appropriation bills - budget counsel

4969

Commentary and editing by David Bird, J.D., and John Darrouzet, J.D.

CHAPTER 25

Appropriation Bills

A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropria-tions

§ 1. Scope of Chapter§ 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized§ 3. Reappropriations§ 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills§ 5. Contingent Fund Expenditures

B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills§ 6. Generally; Privileged Status§ 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations—‘‘Continuing’’ Ap-

propriations§ 8. Consideration Made in Order by Special Rule or

Unanimous Consent§ 9. Waiver of Points of Order—by Resolution

§ 10. General Appropriation Bills Considered by Unani-mous Consent

§ 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments§ 12. Points of Order; Timeliness§ 13. House-Senate Relations

VerDate 18-JUN-99 10:45 Aug 26, 1999 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8890 Sfmt 8890 E:\RENEE\52093C25.TXT txed02 PsN: txed02

4971

INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Authorization of appropriationsappropriation measure, language of, as

authorization, §§ 2.5, 2.6‘‘authorized by law,’’ purposes, effect of

language limiting appropriations to,§§ 2.17–2.20

court judgment as, § 2.2executive order as, §§ 2.3, 2.4general grant of authority as author-

izing specific project, § 2.11implied, for necessary or incidental ex-

penses, § 2.10increasing appropriation within au-

thorized limits, §§ 2.13–2.16‘‘miscellaneous expenses,’’ appropria-

tion for, as authorized, § 2.12‘‘not less than’’ certain amount, lan-

guage authorizing appropriation of,held not to be appropriation, § 4.34

prior appropriation measure, languagein, as authorization, §§ 2.5, 2.6

reappropriations of unexpended bal-ances, see Reappropriations of unex-pended balances

refusal to appropriate for authorizedpurpose, § 2.1

Senate amendments, see Senateamendments

specific project authorized by generalgrant of authority, § 2.11

subsequent enactment of authoriza-tion, § 2.21

total amount authorized, amendmentincreasing appropriation to, § 2.16

Certification of court judgment toCongress as prerequisite toapropriation, § 2.2

Confereesappointed for separate chapters of ap-

propriation bill, §§ 13.4, 13.5chairman, selection of, agreement be-

tween Appropriation Committees of

Conferees—Cont.House and Senate as to, § 13.6Senate amendments providing for ap-

propriations in legislative bills, dutyof conferees as to, §§ 13.7–13.12

Conference reportconcurrent resolution, amendment of

items not in disagreement made by,§ 13.19

waiver of points of order against,§ 13.17

Confirmation, Senate, of appointeesas prerequisite to appropriationfor salaries, § 2.9

Constitutional rights of House in ini-tiation of revenue and appropria-tion bills, § 13.1

Contingent fund expenditureslayover requirement as applied to reso-

lution, § 5.1privileged, resolution as, §§ 5.1, 5.2surplus funds, transfer of, § 5.3

Continuing appropriationsprivileged, not reported as, § 7.2use of, § 7.1

Court judgment as authorization,§ 2.2

Debate, consideration andclose debate, motion to, § 11.1House as in Committee of the Whole,

§§ 11.5, 11.6reading bills for amendment, see Read-

ing bills for amendmentSenate amendments, § 11.2suspension of the rules, § 11.7terms of, §§ 11.3, 11.4

Enrollment, changes or correctionsin, §§ 11.29, 13.19

Executive order as authorization,§§ 2.3, 2.4

General appropriation bills, privi-leged status applicable only to,§§ 7.2–7.4, 7.6


4972

Ch. 25 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

General grant of authority as au-thorizing specific project, § 2.11

Germaneness rule applicable to ap-propriation bills, § 11.10

Implied authorization for necessaryor incidental expenses, § 2.10

Increasing appropriation within au-thorized limits, amendments,§§ 2.13–2.16

Judgment of court as authorization,§ 2.2

Legislative bills, appropriations ingenerally, prohibition against, § 4.1advances from Treasury directed to be

made ‘‘when appropriated,’’ § 4.38allocation of agency’s receipts, §§ 4.16–

4.19allocation of excess foreign currency,

§ 4.22allocation of funds to other agencies to

assist in carrying out purposes ofact, § 4.36

allocation of money repaid from loans,§ 4.21

allocation of proceeds of sale, § 4.20amendments to legislative bills, gen-

erally, § 4.24Area Redevelopment Fund, reconsti-

tuted appropriations authorized for,§§ 4.45, 4.46

conferees, duty of, as to appropriationscontained in Senate amendments,§§ 13.7–13.12

