[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters]
[§ 2. Points of Order; Timeliness]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 5235-5264]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
Sec. 2. Points of Order; Timeliness
As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require
consideration in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the
enforcement of Rule XXI clause 2 must ordinarily occur during
consideration in Committee of the Whole, where the Chair, on the
raising of a point of order, may rule out any portion of the bill in
conflict with the rule. No report of parts of the bill thus ruled out
is made to the House. It is the practice, therefore, for some Member to
reserve points of order when a general appropriation bill is referred
to Committee of the Whole, in order that portions in violation of the
rule may be eliminated in the Committee. On one occasion where points
of order were not reserved against an appropriation bill when it was
reported to the House and referred to the Committee of the Whole,
points of order in the Committee of the Whole against a proposition in
violation of this clause were overruled, on the ground that the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole lacked authority to pass upon
the question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General appropriation bills are read ``scientifically'' only by
paragraph headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order
against a paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto
or before the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount. Where
the bill is considered as having been read and open to amendment by
unanimous consent, points of order against provisions in the bill must
be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be reserved pending
subsequent action on amendments.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See the discussion in House Rules and Manual Sec. 835
(1983). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reservation of Points of Order
Sec. 2.1 Since points of order had not been reserved on an
appropriation bill when it was reported to the House and referred
to the Committee of the Whole, points of order against a
proposition in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 were overruled on the
ground that the Chairman lacked authority to pass upon the
question.
[[Page 5236]]
On Apr. 8, 1943, the Clerk read a provision of a bill containing
legislative and judiciary appropriations for 1944,(9) as
follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. H.R. 2409.
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3150, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries of clerks of courts: For salaries of clerks of United
States circuit courts of appeals and United States district courts,
their deputies, and other assistants, $2,542,900: Provided, That
the positions of deputy clerk of the United States district court
at Springfield, Mass., Cumberland, Md. . . . and Pueblo, Colo., are
hereby abolished and such provisions of law as require offices of
clerks of courts to be maintained at such places are hereby
repealed.
The following points of order were then made: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 3150, 3151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the material contained in line 20, page 55,
down to the end of the paragraph on page 56, line 11, is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that there was no reservation made when this bill
was introduced with reference to points of order, and the Record
will bear me out. Therefore a point of order against anything in
the bill now is not in order.
The Chairman (12) subsequently ruled as follows:
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James P. McGranery (Pa.).
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3153, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is prepared to rule, if there is no withdrawal of the
points of order.
In this connection the Chair feels that there is a duty upon
all Members to read the rules, which are published. This is not
just mere custom, as the Chair sees it.
The Journal discloses that there were no points of order
reserved on the pending bill when it was reported to the House on
April 6, 1943.
The Chair has been very deeply impressed with the decisions on
this question which run back to 1837, particularly an opinion
expressed by Chairman Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, on March 31,
1896--Hinds' Precedents, volume V, section 6923--in which it was
stated:
In determining this question the Chair thinks it is
important to take into consideration the organization and power
of the Committee of the Whole, which is simply to transact such
business as is referred to it by the House. Now, the House
referred the bill under consideration to this Committee as an
entirety, with directions to consider it. The objection raised
by the gentleman from North Dakota would, in effect, cause the
Chair to take from the Committee the consideration of part of
this bill, which has been committed to it by the House. The
Committee has the power to change or modify this bill as the
Members, in their wisdom, may deem wise and proper, but it is
not for the Chairman, where no points of order were reserved in
the House against the bill. . . . The effect would be, should
the Chair sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from
North Dakota, to take from the consideration of the Committee
of the Whole a part of this bill which has been committed to it
by the House without reservation of this right to the Chairman.
[[Page 5237]]
Hopkins then held that he had no authority to sustain a point
of order against an item in the bill.
The present occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow
the precedents heretofore established and sustains the point of
order made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran).
Note: On occasion, a Member has by unanimous consent reserved
points of order against an appropriation bill already reported and
referred to the Calendar.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reservation of Points of Order Against Amendments
Sec. 2.2 The reservation of a point of order against an amendment to an
appropriation bill is within the discretion of the Chair. Thus,
even though a Member states that he ``will reserve a point of
order'' and then seeks the Chair's recognition to speak in
opposition to the amendment, the Chair may dispose of the point of
order first.
On June 6, 1963,(15) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6754, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill.
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 10411, 10412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 33,
after line 12, insert the following:
``Sec. 607. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to
pay the salary of any officer or employee who negotiates agreements
or contracts or in any other way, directly or indirectly, performs
duties or functions incidental to supporting the price of Upland
Middling Inch cotton at a level in excess of 30 cents a pound.''
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment, but I will reserve the point
of order at this time.
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Mississippi
reserves the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. . . .
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak
on the point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten]
press his point of order?
Mr. Whitten: I will not press it for the moment and yield to
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones].
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri has indicated he
desires to be heard on the point of order which has not been made.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, if I may.
[[Page 5238]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the
basis that the prohibition that would be set up here would require
new duties to be performed in determining who negotiates, whether
their actions constitute negotiations, or whether their actions in
any of these particulars are in such a manner as to have their
salaries not paid, particularly in view of other laws which require
that employees of the Federal Government be paid certain specified
sums.
