5) provides that points
of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be raised
at any time, the practice of the House is that such points of order
should be raised when the bill is read for amendment.
On Mar. 18, 1946,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal
Works Administration. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 92 Cong. Rec. 2365, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill H.R. 5407, with Mr. [Fadjo] Cravens [of Arkansas] in the
chair.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to make
[[Page 5154]]
a point of order against portions of the bill in paragraphs (a),
(b), and what was originally (c), proposed now to be made (b) by a
committee amendment, on the ground that they constitute
appropriations. Under the rule forbidding the reporting of
appropriations by a committee without jurisdiction, I make a point
of order against the consideration of the language on page 2,
beginning in line 4, reading:
And the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore
made for the construction of projects outside the District of
Columbia.
Also on page 2, beginning in line 23, the last sentence of that
paragraph which reads:
Funds for this purpose are hereby made available from the
unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made for the
construction of buildings outside the District of Columbia.
Under the rule, a point of order would lie against
consideration of those portions of the bill, and I make such a
point of order at this time.
Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the
appropriations referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr.
Case) have already been made, and this money has been appropriated.
The Chairman: The Chair believes that the proper time to raise
such points of order is not at the present time, but when the bill
is read under the 5-minute rule for amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Of course, I know that is frequently
done, but I think the rule authorizes the point of order to be made
at any time during consideration of the bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is informed that under the previous
practice of the House, such points of order should be raised when
the bill is read for amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I have no objection to presenting
them later, but I do not want to lose my right to present them by
failure to raise them at this time.
The Chairman: The gentleman will not lose any of his rights.
Sec. 12.15 Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills
may be raised at any time, even though debate has taken place on
the merits of the proposition.
On June 17, 1937,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472, a District of Columbia tax bill. The Clerk read
as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75h Cong. 1st Sess. See also 99 Cong. Rec.
10398, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1953 (proceedings relating
to H.R. 6016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to fix, prescribe,
and collect fees for the parking of automobiles. . . .
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are further
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase, rent,
and install such mechanical parking meters or devices as the
Commissioners may deem necessary or
[[Page 5155]]
advisable to insure the collection of such fees. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order
that this section appropriates money out of fees to be collected,
and therefore it is appropriation on a legislative bill. Line 24
provides that the purchase price of these machines shall be paid
from the fees collected and the remainder of the fee shall be paid
into the Treasury.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the point of order comes too late. The section
has been debated and amendments have been offered, and an amendment
to strike out the section has been offered.
Mr. O'Malley: I was attempting to get recognition from the very
beginning.
The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The
last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill,
joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
time.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is
properly raised at this time and that this is purely an
appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the
gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 12.16 A point of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5)
against an appropriation in a bill reported by a legislative
committee) ``may be raised at any time''; and in response to an
inquiry the Chair advised a Member that if the offending. Language
was not stricken by amendment it could still be reached by a point
of order.
On May 18, 1966,(8) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of an amendment to H.R. 14544, the Participation
Sales Act of 1966, proceedings occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee amendment: On page 3, line 3 strike out
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' and insert:
``Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph (4) of this
subsection.''
The committee amendment was agreed to Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas
[of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
language to be amended by the committee amendment. I would not
insist on the point of order if I knew the committee amendment
would be adopted.
Should the committee amendment be rejected, I inquire of the
Chair if I then might be able to lodge my point of order against
the language stricken by the amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North
Carolina
[[Page 5156]]
that the Chair will undertake to protect the gentleman's right to
raise points of order under clause 4 of rule XXI at any time during
the consideration of this section of the bill whether the committee
amendments are adopted or rejected.
Sec. 12.17 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the
Whole against a bill reported by a legislative com- mittee, on the
ground that it proposed an appropriation contrary to Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), the Committee rose pending decision by the
Chair on the point of order.
On June 4, 1957,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural
Development and Assistance Act of 1954. The following proceedings
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order against the entire bill, H.R. 6974, on the ground
that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report
an appropriation. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little
bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained if the
Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very
unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the
circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that
the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that
motion.
The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule on
the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the
Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to
extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was
in fact in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and the
Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise so
application could be made to the Committee on Rules for a resolution
waiving points of order against the bill. See House Resolution 274.
However, a point of order under this rule applies only to offensive
language in the bill, and not against consideration of the entire bill
(see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2142; 121 Cong. Rec. 12049, 94th Cong.
1st Sess.,
[[Page 5157]]
Apr. 28, 1975). If the entire language of the bill were ruled out in
Committee of the Whole, the enacting clause would still exist and an
amendment would still be in order if germane to the title of the bill
and not containing an appropriation.
Point of Order Against Senate Bill
Sec. 12.18 Where language in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5) is stricken from a Senate bill in Committee of the Whole by a
point of order, the Chairman reports that fact to the House.
On July 31, 1957,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for development and modernization
of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities. At
one point, proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 13181, 13182, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (13) The time of the gentleman from
Michigan has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All time has expired.
The Committee will rise.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, stated that that Committee having had
under consideration the bill (S. 1856) to provide for the
development and modernization of the national system of navigation
and traffic-control facilities to serve present and future needs of
civil and military aviation, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 361, he reported the same back to the House.
The Chairman also reported that the language in the bill on
page 7, line 12, reading as follows: ``and unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations, and other funds available or'' was
stricken out on a point of order.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The resulting change in the Senate bill was
treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so engrossed and
messaged to the Senate, though not voted upon as a separate
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 13. House-Senate Relations
The general subject of relations between the House and Senate, and
that of House-Senate conferences, are discussed in other
chapters.(15) This section discusses a few issues that arise
specifically with respect to appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra; Ch. 33, House-Senate
Conferences, infra. See also Ch. 13, Powers and Prerogatives of
the House, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Constitution, it is exclusively the prerogative of the
[[Page 5158]]
House to originate revenue bills. Article I, section 7, clause 1,
provides that,
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 102 (1981).
See also Constitution of the United States of America:
Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d
Sess. pp. 125, 126 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of this prerogative is discussed in detail
elsewhere.(17) (Because questions relating to the
prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation involve
interpretation of the Constitution rather than House rules, they are
decided by the House rather than the Chair.) (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13-20, supra.
18. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has traditionally taken the view that this prerogative
encompasses the sole power to originate at least the general
appropriation bills. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, has observed:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cannon's Procedure (1959) p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under immemorial custom the general appropriation bills,
providing for a number of subjects (20) as distinguished
from special bills appropriating for single, specific
purposes,(1) originate in the House of Representatives
and there has been no deviation from that practice since the
establishment of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3566-68.