Corps of Engineers, amendment per-mitting use of appropriations ‘‘here-tofore or hereinafter made’’ by, § 4.33

definition of ‘‘appropriation’’ as ‘‘pay-ment of funds from the Treasury’’,§ 4.40

definition of ‘‘appropriation’’ discussed,generally, § 4.43

‘‘directed,’’ Secretary of Treasury au-thorized and, to purchase notes andobligations, § 4.43

diversion of funds to new purposes,§§ 4.4–4.9, 4.12, 4.13

emergency fund, amendment providingfor, § 4.25

exports, future, provision for use of for-eign currency proceeds from, § 4.44

farm loans, amendment authorizing,§ 4.37

fees or receipts of agency, allocation of,§§ 4.16–4.19

foreign credits, additional use of, § 4.23foreign credits, amendment providing

for use of, for new purpose, § 4.31foreign currency, excess, use of, § 4.22foreign currency proceeds from future

exports, provision for use of, § 4.44guaranteeing agencies authorized to

use funds ‘‘heretofore’’ approved,§ 4.27

Immigration and Naturalization Serv-ice, amendment providing for

expenditures from funds appropriatedfor, relating to detention of illegalaliens, § 4.29

interest paid to United States by India,amendment providing for expendi-ture of, § 4.28

loan repayments, use or allocation of,§§ 4.21, 4.46

membership in international organiza-tion, language authorizing Presidentto accept, as not involving appropria-tion, § 4.42

Mutual Security Agency, funds ‘‘here-tofore’’ appropriated for, amendmentproviding for use of, § 4.30

‘‘not less than’’ certain amount, lan-guage authorizing appropriation of,held to be authorization, § 4.34

portion of bill subject to point of order,§ 4.2

public debt issues, loans authorized tobe made from proceeds of, § 4.43


4973

Ch. 25APPROPRIATION BILLS

public debt transaction financing, Sen-ate ruling on, § 4.47

reappropriations as, §§ 4.4–4.7, 4.10,4.11, 4.35

receipts, allocation of, §§ 4.16–4.19sale, allocation of proceeds of, § 4.20same or related purposes, unobligated

funds previously appropriated for,§§ 4.10–4.13

school construction, amendment pro-viding for payment of allotments tostates for, from tax receipts, § 4.32

Senate ruling on public debt trans-action financing, § 4.47

special accounts for special purposes,language directing deposit of tax pro-ceeds in, § 4.39

tax receipts, amendment providing forpayment of allotments to statesfrom, for school construction, § 4.32

transfer of fund to new purposes,§§ 4.4–4.9, 4.12, 4.13

Treasurer directed or authorized to usefunds or make payments, §§ 4.14,4.15

Treasury account, provision for pay-ment into, of unused appropriations,§ 4.41

Treasury, payment of funds from, ‘‘ap-propriation’’ defined as, § 4.40

unemployment benefits, amendmentdirecting payments to states on ac-count of, § 4.26

unexpended appropriations, provisionrequiring payment into Treasury ac-count of, § 4.41

unobligated funds previously appro-priated for same or related purposes,§§ 4.10–4.13

waiver of points of order, § 4.3‘‘Miscellaneous expenses,’’ appro-

priation for, as authorized, § 2.12Necessary or incidental expenses as

impliedly authorized, § 2.10

Points of orderlegislative bill, points of order against

appropriation language included inconference report, § 13.12

precedence of, over amendments, § 12.3pro forma amendment, precedence of

point of order over, § 12.3recognition, priority in, § 12.4reservation of, prior to referral of bills

to Committee of the Whole, §§ 12.1,12.2

Senate bills, appropriations containedin, § 13.16

timeliness, see Timeliness of points oforder

two consecutive paragraphs, points oforder against, made by unanimousconsent, § 12.5