Mr. Chairman, it does call for new duties and there is no
limitation in its entirety.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones]
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Jones of Missouri: I desire to be heard, Mr. Chairman, on
the point of order. . . . Mr. Chairman, I contend this is
legislation on an appropriation bill because it would prohibit the
Secretary from carrying out the duties and the authority that he
has under legislation that has not been changed. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an
amendment which provides for the insertion of a new section, which
amendment provides in words that none of the funds provided in the
pending bill shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or
employee who does certain things.
In the opinion of the Chair, that constitutes within the rules
of the House a limitation on the funds being appropriated and is a
proper form of limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point
of order.
Effect of Conceding Point of Order
Sec. 2.3 Where a point of order is made against language in an
appropriation bill and the point is conceded by the Member handling
the bill, the Chair normally sustains the point of order.
On Apr. 12, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11666, a State, Justice, and Judiciary Departments
appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For expenses necessary for permanent representation. . .
$1,850,000.
Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and
running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an
appropriation not authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to page 7 of the report on
the pending bill, H.R. 11666, which states:
The following table sets forth the amounts allowed for each
organization.
Item 7 provides $30,000 for the Interparliamentary Union.
Mr. Chairman, I also call your attention to page 1035 of the
hearings and the justification for this appropriation, from which I
read as follows:
The act of June 28, 1935, as amended by Public Law 409, ap
[[Page 5239]]
proved February 6, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 276), authorizes an amount
of $15,000 to assist in meeting the expenses of the American
group of the Interparliamentary Union for each fiscal year.
I further read from the justification to be found on the same
page:
Although the enabling legislation authorizes an
appropriation of $15,000, there is included in this request
$30,000.
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this violates rule
21, paragraph 2, of Cannon's Procedures which provides that no
appropriation shall be made without prior authorization.
The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from New York
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: . . . It is the fact, and
we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has been in
existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an authorization for
expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the newly created
NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian Interparliamentary
Union have authorizations for $30,000. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of
order is well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
Point of Order Against Part of Paragraph
Sec. 2.4 Where a point of order is made against an entire paragraph in
an appropriation bill on the ground that a portion thereof is in
conflict with the rules of the House and the point of order is
sustained, the entire paragraph is eliminated.
On July 23, 1970,(19) 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 occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I make a further point of order under
this title and under the heading ``Office of Economic
Opportunity,'' on page 38, lines 1 through 25, including the colon
after the word ``grant'', predicated upon the fact that this is
further legislation in an appropriation bill and that it involves
specifically, Mr. Chairman, the phrase on line 14 ``and for
purchase of real property for training centers:'' and other
legislation language which is foreign to an appropriation bill. . .
.
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, may I be
heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky will be heard.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the point of order
raised by
[[Page 5240]]
the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman moved to strike the
language on page 38 from what line through what line?
Mr. Hall: The Chair has just repeated it. Line 1, including the
title and the heading, down through the colon following the word
``grant.''
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, lines 1
through 5 including the amount authorized and appropriated,
$2,046,200,000, follows the language in the authorization bill. We
do have some new language commencing on lines 14 through 15 that is
not in the authorization bill presently, but this is the language
that has been carried on previous appropriation bills. The language
that I specifically refer to that is not in the authorization bill
is on line 14 after ``1964,'' commencing with ``and for purchase of
real property for training centers.''
Now, this language is not in the authorization bill.
The language commencing on line 18 and the rest of the
paragraph down to line 21 is language on an appropriation bill, in
my judgment, because there is nothing in the authorization bill.
But we certainly do not want the amount that is appropriated for
the economic opportunity act stricken from this bill. It is in
strict compliance with the authorization amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
There are ample precedents for ruling a complete paragraph out
of order, if any part of that paragraph is out of order. The
gentleman from Kentucky has conceded that part of it is not in
order, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order made by
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall).
Sec. 2.5 When part of a paragraph is subject to be stricken on a point
of order as being legislation, the entire paragraph is subject to
the point of order.
On May 11, 1960,(1) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 12117) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 10032, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec.
19726, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1961 (proceedings
relating to H.R. 9169); and 83 Cong. Rec. 652, 75th Cong. 3d
Sess., Jan. 17, 1938 (proceedings relating to H.R. 8947, a
Treasury and Post Office Departments appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Marketing services: For services relating to agricultural
marketing and distribution, for carrying out regulatory acts
connected therewith, and for administration and coordination of
payments to States, $26,838,000 . . . Provided, That the
Department is hereby authorized and directed to make such
inspection of poultry products processing plants as it deems
essential to the protection of public health and to permit the
use of appropriate inspection labels where it determines from
such inspection that such plants operate in a manner which
protects the public health, and not less than $500,000 shall be
available for this purpose.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a
[[Page 5241]]
point of order against the language beginning in line 2, page 17,
commencing with the word ``Provided,'' right down through the end
of that paragraph on page 17, line 9.
This constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the entire paragraph, beginning in line 15,
page 16, through line 9 on page 17, on the ground it is legislation
on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the
committee does not care to oppose the point of order. I do not
think there is any question but what points of order lie.
The Chairman:(2) The gentleman from Mississippi
concedes both points of order. The Chair sustains the point of
order of the gentleman from Minnesota and the entire paragraph is
ruled out as legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.6 Where a point of order is made against an entire proviso on
the ground that a portion of it is subject to the point of order,
and the point of order is sustained, the entire proviso is
eliminated.