1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the view expressed by Mr. Cannon, the House has returned
Senate-passed general appropriation bills.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate has not always accepted the view that the House has the
exclusive right to originate appropriation measures.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues sometimes arise with respect to the implications of House
rules barring, in specified circumstances, unauthorized appropriations
and legislation on general appropriation bills,(4) and
appropriations on legislative bills.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Ch. 26, infra, for general discussion of Rule XXI clause 2.
5. See Sec. 4, supra, for general discussion of appropriations on
legislative bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of order under the House rule prohibiting appropriations on
legislative bills (6) have been successfully directed
against items of appropriation in Senate bills, for
example,(7) but not against a Senate amendment to an
appropriation bill.(8) Procedural remedies
[[Page 5159]]
against the inclusion of appropriations in Senate bills also include
possible points of order under section 401 of the Congressional Budget
Act (if the Senate provision can be construed as new spending authority
not subject to amounts specified in advance in appropriations acts
where budget authority has not been provided in advance; section 401 is
not applicable where money has already been appropriated and is in a
revolving fund).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
7. See Sec. 13.16, infra.
8. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1572. Rule XXI clause 5 does apply
to an amendment in the House to a Senate amendment to a House
legislative bill. See Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.29 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House may also return Senate bills which contain appropriations
to the Senate by asserting the constitutional prerogative of the House
to originate ``revenue'' measures, which, as noted above, are construed
to include at least ``general appropriation bills.''
A rule of the House (9) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill
which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of Rule
XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House,(10)
nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed
to by the managers on the part of the House unless specific
authority to agree to such amendment shall be first given by the
House by a separate vote on every such amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981),
prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on
general appropriation bills. For further discussion of
unauthorized appropriations and legislation on general
appropriation bills, generally, and Senate amendments that
violate the rule, see Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this rule, where a House legislative measure has been
committed to conference, and the conferees agree to a Senate amendment
appropriating funds, the conference report thereon may be ruled
out.(11) In the 96th Congress, a point of order that House
conferees had violated clause 2 of Rule XX by agreeing to a provision
in a Senate amendment to a House legislative bill, directing the use of
funds already appropriated for a new purpose, was conceded, and the
conference report was ruled out of order.(12) But a point of
order against an appropriation in a conference report on a legislative
bill will only lie under the rule if that provision was originally
contained in a Senate amendment and if House conferees were without
specific authority to agree to that amend
[[Page 5160]]
ment, and will not lie against a provision permitted by the House to
remain in its bill.(13) Moreover, since the rule applies
only to Senate amendments which are sent to conference, it does not
apply to appropriations contained in Senate legislative
bills.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 13.8, 13.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 13.9, infra.
13. See Sec. 13.12, infra.
14. See Sec. 13.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where an appropriation for a certain purpose has been enacted into
law, a provision in a legislative bill authorizing the use, without a
subsequent appropriation, of those funds for a new purpose constitutes
an appropriation prohibited by clause 5 of Rule XXI, and if in a Senate
amendment included in a conference report violates clause 2 of Rule XX
(prohibiting House conferees from agreeing to such a provision absent
authority from the House).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.30
and Ch. 33 Sec. 15.13. (4th
ed.). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prerogatives of House and Senate
Sec. 13.1 A discussion took place in the House with regard to the
prerogatives of the House in initiating the forms of general
appropriation bills, during debate on a motion that the House
instruct its managers of a conference committee not to agree to a
Senate amendment to a War Department appropriation bill.
On June 24, 1937,(16) during consideration of the War
Department appropriation bill of 1938, the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 6304-06, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
For further discussion of the powers of the two Houses with
respect to revenue and appropriation measures, see Ch. 13,
supra. See also Chs. 32 and 33, infra, for discussion of House-
Senate relations, conferences, and related matters. And see
Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R.
6692, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker: (17) Is there objection? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Appropriations, I submit a motion, which I send to
the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the
[[Page 5161]]
bill H.R. 6692, the Military Appropriation Act, 1938, be
instructed not to agree to the Senate amendments to such bill
numbered 47 to 77, inclusive, and 80, and not to agree to the
amendment of the Senate amending the title of such bill.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution confers
upon the House and the Senate respectively certain exclusive
prerogatives. Among those reserved to the House by the Constitution
is the right to originate revenue bills, and from the beginning of
the Government the House has asserted and successfully maintained
that the right to originate revenue bills also involves the right
to initiate general appropriation bills. That has been the uniform
practice, and in keeping with that doctrine the House has
formulated the general appropriation bills since the establishment
of the Government. Of course, the right to originate general
appropriation bills necessarily includes the right to determine the
form and the manner in which they shall be presented, and from the
beginning the number and scope of the various annual supply bills
have been determined by the House with the acquiescence of the
Senate. Only on one or two rare occasions has this right of the
House been questioned, and in each such instance the Senate has
promptly disavowed any intention of infringing on the
constitutional prerogatives of the House and yielded without
contention.
The last instance was in the second session of the Sixty-second
Congress and was the occasion for an exhaustive study of the
subject by Hon. John Sharp Williams, formerly minority leader of
the House and at the time a member of the Senate, which was
published as a Senate document and which so conclusively confirmed
the contention of the House that its right to originate the general
supply bills and determine their form had not since been challenged
until the receipt just now of a message from the Senate informing
the House that the Senate has assumed the right to combine the two
War Department appropriation bills by attaching the nonmilitary
bill to the military bill as an amendment. . . .
The motion offered proposes [that House conferees be
instructed] to decline to agree to the amendment by which the two
bills have been merged or to any perfecting amendment which may
have been made to the text of the nonmilitary bill. Under such
instruction, House conferees will be at liberty to consider and
agree in full on the final text of the War Department appropriation
bill providing for military activities and the Senate may then
message over as a separate bill the nonmilitary bill, as amended by
the Senate, and the House will appoint conferees to meet with
Senate conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
bill as originated by the House of Representatives.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 13.2 The Senate receded from its amendments which proposed to
attach a nonmilitary appropriation bill to a military activities
appropriation bill and in so doing discussed the role of the Senate
in amending general appropriation bills of the House.
[[Page 5162]]
On July 1, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took
place in the Senate during consideration of a conference report on H.R.
6692 (appropriations for the military establishment):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. 6652-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of
the powers of the two Houses with respect to revenue and
appropriation measures, see Ch. 13, supra. See also Chs. 32 and
33, infra, for discussion of House-Senate relations,
conferences, and related matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Royal S.] Copeland [of New York]: Mr. President, I am
about to move the adoption of the report, but before doing so I
think an explanation should be made to the Senate. I am sure that
the matter which I shall present will be of interest to every
Senator, because it has to do with the rights of the Senate
regarding appropriation bills.