waiver of, against conference report,§ 13.17

Prior appropriation measure, lan-guage in, as authorization, §§ 2.5,2.6

Privileged status of appropriationbills

adjourn, motion to, automatic rollcallon motion to go into committee ofthe Whole after rejection of, § 6.2

agreement giving appropriation billprivilege over other privileged mat-ter, § 6.1

consideration, question of, determinedby House, § 6.2

continuing appropriations not privi-leged, § 7.2

general appropriation bills, privilegeapplicable only to, §§ 7.2–7.4, 7.6

reduction in appropriations, bill pro-viding for, § 7.6

relative privilege, § 6.1supplemental appropriations not privi-

leged, § 7.4Projects or purposes authorized by law,

effect of language expressly limitingappropriations to, §§ 2.17–2.20


4974


Reading bills for amendmentincreasing funds in bill, when per-

mitted, §§ 11.16–11.18paragraph, general appropriation bills

considered by, §§ 11.8, 11.9paragraph not yet read, effect of

amendment relating to, § 11.12paragraph, previous line in amend-

ment affecting, § 11.14passed, when paragraph considered as,

§ 11.11points of order, timeliness of, see Time-

liness of points of orderseparate votes in House on amend-

ments, § 11.21stricken, language previously, amend-

ment containing, § 11.15substitute, amendment in nature of,

§§ 11.19, 11.20unanimous consent, amendment of-

fered by, to paragraph passed inreading, § 11.13

Reappropriations of unexpendedbalances

generally, as prohibited, §§ 3.1–3.5authorization by statute as superseded

by later rule, § 3.6authorization by statute as super-

seding rules, §§ 3.7, 3.8authorization, lack of, for project as

barring reappropriation prior to ruleprohibiting reappropriations, § 3.14

Holman Rule not applicable, § 3.10legislative bills, prohibition under rule

against appropriations in, §§ 4.4–4.7,4.10, 4.11

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,enactment of prohibition in, rulingsprior to, §§ 3.12–3.15, 4.35

limitation, amendment prohibiting ex-penditures ‘‘so long as’’ prior appro-priations unexpended held to be per-missible as, § 3.11

Reappropriations of unexpendedbalances —Cont.

transfer of funds, § 3.9works in progress, for, § 3.15

Recognition, priority in, to makepoints of order, § 12.4

Recommittal of bill with instructionsamendments previously adopted by

House, changes not permitted in,§ 11.26

Committee of the Whole, motion rec-ommending recommittal made in,§ 11.22

deficiency appropriation bill, § 11.24inconsistent motions in Committee of

the Whole, § 11.22procedure upon reporting bill back

with amendment, § 11.23prohibition on use of appropriations,

§§ 11.27, 11.28reduction of total appropriation, in-

structions as to, §§ 11.25, 11.26scope of instructions, § 11.26

Reduction of total appropriation, re-committal of bill with instructionseffecting, §§ 11.25, 11.26

Refusal to appropriate for author-ized purpose, § 2.1

Repeal of prior authorization, § 2.22Reported, authorization enacted

after bill has been, § 2.21Salaries, appropriations for, as de-

pendent on Senate confirmation ofappointees, § 2.9

Scope of general authorization, spe-cific project as within, § 2.11

Senate amendmentsappropriations in legislative bills, duty

of conferees as to, §§ 13.7–13.12recede, motion to, agreed to in Senate,

§ 13.2reference of bill with Senate amend-

ments to Committee on Appropria-tions, § 13.3


4975

Ch. 25APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senate amendments —Cont.scope of House amendments to,

§§ 13.13–13.15unauthorized expenditures, Senate

amendment containing, perfection byHouse of, §§ 13.13, 13.14

Senate billpoint of order in House against appro-

priations in, § 13.16point of order, language in Senate bill

stricken pursuant to, in Committeeof the Whole, § 12.18

Special rule making consideration ofbill in order

closed rule, modified, form of, § 8.1continuing appropriations considered

in House as in Committee of theWhole, § 8.4

debate on, § 8.6deficiency appropriation bill, § 8.3previous question on special rule, rejec-

tion of, § 8.6rejection of special rule providing for

consideration of continuing appro-priation, § 8.5

temporary appropriations, § 8.1waiver of points of order against defi-

ciency appropriation bill, § 8.3waiver of points of order against gen-

eral appropriation bill, § 8.2Specific approval of project or ex-

penditure, effect of law requiring,§§ 2.7, 2.8

Specific project as authorized bygeneral grant of authority, § 2.11

Subsequent enactment of authoriza-tion, § 2.21

Supplemental appropriationsHouse as in Committee of the Whole,

consideration in, §§ 11.5, 11.6privileged, not reported as, § 7.4requests for consideration of, § 7.5unanimous consent, consideration by,