On Apr. 16, 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. 3491-94, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of
sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act . . . not to exceed $50,000 for the preparation and
display of exhibits. . . . Provided further, That in order to
effect (specified reductions) such part of the funds available for
salaries and administrative expenses shall be transferred under
section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing extension services
of the land-grant colleges in the several States to enable them to
carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional
activities in connection with such programs in these States and no
other funds than those so transferred shall be expended for such
activities . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, persons who in 1943 carry out farming operations
as tenants or sharecroppers on cropland owned by the United States
Government and who comply with the terms and conditions of the 1943
agricultural conservation program, formulated pursuant to sections
7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act, as amended, shall be entitled to apply for and receive
payments, or to retain payments heretofore made, for their
participation in said program to the same extent as other
producers. . . .
Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fulmer: On Page 65, beginning in line 9, with the words
``Provided further,'' I make a point of order against
[[Page 5242]]
all of that section down to line 18, including the word
``activities,'' the language reading, ``Provided further,'' That in
order to effect such 50-percent reduction such part of the funds
available for salaries and administrative expenses shall be
transferred under section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act of February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing
extension services of the land-grant colleges in the several States
to enable them to carry out all necessary educational,
informational, and promotional activities in connection with such
programs in these States and no other funds than those so
transferred shall be expended for such activities''; that it is the
legislation on an appropriation bill without authorization. I make
that point of order. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman has other points of order against
the paragraph?
Mr. Fulmer: Yes.
The Chairman: Will the gentleman indicate those?
Mr. Fulmer: On page 67, line 16, down to and including line 3
on page 68, which language is as follows: ``Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943
carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on
cropland owned by the United States Government and who comply with
the terms and conditions of the 1943 agricultural conservation
program, formulated pursuant to sections 7 to 17 inclusive, of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, shall be
entitled to apply for and receive payments, or to retain payments
heretofore made, for their participation in said program to the
same extent as other producers: And provided further, That no part
of such amount shall be available for carrying out the provisions
of section 202 (a) to (f) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938,'' on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation
bill without any authorization in law. . . .
Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, if a part of a paragraph or section in
a bill is subject to a point of order and a point of order is made
to the paragraph or section, does that not carry out the entire
paragraph or section?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, for
clarification, the point of order was not made against the entire
paragraph as I understand it.
The Chairman: The entire proviso. That is what the gentleman
had in mind?
Mr. Bland: Yes. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the first point of
order submitted by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer].
. . .
The gentleman from Illinois concedes that the point of order is
sound and well taken for that part of the proviso beginning after
the word ``States'' in line 15, as follows: ``to enable them to
carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional
activities, that it is subject to the point of order, being
legislation upon an appropriation bill.
[[Page 5243]]
If any part of the proviso is subject to a point of order, the
whole proviso falls, therefore the Chair sustains the point of
order made by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer]. . . .
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I
understood there was a point of order against another portion of
the paragraph, the concluding proviso. I only wish to be heard at
this time on the point of order as far as it relates to the
concluding proviso, that is, on page 68, line 1:
That no part of such amount shall be available for carrying
out the provisions of section 202 (a) to (f) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
Those are the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 which make available $4,000,000 from this fund for the
maintenance of the four regional laboratories. We have already
appropriated in a preceding paragraph of the bill $4,000,000, from
the Federal Treasury and not from this fund for those laboratories.
For that reason, it became necessary to provide that the same
amount should not again be made available from this particular
fund, which would result in $8,000,000 being made available to the
four regional laboratories when no such amount was estimated
therefor.
This is a limitation under the Holman rule. This simply limits
the expenditures which are authorized under this paragraph, so that
this appropriation which has already been made in a preceding
paragraph of the bill cannot be duplicated from these funds.
Mr. Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, after rereading this provision and
hearing the gentleman's argument, I confine my point of order to
the proviso on page 67 beginning in line 16 and running down
through line 25, ending with the word ``producers.'' . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from South Carolina makes the point of order
against the language beginning in line 16 and running down to and
including the word ``producers'' in line 25 that it is legislation
on an appropriation bill. With the information available to the
Chair, the Chair is of the opinion that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill, and sustains the point of order.
Sec. 2.7 A point of order may be made against part of a paragraph
which, if sustained, would not necessarily affect the remainder of
such paragraph unless a point of order were specifically made
against the entire paragraph.
On Mar. 30, 1954,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 100 Cong. Rec. 4108, 4109, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: For
an additional amount for payment of capital grants as authorized by
title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1453,
1456), $39,000,000, to remain available until expended: Pro
[[Page 5244]]
vided, That no funds in this or any other act shall be available
for payment of capital grants under any contract involving the
development or redevelopment of a project for predominantly
residential uses unless incidental uses are restricted to those
normally essential for residential uses: Provided further, That
before approving any local slum clearance program under title I of
the Housing Act of 1949, the Administrator shall give consideration
to the efforts of the locality to enforce local codes and
regulations relating to adequate standards of health, sanitation,
and safety for dwellings and to the feasibility of achieving slum
clearance objectives through rehabilitation of existing dwellings
and areas: Provided further, That the authority under title I of
the National Housing Act shall be used to the utmost in connection
with slum rehabilitation needs.