During the 15 years of my membership in the Senate, and for a
long time prior thereto, it has been the custom to embody all
appropriations for the Military Establishment in one bill. This
year the House . . . undertook to . . . separate the appropriations
and embody them in two bills, one devoted to the strictly military
activities . . . and a second to the nonmilitary activities of the
Government. . . .
The Senate Committee on Appropriations decided to blend the
bills and to present them to the Senate as they have been presented
through many years. Explanation was made to the Senate, and the
Senate, by unanimous vote, decided to accept and act upon the bill
in the usual form.
After discussing the response of the House, and noting the
existence of divergent views of the respective prerogatives of the
Houses relating to appropriation bills and their form, the Senator
stated:
Of course, we do not concede . . . that the Constitution
confers upon the House any such right to initiate general
appropriation bills. . . .
Mr. President, I am instructed by the Committee on
Appropriations to say that we challenge the contention that it is
the exclusive right of the House to determine the form and number
of appropriation bills.
The Senator, however, noted the existence of special circumstances
in the present case, and indicated he would therefore move that the
conference report be agreed to. The conference report was accordingly
agreed to. The following proceedings then took place:
Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate agree to the
amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate numbered
24, 26, and 79.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate recede from its
amendments still in disagreement, and its amendment to the title of
the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. [J. W.] Robinson [of Utah]: Mr. President, I should like to
ask the Senator from New York to tell the Senate the status of the
military appropriations, and the status of the nonmilitary
appropriations. In what condition does this action leave them?
[[Page 5163]]
Mr. Copeland: Mr. President, title I of the Senate bill, which
is the military part, has now been agreed to by both Houses, and on
my motion, just made, we receded from the amendments which covered
the nonmilitary appropriations.
I now wish to present to the Senate for immediate action House
bill 7493, as amended by the Senate committee and by the Senate to
cover the nonmilitary item, so that the House will be in the
position of having two bills, as it desires.
Mr. Robinson: In other words, that puts the Senate in the
position of completely yielding to the House?
Mr. Copeland: Yes.
Reference of Bill to Committee on Appropriations
Sec. 13.3 The Speaker announces to the House that he has referred a
general appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto to the
Committee on Appropriations
On July 2, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that he has referred
the bill H.R. 3368, the war agencies bill, with Senate amendments
thereto, to the Committee on Appropriations.
Parliamentarian's Note: While the Speaker has this discretionary
authority to refer Senate amendments to any bill under Rule XXIV clause
2, it is seldom exercised.
Conferees for Separate Chapters of Bill
Sec. 13.4 The Speaker has appointed a series of conferees for separate
chapters of an appropriation bill.
On July 27, 1955,(1) a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 101 Cong. Rec. 11686, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints
the following conferees: Messrs. Cannon and Taber; and on chapter
I, Messrs. Whitten, Marshall, and H. Carl Anderson; on chapter II,
Messrs. Preston, Thomas, and Bow; on chapter III, Messrs. Mahon,
Sheppard, Sikes, Wigglesworth, Scrivner, and Ford; on chapter IV,
Messrs. Passman, Gary, and Wigglesworth.
[[Page 5164]]
Sec. 13.5 In appointing conferees on the general appropriation bill,
1951, the Speaker appointed a set of conferees for each chapter of
the bill, and four Members to sit in the conference on all
chapters.
On Aug. 7, 1950,(2) a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, and the following proceedings ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11894, 11895, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill H.R.
7786, an act making appropriations for the support of the
Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and ask for a conference with the Senate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints
the following conferees.
Managers on the part of the House:
Messrs. Cannon, Rabaut, Norrell, Taber, and on Chap. I, Messrs.
Bates of Kentucky, Yates, Furcolo, Stockman, and Wilson of Indiana;
on Chap. II, Messrs. McGrath, Kirwan, Andrews, Canfield, and
Scrivner; on Chap. III, Messrs. Rooney, Flood, Preston, Stefan, and
Clevenger. . . .
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Will the chairman take a minute to
explain how the conferees will operate under this arrangement?
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we expect to go to conference tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock. The bill will be taken up by chapters
seriatim. As a chapter is reached the entire subcommittee which
wrote that particular chapter, and which therefore is more familiar
with it than anyone else on the committee, along with the other
managers on the part of the House, will take up the chapter with
the Senate conferees.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: This means, then, that the four
Members who were first named will sit through the entire
conference.
Mr. Cannon: They are the ranking members on the central
subcommittee which reported the bill to the House and will sit with
the respective subcommittees throughout the conference.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: And the Members who are assigned to a
particular chapter will receive notification as their particular
chapter is approached?
Mr. Cannon: When a chapter is taken up, the conferees on the
next succeeding chapter will be notified. We hope to proceed with
as little delay as possible, subject always to the approval of the
managers on the part of the Senate.
[[Page 5165]]
Agreement as to Selection of Conference Chairman
Sec. 13.6 An agreement was made between the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations with respect to selecting a conference
chairman.
On July 19, 1962,(3) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 14133, 14134, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, each branch of Congress in conference has group
autonomy. The selection of the conference chairman is procedural
for orderly functioning of the conference. Realizing this, the
question of the selection of the conference chairman for the
present session of Congress shall be left to the decision of the
two subcommittee chairmen.
It is agreed by the joint committee on behalf of the full
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives that for this session only the subcommittee
chairmen of each body shall decide who shall act as chairman of the
conference. It is further agreed that the chairmen of the Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations appoint representatives of
each committee to serve as a joint committee to study all the
issues involved and to report in January 1963 their
recommendations.
Appropriations on Legislative Bills--Duty of Conferees
Sec. 13.7 Conferees of the House may not in conference agree to a
Senate amendment providing for an appropriation upon any other than
a general appropriation bill without first having secured specific
authority from the House to do so.
On May 22, 1936,(4) a Member addressed Speaker Joseph W.
Byrns, of Tennessee, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 9496) to protect the United
States against loss in the delivery through the mails of checks in
payment of benefits provided for by laws administered by the
Veterans' Administration, and I ask unanimous consent that the
statement may be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order on the conference report that it includes an appropriation
which is contrary to the rules of the House and the Senate. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman
of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a
conference report signed by the conferees on the part of the Senate
and the House. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the
point of order that the conference report is out of order because
the conferees on the part of the House
[[Page 5166]]
in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate providing an
appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
Senate amendment no. 1 contains the following language:
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance,
from time to time, to the Postmaster General, from the
appropriation contained in the Supplemental Appropriation Act,
fiscal year 1936, approved February 11, 1936, for
``administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment act,
1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937'', such sums as are
certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the
expenses of the Post Office Department in connection with the
handling of the bonds issued hereunder. Such bonds--
This amendment also contains the following language:
The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the
Postmaster General, from the aforesaid appropriation contained
in said supplemental appropriation act, for such postage and
registry fees as may be required in connection with such
transmittal.
Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of
Representatives, reads as follows:
No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill
which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of
rule XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House, nor
any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be
agreed to by the managers on the part of the House unless
specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be first
given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.
It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the
House in agreeing in conference to Senate amendment no. 1 violated
the provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an
appropriation.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, if the conference report is out of
order, how can we consider it?
The Speaker: The amendments are before the House and must be
disposed of.
Mr. Snell: I supposed that the whole report went out.
The Speaker: The report goes out, but that leaves the
amendments before the House, and some action must be taken on them.
It is for the House to say what action it will take. . . .
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan] (interrupting the reading of
the Senate amendment): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, supplementing what the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Snell] has said, an attempt was made to get this bill
before the House by calling up the conference report and the
conference report was held out of order. No further action to get
the bill before the House has been taken. There has been no request
to bring it up in any other way
[[Page 5167]]
except through the conference report, and the Speaker, very
properly I think, has ruled that the conference report is out of
order.
The Speaker: The conference report was called up by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead]. The conference report has been
held to be out of order, which leaves the Senate amendments before
the House for consideration. The House must take some action on
them.
Mr. Mapes: How do the amendments get before the House for
consideration?
The Speaker: They are called up by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Mead].
Mr. Mapes: No attempt has been made by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Mead], as I understand, to call them up.
The Speaker: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman from
Michigan, reads from section 3257 of Cannon's Precedents:
When a conference report is ruled out of order the bill and
amendments are again before the House as when first presented,
and motions relating to amendments and conference are again in
order.
The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. Mapes: That seems to cover the matter.
Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lehlbach: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate
privileged?
The Speaker: After the stage of disagreement has been reached
they are. For this reason it is necessary that the House take some
action upon the amendments at this time.
Sec. 13.8 Where House conferees agreed to a Senate amendment providing
that ``benefits shall be paid from the civil service retirement and
disability fund'', such an agreement constituted a violation of
Rule XX clause 2, and was ruled out on a point of order.
On Oct. 4, 1962,(5) a Member addressed Speaker pro
tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal
rates, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the
statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu
of the report.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object and I do so in order to make a parliamentary inquiry, I
desire to make a point of order against considerations of the
conference report. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against
consideration of the conference report, and I ask to be recognized
at the proper time to make that point of order.
[[Page 5168]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the Clerk reports the title of
the bill, the gentleman may be recognized.
The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa makes a point
of order. The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the
conference report on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule
XX of the House rules.
Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:
Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment
shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every
such amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the
Senate provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:
Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the
benefits made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by
reason of the enactment of this part shall be paid from the
civil service retirement and disability fund.
The words ``shall be paid from the civil service retirement
and disability fund'' constitute an appropriation within the
meaning of clause 2 of rule XX. . . .
Inasmuch as the House, when it sent the bill to conference,
did not give specific authority to agree to such amendment I,
therefore, submit that it is not in order for such language to
be included in the conference report. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Murray] desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Murray: I do not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross]
makes a point of order that the language contained on page 110,
section 1104, line 12, ``shall be paid from the civil service
retirement and disability fund'' is in violation of clause 2, rule
XX.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 13.9 A point of order that House conferees had violated clause 2,
Rule XX by agreeing to a provision in a Senate amendment to a House
legislative bill, directing the use of funds already appropriated
for a new purpose, was conceded and the conference report was ruled
out of order.
On Nov. 29, 1979,(6) a conference report on H.R. 2676
(EPA research authorization for appropriations, fiscal year 1980)
authorizing appropriations for environmental research and development
was called up for consideration. Included in the conference report was
a provision originally contained in a Senate amendment, directing that
funds appropriated
[[Page 5169]]
pursuant to the authorization be obligated and expended on a certain
project not specifically funded by the appropriation law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 34113, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair, noting that the appropriation bill for the activity
concerned had already been enacted for the year in question, ruled that
the provision at that time constituted an appropriation on a
legislative bill and could not, under clause 2 of Rule XX, be agreed to
by House conferees. The proceedings were as follows:
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order against the conference report.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from
Massachusetts will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of rule XXI prohibits
committees without proper jurisdiction from reporting measures
carrying appropriations. Interpretation of the rule has held that
language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an
appropriation already made for one purpose to another is not in
order. This has been sustained numerous times, but it is very
clearly stated in a ruling on August 11, 1921, and is a precedent
that is nearly identical to the issue that is before us now.
In the paragraph authorizing appropriations for the health and
ecological effects activity of the water quality research and
development program House conferees on H.R. 2676 agreed to retain
in the bill the following provision added by the Senate:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
paragraph $900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold
Climate Research program through the Environmental Protection
Agency's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
The 1980 Environmental Protection Agency budget request did not
include any funding for cold climate research. The 1980
appropriation of EPA's research and development programs also did
not include any funding for cold climate research.
The proviso amounts to a diversion of funds previously
appropriated and violates clause 5, rule XXI.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be sustained.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Fuqua) wish to speak on the point of order?
Mr. [Don] Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
In this instance, the conference report containing the Senate
amendment having been ruled out of order because containing an
appropriation, the manager of the conference report moved to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment merely encouraging,
but not mandating, the use of funds already appropriated for a new
purpose.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 125 Cong. Rec. 34114, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5170]]
Sec. 13.10 The rule restricting the authority of conferees in agreeing
to appropriation language in Senate amendments does not apply to
language in Senate bills.
On Jan. 25, 1972,(9) a conference report on S. 2819 (the
foreign military assistance authorization) was under consideration
which contained an additional provision beyond the scope of the
differences committed to conference.(10) The Speaker, Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, in overruling a point of order against the report,
noted that the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order
against the inclusion of such additional matter, and that clauses 2 and
3 of Rule XX (restricting the authority of House conferees from
agreeing to appropriation or nongermane language, respectively, in
Senate amendments) are not applicable where a Senate bill and House
amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings were as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 118 Cong. Rec. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Inclusion of such matter violates Rule XXVIII clause 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a
point of order against the consideration of the conference report.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the grounds that
certain provisions of the bill are not germane and exceed the
authority of the conference. I point specifically, Mr. Speaker, to
the language to be found on page 13 of the report, section 658:
Sec. 658. Limitation on Use of Funds.--
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of
the funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act
or the Foreign Military Sales Act shall be obligated or
expended until the Comptroller General of the United States
certifies to the Congress that all funds previously
appropriated and thereafter impounded during the fiscal year
1971 for programs and activities administered by or under the
direction of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare have been released for obligation and
expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this language goes far beyond the
scope of the legislation, far beyond any intent of the Congress It
is neither germane nor does it come within the scope of the
legislation. . . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The rule is
broad and covers the objections made by the gentleman from Iowa.