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the proviso appearing on page 28, lines 13
to 18, on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from California
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman. I think
we are compelled to concede the point of order and I submit an
amendment to replace it. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to make a point of
order to one part of a paragraph and have it limited to that
particular part?
The Chairman: A Member may make a point of order to any
objectionable language in the paragraph.
Mr. Whitten: Separating it from the remainder of the paragraph?
The Chairman: Yes.
Timeliness--Objection to Consideration
Sec. 2.8 A point of order against consideration of a general
appropriation bill, on grounds that the total of proposed
appropriations exceeds the total amount authorized, will not lie in
the House. The proper time to demand enforcement of Rule XXI clause
2 (the rule against reporting appropriations not previously
authorized) is when such item is read for amendment in the
Committee of the Whole.
On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23140, 23141, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the
[[Page 5245]]
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10871)
making appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes;
and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate on the bill be limited to 3 hours, one-half of that
time to be controlled by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Shriver]
and one-half to be controlled by myself.
The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, at the proper time I shall ask for recognition to make a
point of order against consideration of the bill. I should like to
be advised as to that time.
The Speaker: The Chair will say that if the unanimous-consent
request is granted the gentleman may then assert whatever he wants
to under the rules.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against
consideration of this bill on the ground that in adoption of the
conference report by the Congress, and with the signature of the
President of the United States now a fact, and, therefore, the
authorization bill is law, it includes a new section, section 649,
which reads as follows:
Limitation on aggregate authority for use in the fiscal
year 1966. . . .
The Speaker: What is the number of that section?
Mr. Gross: Section 649.
The Speaker: Of the authorization bill?
Mr. Gross: Of the authorization bill, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the
aggregate of the total amount 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 million. . . .
The limitation contained in the conference report, which is now
law, is $3,360 million. The report accompanying this bill states
clearly there is sought to be appropriated by this bill
$3,630,622,000.
Mr. Passman: . . . Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
attention to the fact that the authorization bill limited new
appropriations to $3,360 million. We are only recommending new
appropriations in the amount of $3,285 million which is $75 million
below the amount authorized.
Under section 645 of the basic act, and I quote:
Unexpended balances: Funds made available pursuant to this
Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1955, as amended, 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. Speaker, this is the basic legislation.
If I may make one further observation, Mr. Speaker, a good part
of the section that the gentleman is referring
[[Page 5246]]
to has to do with no-year funds anyway. The no-year funds in which
the appropriation or unexpended balance is automatically carried
forward would be $120,978,000. We have moved on the premise that
the original basic act authorized the continuation of the
unexpended or unobligated funds from previous years. . . .
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the new section
inserted in the authorization bill which has been read, and I am
sure the Speaker understands it thoroughly, makes no provision for
new funds. It says explicitly, ``notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the limitation is $3,360 million.''
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Without passing upon the question, that might arise later on,
if it does, the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order
should be made against the item or items in the appropriation bill
which the gentleman from Iowa might claim to be in excess of the
amount authorized by law, and not against the consideration of the
bill itself.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
The question is on the motion.
Sec. 2.9 A point of order against an unauthorized appropriation does
not lie in the House against consideration of a special
appropriation bill made in order pursuant to a rule reported from
the Committee on Rules.
Where the House had agreed to a resolution providing for
consideration of a joint resolution making temporary appropriations, an
objection to consideration of the joint resolution on the ground that
the authorization for the appropriations therein had expired was held
not to be in order. The proceedings on Aug. 21, 1951,(9)
during which the House was considering House Resolution 397, making in
order the consideration of House Joint Resolution 320, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10479-81, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See also Sec. 2.8,
supra. The point of order based on lack of authorization only
lies against an item in a general appropriation bill when that
item is read for amendment in Committee of the Whole under the
five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 397) which I submitted earlier in the day,
making in order House Joint Resolution 320, 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. 320) amending an act making temporary appropriations for
the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes. . . . At the
conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the joint
resolution to
[[Page 5247]]
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.
The Speaker: (10) The question is, Will the House
consider the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House decided to consider the joint resolution. . . .
[The resolution was subsequently agreed to.] (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 10481, 82d 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 joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 320) amending an act making temporary
appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against consideration of the joint resolution on the
ground that the authorization has expired, and that there is no
authorization for this appropriation.
The Speaker: The resolution just adopted makes in order the
consideration of the joint resolution, and, therefore, the point of
order does not lie.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Point of Order During Reading
Sec. 2.10 A point of order against a paragraph of a general
appropriation bill on the ground that it is legislation will not
lie until the paragraph is read; and such a point of order is not
precluded by the fact that, by unanimous consent, an amendment was
offered to the paragraph before it was read.
On July 31, 1969,(12) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 13111) the following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall
be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any
school or the attendance of students at a particular school as
a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise
available to any State, school district, or school.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise
the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this
is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of
the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not
a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional
duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408
because it would require additonal personnel to determine whether
busing has been
[[Page 5248]]
used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, two, to require
the attendance of any student at any particular school. You would
have to have investigators there to determine this as a condition
precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any
State school district or school. No. 1, for the abolition of any
school, and No. 2, whether the attendance of any student at any
particular school could be investigated there to determine this as
a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise
available to any State, school district or school.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chairman to sustain the
point of order.
The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from
Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I raised the point awhile ago that the gentleman,
having asked unanimous consent that the amendments to the two
sections be considered en bloc and having obtained that unanimous-
consent request, and after having the amendments considered en bloc
in connection with the two sections, that the House has already
considered section 409 and the point of order comes too late. That
is the situation on the one hand.
Second, a reading of the section clearly shows that the House
has already considered section 409 in connection with the prior
amendments. In addition to that, this is clearly a limitation on an
appropriation bill and does not have to conform to the Holman rule.
. . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The objection of the gentleman from Mississippi which has been
made to the effect that this section had been considered when, by
unanimous consent amendments to the two sections were considered,
does not nullify the fact that section 409 had not been read.
Therefore, when section 409 was read it was subject to points of
order.
Sec. 2.11 A point of order against a paragraph of a general
appropriation bill is not in order until that paragraph is read;
and the Chairman has declined to recognize a Member to make a point
of order against both paragraphs of a particular section when only
the first of such paragraphs has been read.
On June 4, 1970,(14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 107. (a) No assistance shall be furnished under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country
which sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry
to carry to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the Castro
regime, in addition to those items contained on the list
maintained by the Administrator pursuant to title I of the
Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, as amended, any
arms, ammunition, implements of war, atomic energy
[[Page 5249]]
materials, or any other articles, materials or supplies of
primary strategic significance used in the production of arms,
ammunition, and implements of war or of strategic significance
to the conduct of war; including petroleum products.
Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman,
I make a point of order against section 107(a) on the ground that
it is legislation in an appropriations bill.
The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman make his point
of order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frelinghuysen: When I get the opportunity, I shall
certainly make the point of order against section (b) also. If it
is in order, I shall be glad to make the point of order against
both sections (a) and (b) at this time.
The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to rule on the sections
separately. The gentleman has made a point of order against section
107(a). The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Sec. 2.12 A point of order against language in a general appropriation
bill comes too late after the reading of the subsequent paragraph.
On June 6, 1963,(16) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 6754) proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec.
24752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 16, 1963 (H.R. 9499).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning
with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on
line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation
bill.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair may say to the
gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The
Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Considered as Read
Sec. 2.13 Where all of a general appropriation bill (and not just the
portion not yet read), was, by unanimous consent, considered as
read and open to points of order and amendment at any point, the
Chairman sustained a point of order against a provision conceded to
be legislation in a paragraph which had been passed in reading for
amendment when the unanimous-consent request was agreed to.
On June 7, 1972,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill
(H.R. 15259), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
General Operating Expenses
General operating expenses, $65,029,000, of which $629,700
shall
[[Page 5250]]
be payable from the highway fund (including $72,400 from the
motor vehicle parking account), $94,500 from the water fund,
and $67,300 from the sanitary sewage works fund. . . .
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered
as read, open to amendment at any point, and subject to any points
of order.
The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state his point
of order.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3,
line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:
Provided, That the certificates of the Commissioner (for
$2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500)
shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this
appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony
expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary:
In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order
against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line
13.
This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill
without authorization.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has
raised his point of order was previously read prior to the
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to
amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request
was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be
heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Hall] is correct, and we concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of
order is sustained.
Are there any further points of order?
Are there any amendments to be proposed?
Bill Opened for Amendment at Any Point
Sec. 2.14 Where an appropriation bill partially read for amendment is
then opened for amendment ``at any point'' (rather than for ``the
remainder of the bill''), points of order to paragraphs already
read may yet be entertained.
On June 7, 1972,(20) in a paragraph appropriating funds
for
[[Page 5251]]
general operating expenses for the District of Columbia, a proviso
stating that certificates of the Commissioner and Chairman of the City
Council shall be sufficient vouchers for expenditure from that
appropriation was conceded to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 2 and was ruled out on a point of order. The part of the bill
against which the point of order was directed had been read prior to a
unanimous-consent request that the bill be open for amendment at any
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order.
The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Missouri will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3,
line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:
Provided, That the certificate of the Commissioner (for
$2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500)
shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this
appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony
expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary. . . .
In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order
against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line
13.
This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill
without authorization.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has
raised his point of order was previously read prior to the
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to
amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request
was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be
heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall) is correct, and we concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of
order is sustained.
Are there any further points of order?
Are there any amendments to be proposed? (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1973
[H.R. 8658].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has granted unanimous
consent that the remainder of a general appropriation bill be
considered as read and open to points of order or amendment at any
point, the Chair first inquires whether any Member desires to raise
a point of order against any portion of
[[Page 5252]]
the pending text, and then recognizes Members to offer amendments
to that text.
On Feb. 19, 1970,(3) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15931) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 2.22, infra,
as to the proper time for making points of order against
provisions of the bill where the bill is considered as read and
open to points of order and amendments at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the
bill be considered as read and open to points of order or amendment
at any point.
The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
make a point of order against the language contained in section
411, beginning on line 12, through line 20 on page 61, which reads
as follows:
Sec. 411. In the administration of any program provided for
in this Act, as to which the allocation, grant, apportionment,
or other distribution of funds among recipients is required to
be determined by application of a formula involving the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available for distribution, the
amount available for expenditure or obligation (as determined
by the President) shall be substituted for the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available in the application of
the formula.