Last November the House sent to conference two foreign aid bills,
one economic and one military, which passed the Senate. At that
time the House struck out all after the enacting clauses of both
bills and inserted in lieu thereof the complete text of H.R. 9910,
which had passed the House last August.
All the provisions of both the House and Senate bills that were
in disagree
[[Page 5171]]
ment were considered in conference. The House having adopted a rule
to send these two Senate bills (to conference) the amendments to
which the gentleman from Iowa has objected automatically became
House amendments and the provisions from the Senate bill are no
longer subject to a point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa has raised a point of order against the
conference report on the ground that the House conferees have
exceeded their authority by including in the conference report
provisions not germane or not in either the Senate bill or the
House amendment and agreed to an appropriation in violation of
clause 2, rule XX. That rule provides in relevant part:
No amendment of the Senate . . . providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House.
The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was
sent to conference, with a House amendment thereto. The rule is
restricted in its application to Senate amendments, and thus is not
applicable in the present situation.
The Chair also points out that the resolution under which this
conference report is being considered specifically waives points of
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The action of the conferees in adding the language in section
658 of the conference report is protected by this waiver of points
of order.
For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 13.11 Clause 2 of Rule XX which precludes House conferees from
agreeing to Senate amendments providing for appropriations in a
conference report absent specific authority applies only to Senate
amendments which are sent to conference and not to appropriations
contained in Senate legislative bills.
On June 30, 1976,(11) the Speaker (12)
overruled a point of order against a conference report containing a
provision permitting a new use of funds in an existing revolving fund,
even though such provision constituted an appropriation on a
legislative bill, since the provision had been contained in the Senate
bill and since clause 2 of Rule XX is not applicable where a Senate
bill and House amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 21632, 21633, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3295) to extend the
authorization for annual contributions under the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937, to extend certain
[[Page 5172]]
housing programs under the National Housing Act, and for other
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
Mr. [Garry] Brown [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against the conference report on S. 3295 on the basis that
the House managers exceeded their authority by agreeing to two
matters not in the original House amendment to the Senate bill and
which violates clause 2, rule XX, of the House Rules and Precedents
of the House. Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:
Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment
shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every
such amendment.
The Senate-passed bill contains section 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which
in effect provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA
insurance funds to honor claims made eligible for payment by the
provisions of section 9 generally. These amendments are to section
518(b) of the National Housing Act and relate to sections 203 and
221 housing programs for which the authority of the Secretary of
HUD to pay claims related to certain structural defects has expired
if the claims were not filed by March 1976.
Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include identical language which
states as follows:
Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from
the insurance fund chargeable for insurance benefits on the
mortgage covering the structure to which the expenditures
relate.
The words ``Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be
made from the insurance fund'' constitute an appropriation within
the meaning of clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents under clause
5, rule XXI, it is clear that payments out of funds such as the FHA
insurance fund are within the meaning of the term ``appropriation''
and that the action taken by the House managers is violative of
clause 2, rule XX.
In support of this point of order, I cite the ruling of the
Chair on a point of order raised by H.R. Gross on October 1, 1962,
to the conference report on H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed to
in that report provided that--
The benefits made payable . . . by reason of enactment of
this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement and
disability fund.
Inasmuch as when the House agreed to go to conference, it did
not give specific authority to agree to such an amendment. I
therefore submit that it is not in order for such language to be
included in the conference report.
The FHA insurance funds are designed to provide the reserves
for payments on defaulted mortgages and for the operation of HUD
related to the various insurance programs and any diversion of the
use of such funds such as for payment for defects in the structure
would violate clause 5 of rule XXI. In further support of this
point of order, and specifically on the point that the provisions
constitute a diversion of funds for a separate purpose not within
the intention of the legisla
[[Page 5173]]
tion establishing the fund, I cite the ruling of the Chair on
October 5, 1972, which holds that an amendment allowing for the use
of highway trust fund moneys to purchase buses,
would seem to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that it would
divert or actually reappropriate for a new purpose funds which
have been appropriated and allocated and are in the pipeline
for purposes specified by the law under the original 1956 act.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
conference report on this basis.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is
the one who sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Gross in the
case which I have referred to.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to anticipate a ruling against my
point of order, but if that should be the case, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest we are making a mockery of the rules of the House.
Since some of my comrades may not be aware of it, the rules of
the House in clause 5, rule XXI, provide:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. . . .
Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House
in its rules cannot have extraterritorial effect or extra body
effect, in order to protect the House from having its rules
violated by the Senate, we adopted clause 2 of rule XX which
related to action that the Senate might take that would be
violative of the House rules. But the very fact that this is not a
Senate amendment on a House bill is insignificant if the rules of
the House are going to have any real meaning because what we are
saying is any time we want to violate the House rules, we can have
the rule provide that after consideration of the bill it shall be
in order for the such-and-such Senate bill to be taken from the
Speaker's desk and everything after the enacting clause stricken
and apply the House language. . . .
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Speaker, clause 2
of rule XX of the rules of the House makes out of order any
provision in a Senate amendment which provides for an
appropriation. However, the rule does not address itself to
provisions in Senate bills. The conferees accepted the provision in
question, without change, from a Senate bill and not from a Senate
amendment. Therefore, no violation of the House rules is involved
even if the provision is considered to be an appropriation.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order against
the conference report, referring to the language of rule XX, clause
2, which places certain restrictions on the managers on the part of
the House in a conference with the Senate.
The Chair has ruled on this matter before.
On January 25, 1972, the Chair ruled in connection with a point
of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the
conference report on a foreign military as
[[Page 5174]]
sistance authorization bill (S. 2819) on the ground that the House
conferees had exceeded their authority by including in the
conference report an appropriation entirely in conflict with clause
2, rule XX. That rule provides, in relevant part, that ``no
amendment of the Senate''--that is the important language--no
amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon any
bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by
the managers on the part of the House.
The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was
sent to conference with a House amendment thereto. The rule is
restricted in its application to Senate amendments and, thus, is
not applicable in the present situation.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
After the above ruling, Mr. Brown pointed to the following language
in the conference report as representing, in effect, an agreement by
the Senate ``with a Senate amendment'':
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment.