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that the
section in question constitutes legislation on an appropriation
bill and does not come within the exception.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, the language is patently legislation
on an appropriation bill. I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania concedes the
point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the language on page 57, lines 9 through 16, which reads as
follows:
Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic
Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory
funding levels, including mandatory funding levels for the
newly authorized programs for alcoholic counseling and recovery
and for drug rehabilitation, shall be effective during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970: Provided further, That of the
sums appropriated not less than $22,000,000 shall be used for
the family planning program.
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that it
is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
[[Page 5253]]
Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it
is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Flood: Not on this point, Mr. Chairman; no.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition
on this point of order:
Mr. O'Hara: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment simply restates
existing law in the authorizing legislation, and if that is indeed
the case, I do not think it is subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair will say that if this restates existing
law, there is no point in it being in the bill, and the fact that
it is in the bill on its face would indicate there must be
legislation in it in addition to that contained in existing law.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
Are there any further points of order?
The Chair will recognize at this time Members who wish to offer
amendments.
Sec. 2.16 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill
comes too late when the Committee of the Whole has granted
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as
read and open at any point to points of order or to amendments and
the Chairman has asked for amendments after having asked for points
of order.
On Aug. 19, 1949,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6008, a supplemental appropriation bill. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See also
Sec. 2.22, infra, as to the proper time for making points of
order against provisions of the bill where the bill is
considered as read and open to points of order and amendments
at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as
read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
If not, are there any amendments?
Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wheeler: On page 6, line 17,
strike out all the paragraph to and including all of lines 16
on page 7. . . .
Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation
bill.
[[Page 5254]]
The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time
the further reading of the bill was dispensed with, the Chair
requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that
time.
After Request for Additional Debate
Sec. 2.17 After an amendment to an appropriation bill has been read by
the Clerk and a reservation of objection has been made against a
unanimous-consent request for an additional five minutes' debate,
it has been held to be too late to raise a point of order against
the amendment.
On Feb. 1, 1938,(7) The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On
page 57, in line 19, strike out ``$900,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$1,900,000.''
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object----
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that this increase is not authorized
by law.
The Chairman: (8) The point of order of the
gentleman from New York comes too late. A request has already been
presented, and there has been a reservation of objection to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Withdrawal of Reservation
Sec. 2.18 A point of order against an amendment to an appropriation
bill does not come too late if made immediately after the
withdrawal of a prior reservation of a point of order since the
initial reservation of a point of order inures to all Members.
On Mar. 27, 1962,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10904, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 5165, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital Construction Activities
To carry out the provisions of title VI of the Act, as amended,
$188,572,000. . . .
Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
[[Page 5255]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of New York: On page 25, line
21, immediately before the period insert the following:
``Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated in
this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any
hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having
separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the
basis of race, creed, or color.''
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve the point of order.
Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I
rise to support an amendment which would provide a limitation upon
the appropriations for hospital construction activities: that is,
relating to page 25 of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the use of funds
appropriated under the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction
for segregated facilities.
The Hill-Burton program has provided Federal financing to help
construct more than 2,000 medical care facilities in 11 Southern
States. Since the inception of the Hill-Burton program these States
have received $562,921,000 for hospital construction. Authorities
have pointed out that virtually all of these institutions
discriminate in various ways against Negro citizens. . . .
Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, is it in order
for me at this time to make a point of order against the amendment?
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Rhode Island
has reserved his point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode
Island insist on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have
stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I
ask the committee to vote down the amendment.
Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to make
a point of order against the amendment?
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, does not the
point of order come too late?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia is making a
parliamentary inquiry at the present time.
Mr. Yates: I beg pardon.
Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time
the gentleman from Rhode Island was recognized and I was on my feet
for the purpose of making a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Rhode Island being a member of
the committee, the custom is that he be recognized first.
The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, has not the point of order been waived
by the gentleman from Rhode Island speaking to the question?
The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from
Rhode
[[Page 5256]]
Island was speaking to his point of order and insisted then on the
defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, no
point of order is proper at this time.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis]
now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order
against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the
gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order.
However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from
Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, one final parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of order by the
gentleman from Georgia come too late?
The Chairman: Not under the circumstances. The Chair would
assume there is a possibility of more than one point of order being
made and for more than one reason.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from New York has offered an
amendment to which a point of order has been made. The language of
the amendment to which a point of order has been raised is as
follows:
Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated
in this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any
hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having
separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the
basis of race, creed, or color.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a proper
limitation under the rules of the House and, therefore, overrules
the point of order.
Upon Third Reading
Sec. 2.19 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill is
not in order at the third reading of the bill in the House.
On June 6, 1963,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6754, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 10399, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning
with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on
line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation
bill.
The Chairman: (12) The Chair may say to the
gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The
Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 5257]]
Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to make a point
of order on the third reading of the bill?
The Chairman: No, it would not.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to
page 17 for the purpose of making a point of order.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Various Grounds for Objection
Sec. 2.20 Points of order were made against an entire title in an
appropriation bill for the Atomic Energy Commission which included,
in part, provisions for (1) the employment of aliens; (2) rental of
space upon a determination of need by the Administrator of General
Services; (3) use of unexpended balances of previous years; (4)
transfer of sums to other agencies; (5) a sum to remain available
until expended; (6) reappropriation of funds for plant and
equipment; and (7) a power reactor project not authorized by law
and the title was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
On July 24, 1956,(13) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the second supplemental appropriation bill, a
point of order was raised against a title containing provisions as
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 14289, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clarence Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and now be
open to points of order and amendments to any part of the bill.
The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title
I and also the item for the Bureau of Reclamation on page 7.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman making a point of order against
the entire title I?
Mr. Cannon: Title I and the material indicated as well as on
page 7.
The Chairman: Let us pass on one point of order at a time,
please. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of order made by
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] against title I?
Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: On what basis is the point
of order made?
Mr. Cannon: Not authorized by law and is legislation on an
appropriation bill.
[[Page 5258]]
Mr. Judd: A lot of it is authorized by law.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the items in
title I, with the exception of the several provisos, are entirely
within the statute and are authorized. I thought I had an
understanding that the only item to go out was the $400 million
item, but as long as the point of order is made on that, I will
offer an amendment to cover everything except that last proviso
after the point of order is disposed of.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, title I, in its entirety, is subject
to a point of order. Part of the paragraph being subject to a point
of order, the entire paragraph is subject to a point of order.
Title I is subject to a point of order on the ground that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from
Missouri makes the point of order against title I of the pending
bill on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill
or contains appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair has
gone through title I and has observed that every paragraph in it
either contains legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in
violation of the rules of the House, or contains appropriations
which are not authorized by law, which is also in violation of the
rules of the House.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Point of Order Too Late After Amendment Offered to Paragraph
Sec. 2.21 A point of order must be made against a paragraph of a
general appropriation bill after it is read and before an amendment
is offered thereto (even if the amendment is ruled out of order).
On June 22, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the Department of Transportation appropriation bill
(H.R. 3329), when an amendment was offered and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided under this Act for
Formula grants shall be made available to support mass transit
facilities, equipment, or operating expenses unless the
applicant for such assistance has given satisfactory assurances
in such manner and forms as the Secretary may require . . .
that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during
nonpeak hours shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally
applicable to other persons at peak hours: Provided, That the
Secretary, in prescribing the terms and conditions for the
provision of such assistance shall (1) permit applicants to
continue the use of preferential fare systems for elderly or
handicapped persons where those systems were in effect on or
prior to November 26, 1974. . . .
Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mra-
zek: Insert the following on page 36,
[[Page 5259]]
line 24, ending with the phrase ``prior to November 26, 1974,''
``provided that said applicant adopts and implements
appropriate standards of eligibility which includes those
citizens who reside in the district served by the mass transit
system''.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
I would remind the House under the rules of the House, though,
an issue of this kind with substantive merit needs to come before
the House--under the rules adopted primarily with votes from the
majority side earlier in this Congress--needs to come before the
body in the authorization bills rather than in the appropriations
bill.
In this particular instance, the amendment that we have before
us constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill under the
provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
My objection to the amendment rests on that procedural grounds
that legislation in an appropriations bill is beyond the scope of
the present consideration and that this amendment must properly be
brought before the House in the course of the authorization
process. . . .
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think
the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. The gentleman
might have and I indeed had considered making a point of order
against the section as being not in order for reasons that the
gentleman has stated with respect to this amendment.
No such point of order was made, however. Therefore, it is too
late to knock out the legislation on the basis that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
This amendment merely seeks to make technical changes in the
language which is already there and to which no objection was made.
Therefore, it should be in order. . . .
Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it seems
clear that the amendment proposed now that is in question deals
with perfecting language. We are talking about the very same
standards in this amendment that are recognized in the bill. All we
are talking about is extending those standards to another group of
citizens that are covered by this bill and this authority. . . .
The Chairman: (16) If no other Member wishes to be
heard, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the pending section of the bill includes legislation
which was allowed to remain when no point of order was raised, the
fact is that the amendment adds additional legislative requirements
that appropriate standards of eligibility be determined for an
additional category of citizens not covered by section 305 and,
therefore, the Chair must rule that it is more than perfecting and
in fact does constitute additional legislation on an appropriation
and is out of order at this time.
Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at this time,
then, to assert a point of order against section 305?
[[Page 5260]]
The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman that the
assertion of that point of order comes too late.
Time for Making Points of Order Against Provisions of Bill Considered
as Read
Sec. 2.22 Where a general appropriation bill is by unanimous consent
considered as read and open to points of order and then to
amendments at any point, points of order against provisions in the
bill must be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be
reserved pending subsequent action on amendments, since points of
order lie against provisions in the bill as reported under Rule XXI
clause 2, and separately against amendments in violation of that
rule.
On Dec. 1, 1982,(17) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriation bill (H.R. 7205), a parliamentary
inquiry was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 28175, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. Sec. 2.15,
2.16, supra, for earlier precedents on related issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The portion of the bill to which the parliamentary inquiry
relates is as follows:
special programs
For carrying out the consolidated programs and projects
authorized under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and
Improvement Act of 1981; . . .
. . . Mr. Chairman, is it possible, since the bill is open to
amendment [at] any point, to reserve a point of order and to make
it at a later time against certain lines in the bill?