The Speaker responded that a conference report on a Senate bill
which recommends that the Senate concur in the House amendment with an
amendment does not place before the House a Senate amendment against
which a point of order can be raised under clause 2 of Rule XX, since
the conference report represents only a proposed compromise and not a
Senate amendment originally committed to conference.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 21634, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.12 Although Rule XXI clause 5 permits a point of order against
an appropriation in a legislative bill or amendment to be raised
``at any time'' during the initial consideration of the bill or
amendment under the five-minute rule in the House, a point of order
against similar language permitted to remain in the House version
and included in a conference report on that bill will not lie,
since the only rule prohibiting such inclusion (Rule XX clause 2)
is limited to language originally contained in a Senate amendment
where House conferees have not been specifically authorized to
agree thereto.
The following proceedings took place on May 1, 1975,(14)
during consideration of a conference report, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R.
[[Page 5175]]
6096) to authorize funds for humanitarian assistance and evacuation
programs in Vietnam and to clarify restrictions on the availability
of funds for the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Indochina, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a point of order against the conference report.
The Speaker [Carl Albert, of Oklahoma]: The gentlewoman will
state it.
Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the conference report
in the last sentence refers to evacuation programs authorized by
this act. It permits a waiver of a series of laws for the purpose
of allowing those evacuation programs to take place.
In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section 3 dealt with evacuation
programs referred to in section 2 of the bill and waived the same
series of laws with respect thereto. In order for section 3 to be
considered, it required a rule from the Rules Committee. And a rule
was granted waiving points of order against section 3 of the bill.
But section 7 of the conference report, in speaking of evacuation
programs authorized by the entire act and not just by one section,
exceeds the scope of section 3 of the bill and exceeds the waiver
that was permitted under the rule. It therefore violates rule XXI,
clause 5, and violates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits House
conferees from accepting a Senate amendment providing for an
appropriation on a nonappropriation bill in excess of the rules of
the House. . . .
Mr. Morgan: . . . The point of order has no standing. Section 3
of the House bill and section 7 of the conference report referred
to use of funds of the Armed Forces of the United States for the
protection and evacuation of certain persons from South Vietnam.
The language of the conference report does not increase funds
available for that purpose. Both the House bill and the conference
report simply removed limitations on the use of funds from the DOD
budget. These limitations were not applicable to the funds
authorized in H.R. 6096. The scope of the waiver is the same in the
conference report and the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, the changes in language are merely conforming
changes. Section 2 of the House bill was a section which authorized
the evacuation programs in the House bill. The conference version
contains the evacuation programs authority in several sections plus
reference to the entire act rather than to one specific section. .
. .
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentlewoman from New York makes the point of order that
section 7 of the conference report constitutes an appropriation on
a legislative bill in violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to which the
House conferees were not authorized to agree pursuant to clause 2,
rule XX.
The Chair would first point out that the provisions of clause
2, rule XX, preclude House conferees from agreeing to a Senate
amendment containing an appropriation on a legislative bill, and do
not restrict their authority to consider an appropriation which
might have been contained in the House-passed version. In this
instance, the conferees have recommended language which is
[[Page 5176]]
virtually identical to section 3 of the House bill, and they have
not agreed to a Senate amendment containing an appropriation.
Therefore, clause 2, rule XX, is not applicable to the present
conference report.
While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a point of order to be raised
against an appropriation in a legislative bill ``at any time''
consistent with the orderly consideration of the bill to which
applied--Cannon's VII, sections 2138-39--the Chair must point out
that H.R. 6096 was considered in the House under the terms of House
Resolution 409 which waived points of order against section 3 of
the House bill as constituting an appropriation of available funds
for a new purpose. . . .
The gentlewoman from New York also has in effect made the point
of order that section 7 of the conference report goes beyond the
issues in difference between the two Houses committed to conference
in violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
In the House-passed bill, section 3 contained waivers of
certain provisions of law in order to make available funds already
appropriated to the Department of Defense to be used for the Armed
Forces in ``evacuation programs referred to in section 2 of the
act.'' The conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law
shall apply to ``evacuation programs authorized by this act.''
In the opinion of the Chair, a conforming change in phraseology
in a conference report from language contained in the House or
Senate version to achieve consistency in the language thereof,
absent proof that the effect of that change is to broaden the scope
of the language beyond that contained in either version, does not
necessarily render the conference report subject to a point of
order. In this instance, it appears to the Chair that the only
effect of the language in the conference report was to accomplish
the same result that would have been reached by section 3 of the
House bill, namely to remove certain limitations on the use of
funds in the Defense budget for military evacuation programs under
this bill.
The Chair therefore holds that the conferees have not exceeded
their authority and overrules the point of order.
Amendments to Senate Amendments
Sec. 13.13 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill
proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in
the House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments.
The following proceedings took place on Feb. 8,
1937,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3587, a deficiency
appropriations bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which
I send to the Clerk's desk. . . .
Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a pref
[[Page 5177]]
erential motion, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ellenbogen moves that the House recede and concur in Senate
amendment no. 9.
Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentleman from
Virginia demands a division of the question. The question is, Shall
the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken, and the motion to recede was agreed to.
Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Woodrum moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter
inserted by said amendment insert the following: ``or of any
appropriation or other funds of any executive department or
independent executive agency shall be used after June 30, 1937,
to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned for
service in connection with any investigation or inquiry
undertaken by any committee of either House of Congress under
special resolution thereof.''
Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
motion of the gentleman from Virginia violates the rules of the
House in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Senate
amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because
it contains legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Malley: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is not germane, since it
limits the Senate amendment by date.
The Speaker Pro Tempore. The Chair will state that it deals
with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate
amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
Sec. 13.14 Where the Senate attaches to an appropriation bill a
legislative amendment, it is in order in the House to concur with a
perfecting amendment provided such amendment does not broaden the
scope of the legislation in the Senate amendment.
On June 15, 1933,(17) during consideration of Senate
amendments to the independent offices appropriation
bill,(18) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 77 Cong. Rec. 6150, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 5389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 5178]]
Amendment No. 30: On page 57, after line 14, insert:
``Sec. 6. After the enactment of this act the Postmaster
General is directed to suspend payments upon any air mail or
ocean mail contract to any individuals, companies, or
corporations which, singly or in combination with other
individuals, companies, or corporations receiving a subsidy,
pay any salary or salary combined with bonus to any officer,
agent, or employee in excess of a salary of $17,500. . . .''
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
recede and concur with an amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Woodrum moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30, and
agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the
matter inserted by said amendment insert the following:
``Sec. 6. Hereafter the Postmaster General shall not award
any air mail contract or any ocean mail contract under the
Merchant Marine Act of 1928 to any individuals, companies, or
corporations which, singly or in combination with other
individuals, companies, or corporations pay any salary, or
salary combined with bonus, to any officer, agent, or employee
in excess of $17,500. . . .''
Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The amendment as I heard it read contains the word
``hereafter'', making this permanent law, forever. I have no
particular objection to the language contained, that makes it for
the duration of the life of this appropriation bill, but it might
not be wise, under certain circumstances, to make it permanent,
forever. The word ``hereafter'' makes it legislation on an
appropriation bill, which makes it permanent legislation.
Mr. Woodrum: The original text makes it permanent legislation.
Mr. Goss: But it reads ``after the enactment of this act.''
The Speaker: (19) We are considering the Senate
amendment. The entire amendment of the Senate is legislation which
the House may now perfect by any germane amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goss: I will reserve it for the moment, to hear further
explanation. I do not want to see it made permanent law.
Mr. Woodrum: The only change which the House makes in it is the
very proper change not to undertake to make this retroactive to
apply to contracts. They have postoffice contracts that have
already been made in good faith, but it does provide----
Mr. Goss: For all time.
Mr. Woodrum: Yes; until Congress changes it, because the
original language was for all time. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order made by the
gentleman from Connecticut.
Sec. 13.15 In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined
within the limits of the amount set by the original bill and the
Senate amendment.
On June 20, 1932,(20) during consideration of H.R.
11267, the
[[Page 5179]]
Economy Committee amendment to the legislative appropriation bill, a
Senate amendment was under consideration which provided for an 11
percent reduction in all government salaries in excess of $2,500. An
amendment was offered proposing to reduce salaries by a graduated scale
with a minimum exemption of $1,200. A point of order was made as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 13522-25, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that the subject matter contained in the
gentleman's motion at this time is not proper in that there is
nothing before the House at this time which shows a change of
attitude on the part of the House in its action on the question of
salary reduction. There are two propositions before the House. One
is the House bill providing for a reduction with a $2,500
exemption, and the other is the Senate so-called furlough plan. The
gentleman seeks to concur in the Senate plan with an amendment, and
the matter in the amendment is not germane to that plan. The
gentleman's motion is beyond the province of conferees. The subject
matter contained in the motion is an entirely new proposition. If
conferees have failed to agree on either the House bill or Senate
bill, then they should be discharged. If the gentleman seeks to
carry out a reduction plan, then I submit that the House has not
indicated by vote or otherwise that it recedes from its original
position. What the gentleman is seeking to do is to get legislative
action de novo on a matter which has already been passed on by the
House. When we come to that point--enter on our own initiative or
from the Senate--new conferees representing the views of the House
should be and would be appointed. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the
view of the House must first be presented by friends of the
proposition to the Senate conferees. There is no indication in the
report or otherwise that the House bill was actually sponsored in
conference by the conferees on the part of the House, and I submit
that at this stage we can not legislate de novo in order to carry
out the personal views or preference of the conferees. The House
should at least be given the opportunity to express itself on its
own bill. In this roundabout method the House is compelled to take
other action without first knowing what the attitude of the other
body on the proposition may be.
Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I believe
the Chair should hold that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama is out of order, because the amendment goes beyond the
range of difference between the action of the House and the Senate.
The furlough plan incorporated in the bill by the Senate and the
salary-reduction plan as passed by the House contain no salary
reductions in salaries below $2,500 per year. I believe on that
point alone the amendment is not germane, and therefore it is not
in order, as the conferees have exceeded their authority.
Mr. [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I think the
Chair has ample precedent for overruling the point of order raised
by the gentleman
[[Page 5180]]
from Wisconsin, because, in the first place we are not dealing with
a conference report, and in the second place, I direct the
attention of the Speaker to the fact that anything that is germane
is permissible to be written in an amendment such as I have
offered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: The
Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaGuardia) interposes a point
of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. McDuffie) to the Senate proposal, upon the ground that
it does not affirmatively appear that the House conferees really
took into consideration the action and voice of the House in the
conference. That, of course, is a matter entirely beyond the
province of the Chair, and is a matter of speculation, necessarily.
The Chair, therefore, overrules that point of order.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Schafer) raised the point of
order that the provisions embodied in the motion of the gentleman
from Alabama to recede and concur with an amendment to the Senate
amendment was beyond the limits fixed in either the House bill or
the Senate amendment. The Parliamentarian has furnished the Chair
with a syllabus of an opinion by Chairman Hepburn, of Iowa, made on
February 26, 1902, which may be found in Hinds' Precedents (vol. 5,
sec. 6187). It is as follows: ``In amending a Senate amendment the
House is not confined within the limits of amount set by the
original bill and the Senate amendment.'' The Chair thinks that
that decision disposes of the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Wisconsin. The Chair desires to say in passing upon
these points of order that in cases of this kind the only
requirement is that the amendment proposed in the motion to recede
and concur with an amendment must be germane to the Senate
amendment. This question arose on May 3, 1922, when Mr. Speaker
Gillett, in overruling a point of order similar to this, held that
to a Senate amendment providing a new method of taxation in the
District of Columbia and revising the fiscal relationship of the
District of Columbia and the United States with other incidental
propositions an amendment proposing a different scheme is germane,
although different in detail.
The Chair thinks that these decisions fully cover points of
order raised by the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from
Wisconsin, and therefore overrules the points of order.
Similarly, on June 28, 1932, (1) the following
proceedings took place during consideration of the Navy appropriation
bill: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at pp. 14207, 14208.
2. H.R. 11452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 16: Page 23, line 17, strike out
``$1,014,250'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,191,850.''
Mr. [William A.] Ayres (of Kansas): Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House recede and concur with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ayres moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment
No. 16
[[Page 5181]]
with the following amendment: In lieu of the sum proposed by
said amendment insert the following: ``$1,157,535 (none of
which shall be available for increased pay for making aerial
flights by nonflying officers or observers except eight
officers above the grade of lieutenant commander, to be
selected by the Secretary of the Navy).''
Mr. LaGuardia: I make the point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kansas is beyond the power and scope
of the conferees; that it brings in entirely new matter, that the
difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is simply one
of amount, and we can not at this stage of the proceedings
legislate on the bill.
The Speaker: On the grounds the gentleman makes his point of
order the Chair will overrule it. The question is on the motion to
concur with an amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: Let the Chair say in connection with that point of
order that if the gentleman from New York had made the point of
order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the Senate
amendment, the Chair thinks it would have been sufficient, but the
gentleman from New York said it was beyond the jurisdiction of the
conferees, and the motion to concur with an amendment is not
subject to that point of order.
Point of Order Against Appropriations in Senate Bill
Sec. 13.16 A point of order under the rule barring appropriations in a
legislative bill may be raised against an item of appropriation in
a Senate bill.