The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the
point of order must be made at this time, before amendments are
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order Against Paragraph Where Amendment Has Been Offered
Sec. 2.23 While a point of order can be made against an entire
paragraph of a general appropriation bill if any portion
contravenes the rules, it is too late to rule out the entire
paragraph after points of order against specific portions have been
sustained and an amendment to the paragraph has been offered.
On June 27, 1974,(19) during consideration of the
Departments
[[Page 5261]]
of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R.
15580), the following proceedings occurred as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 21671, 21672, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flood: Page 18, line 7, insert ``:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pay any amount for basic opportunity grants for full-time
students at institutions of higher education who were enrolled
as regular students at such institutions prior to April 1,
1973.'' . . .
Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against this amendment. The point of order is what I cited a
moment ago, Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, on
page 246:
If a part of a paragraph . . . is out of order, all is out
of order and a point of order may be raised against the portion
out of order or against the entire paragraph. . . .
The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Flood), does appear to meet the tests of a limitation on an
appropriation bill. It limits the funds in this specific bill and
it is negatively stated. For these reasons it would clearly appear
to be admissible as a limitation, distinguishable from that
language which was stricken in the proviso that had appeared in the
original bill.
The Chair does not understand that the gentlewoman had raised a
point of order against the entire paragraph. The gentlewoman raised
two specific points of order on which the Chair ruled.
If the gentlewoman had at that time intended to make a point of
order against the entire paragraph she should so have stated, and
the Chair believes that a point of order at this moment on those
grounds would be untimely made since an amendment to the paragraph
is now pending.
Point of Order Weighed Against Bill as Amended
Sec. 2.24 A point of order against an amendment as legislation on a
general appropriation bill must be determined in relation to the
bill in its modified form (as affected by disposition of prior
points of order).
On June 14, 1978,(1) the Chair found that, to a general
appropriation bill from which all funds for the Federal Trade
Commission had been stricken as unauthorized, an amendment prohibiting
the use of all funds in the bill to limit advertising of (1) food
products containing ingredients found safe by the Food and Drug
Administration or considered ``generally recognized as safe'', or not
con
[[Page 5262]]
taining ingredients found unsafe by the FDA, and (2) toys not declared
hazardous or unsafe by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, imposed
new duties upon the Federal Communications Commission (another agency
funded by the bill) to evaluate findings of other federal agencies--
duties not imposed upon the FCC by existing law, and therefore violated
Rule XXI clause 2. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 58.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 17644-47, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserving Points of Order on General Appropriation Bill
Sec. 2.25 Once points of order have been reserved in the House against
provisions in a general appropriation bill pending a unanimous
consent request for filing of the report thereon and referral to
the Union Calendar when the House would not be in session, points
of order need not be reserved again when the report is filed from
the floor as privileged on a later day, as the initial reservation
carries over to any subsequent filing on that bill.
On Mar. 1, 1983,(2) privileged report was submitted on
H.R. 1718, the essential and productive jobs and unemployment
compensation appropriation bill, 1983:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi], from the Committee on
Appropriations, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-11) on
the bill (H.R. 1718) making appropriations to provide emergency
expenditures to meet neglected urgent needs, to protect and add to
the national wealth, resulting in not make-work but productive jobs
for women and men and to help provide for the indigent and homeless
for the fiscal year 1983, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) All points of order on
the bill have previously been reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: While there did not appear to be a
precedent directly on this point, it was decided merely as a matter of
convenience to the minority that where they have once reserved points
of order (so that provisions in violation of Rule XXI clauses 2 and 6
might be stricken on points of order by the Committee of the Whole and
not reported back to the House), the minority Member need not be back
on the floor to again reserve points of order when the report is filed.
Appropriation Bills Read ``Scientifically'' by Paragraph Headings
Sec. 2.26 General appropriation bills are read only by para
[[Page 5263]]
graph headings and appropriation amounts, and the Clerk reads the
page and line numbers of those headings for the information of
Members only when the reading of the bill has been interrupted by
debate or amendment.
On Nov. 30, 1982,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7158
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriation bill), the
Chair made a statement regarding the timeliness of points of order
during the reading of appropriation bills as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 128 Cong. Rec. 28066, 28067, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a point of order which I would like to assert at page 25,
lines 8 through 20.
The Chairman: (5) The Chair would advise the
gentleman in order to do that, that section of the bill having been
read, he will have to request unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to assert a point of order on page 25, lines 8 through
20. . . .
Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard. . . .
The Chair would make only one observation and that is this:
that the Clerk is reading this bill as Clerks for years and years
and years have read appropriation bills. Under that procedure,
normally page numbers are not cited at all unless the reading of
the bill has been interrupted by the offering of an amendment or by
debate.
So it does, the gentleman is correct, require closer attention
than the reading of a normal bill or bills other than appropriation
bills.
Chair Normally Does Not Ask For Points of Order
Sec. 2.27 The Chair does not inquire whether any points of order are to
be made against a paragraph of a general appropriation bill which
has been read by the Clerk (except where reading has been dispensed
with by unanimous consent).
On May 31, 1984,(6) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 610. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended to issue,
implement, administer, conduct or enforce any antitrust action
against a municipality or other unit of local government. . . .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5264]]
The Clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, is the Chair not going to ask for points of order on
this segment?
The Chairman: The Clerk had completed reading the section, so
the Chair did not ask for points of order.