On July 30, 1957, (4) during consideration of S. 1865, a
bill establishing an airways modernization board and to provide for the
development and modernization of the national system of navigation and
traffic control facilities to serve present and future needs of civil
and military aviation, a provision granting authority to transfer
``unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available,'' was ruled out by Chairman George H. Mahon, of Texas, as an
appropriation reported from a nonappropriating committee in violation
of clause 4, rule XXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language having been stricken from the Senate bill pursuant to
the point of order, that fact was reported by Chairman Mahon to the
House.(5) The language stricken from the bill on the point
of order was treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so
engrossed and messaged to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at pp. 13181, 13182, July 31, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Rule Waiving Points of Order
Sec. 13.17 A resolution is set forth below waiving points of
[[Page 5182]]
order against a conference report on a general appropriation bill,
and making in order a motion to recede from disagreement and to
concur therein with an amendment.
On Dec. 23, 1963, (6) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
Note: The waiver of points of order against the amendment
was necessary because the language of the amendment would have
been subject to the point of order that it constituted further
legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I present a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 600) from the Committee on Rules and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Speaker: (7) The resolution will be referred to
the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any
point of order the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499)
making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes,
and that during the consideration of the amendment of the
Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order to
consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a
motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the part of the House
to recede and concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with
an amendment.
Suspension of Rules for Matters Not in Disagreement
Sec. 13.18 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions
of the bill, the House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed
a new bill containing matters in the original bill not in
controversy.
On July 2, 1942, (8) the Department of Agriculture
appropriation bill for fiscal 1943 was passed in the House in the
following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 5960, 5961, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the
Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for
other purposes.
The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second
be considered as ordered.
[[Page 5183]]
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Tarver)?
There was no objection.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal to enact for the present fiscal
year 1943, the provisions of H.R. 6709, the Agricultural
appropriation bill, insofar as those provisions have been agreed
upon by the House and the Senate, and with respect to the
appropriations for the farm tenant land purchase program and for
the Farm Security Administration, which are in disagreement, the
provisions of the bill are for expenditures by the Farm Security
Administration for these purposes for the next 60 days; that is,
for the months of July and August, which will be authorized upon
the same bases proportionate for the time involved as the
expenditures for those purposes were authorized in the Agricultural
Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1942, with the proviso that
any amount expended by the Farm Security Administration for these
purposes during the months of July and August shall be charged
against whatever amounts are finally appropriated by the Congress
to the uses of the Farm Security Administration for these
objectives.
As I said, all of the provisions of the bill, and all of the
limitations in the bill so far as there does not exist disagreement
between the House and Senate with reference thereto, are proposed
to be enacted. The proviso with regard to Commodity Credit
Corporation funds is to be enacted except as the Senate amendments
thereto in disagreement are involved.
There is also a further proviso in title II of the bill which I
have just sent to the Clerk's desk, which would validate
expenditures upon the bases which I have described to and including
the 1st day of July.
H.R. 7349 passed in the House. Subsequently, various Members
discussed the consequences of the bill's passage. Some of the remarks
are as follows:
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether or not the
majority leader wants to say anything about the situation that is
now in abeyance for the information of the House?
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: I have nothing to
advise the House about at this time. The Senate has adjourned, and
I have been informed that they sent the bill which passed the House
a short time ago to the committee.
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection?
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, as I understand the parliamentary situation,
as far as the appropriation bill is concerned, it is this. The
House passed the regular Department of Agriculture appropriation
bill. It went to the Senate. The Senate placed amendments. The two
Houses were in disagreement and conferees were appointed. That
appropriation bill is in conference. This afternoon certain members
of the Appropriations Committee who happened to be the conferees on
the agriculture bill brought in another and different appropriation
[[Page 5184]]
bill.(10) It was passed under suspension of the rules,
with a new number. It had no connection with the bill in
conference. It was an independent bill. After that bill passed the
House and went to the Senate, the Senate recognized it as a new
appropriation bill, which it is, and treated it according to the
rules of the Senate, and referred it to the Appropriations
Committee of the Senate for consideration. The Senate conferees had
no part in framing the new bill. So that today the regular
agriculture appropriation bill is in conference between the two
Houses. Today's House action has had no effect on the conference
committee. Another appropriation bill covering much of the same
matter has been referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 7349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: I think the gentleman's statement fairly
presents the picture except--I would not want to take issue--but I
would want to enlarge or express my own views on one observation
which the gentleman made--that it had no relationship to the bill
in conference. It at least had an attempted relationship.
Mr. Mirchener: Yes; the two bills deal with the same subject
matter, but one bill was the legitimate child of the rules of the
House and the Appropriations Committee. The other bill was not.
Mr. McCormack: I am not taking issue with my friend, but I will
certainly say there was an attempted relationship. At least the
House in its own way attempted to meet the legislative situation
that exists.
Amendment by Concurrent Resolution
Sec. 13.19 Items in an appropriation bill not in disagreement between
the two Houses, and hence not committed to the conferees, have been
changed through consideration by unanimous consent of a concurrent
resolution directing the changes in the enrollment of the bill.
On July 23, 1962, (11) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 14400-03, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
unanimous agreement of last Friday, I call up for consideration a
House concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 505
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be
authorized and directed in the enrollment of the bill H.R.
11038 to make the following changes in the engrossed House
bill:
(1) Page 2, strike out lines 13 to 16, inclusive. . . .
(28) Page 14, strike out lines 4 to 7, inclusive.
(29) Page 14, strike out lines 17 to 21, inclusive.
Mr. Thomas (interrupting reading of the House concurrent
resolution): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the resolution be dispensed with, I shall attempt to
explain what it is.
The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5185]]
There was no objection.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled this deals with
what we call the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1962
When the supplemental left the House it had 55 items carrying about
$447 million, which was a reduction, in round figures, of $100
million under the budget, a reduction of about 20 percent.
It went to the other body and that body added some 29 items,
increasing the amount over the House by $112 million, which made a
round figure of about $560 million.
We bring to you two items, one a concurrent resolution and the
other a conference report. First, why the concurrent resolution? We
put in the concurrent resolution some 29 items which were
originally in the supplemental, but those 29 items are a
reduction--follow me now--below the figure that was in the
supplemental when it left the House and the figure when it left the
Senate.
It is a complete reduction and a change. It is in the
concurrent resolution because it could not be in the conference
report, and the reason it could not be in the conference report is
because it is a reduction in those amounts. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The second supplemental appropriation bill,
H.R. 11038, was passed by the House on Mar. 30, 1962; by the
Senate, amended, on Apr. 6. The conference report was not filed
until July 20. Since fiscal year 1962 expired on June 30, the
need for some of the funds in the bill had dissipated. To
eliminate the sums no longer required and not in disagreement,
the concurrent resolution was agreed to.