§ 10.1

Supplemental appropriations —Cont.waiver of points of order against provi-

sion, § 9.1waiver of points of order against spe-

cific paragraph, § 9.6waiver of points of order by unanimous

consent, § 10.1waiver of three-day availability re-

quirement, §§ 10.2, 10.3Suspension of rules for matters not

in disagreement between theHouses, § 13.18

Suspension of rules, passage of cer-tain provisions under, § 11.7

Timeliness of points of orderamendments, point of order too late

after consideration of, §§ 12.10, 12.11amendments, points of order against,

§ 12.13appropriations in legislative bills,

points of order against, §§ 12.14–12.18

considered as read, points of orderwhere bill has been, § 12.12

debate on paragraph, point of ordermade before, § 12.9

‘‘general’’appropriation bill, point oforder that bill is not, § 12.6

legislative bill, appropriation languagecontained in conference report on,§ 13.12

passed, point of order that paragraphhas been, § 12.7

reading of paragraph, point of ordermade after, §§ 12.8–12.11

Total amount authorized, amend-ment increasing appropriation to,§ 2.16

Unanimous consent, consideration ofappropriation bills by

any time, consideration at, § 8.20continuing appropriations, §§ 8.7–8.10,

8.12, 8.16–8.20


4976


Unanimous consent, consideration ofappropriation bills by —Cont.

general appropriation bills have beenconsidered by, §§ 10.1–10.3

House as in Committee of the Whole,consideration in, § 8.7

immediate consideration, § 8.21month, consideration during current,

§ 8.19reporting bill as nonprivileged, effect

of, § 8.8special rule superseded, § 8.14specified day, consideration on, § 8.9–

8.14supplemental appropriations, §§ 8.7,

8.11, 8.13, 8.14three-day availability requirement

waived, §§ 8.15, 10.2, 10.3waiver of three-day rule, §§ 8.15, 10.2,

10.3week, following, consideration during,

§§ 8.17, 8.18week, same, consideration during,

§ 8.16Waiver of points of order by resolu-

tionbill or provisions, points of order

against, § 9.5

Waiver of points of order by resolu-tion —Cont.

committee amendments, points oforder against, § 9.7

conference report, points of orderagainst, § 13.17

debate, general, waiver agreed to after,§ 9.1

deficiency appropriation bill, § 8.3general appropriation bill, § 8.2legislative language specifically made

in order, § 9.3paragraph, specified, excepted from

waiver, § 9.2paragraph, specified, of supplemental

appropriation bill protected, § 9.6paragraph, specified, points of order

waived as to, § 9.6three-day availability requirement

waived, § 9.4title, specified, points of order against,

§ 9.8West front extension, law requiring

specific approval of, § 2.7


4977

1. For earlier treatment of the subjectmatter of this chapter, see 4 Hinds’Precedents §§ 3553–3700; 7 Cannon’sPrecedents §§ 1116–1331, 1571–1578.

2. Ch. 26, infra.3. Ch. 17, supra. Similarly, this chapter

does not treat in any detail the var-ious powers and prerogatives of theHouse, including any constitutionalrestrictions affecting appropriationsfor particular purposes, such as the

constitutional stricture (see art. I § 8clause 12) that no appropriation ofmoney ‘‘to raise and support armies’’shall be for a longer term than twoyears. Matters relating to the powersand prerogatives of the House, gen-erally, including House authoritywith respect to revenue and appro-priation measures, are treated in Ch.13, supra.

4. Ch. 16, supra.

Appropriation Bills

A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONS

§ 1. Scope of Chapter

This chapter discusses consider-ation of appropriation bills on thefloor, beginning with proceduresfor reporting and calling up suchbills.(1) The requirement that ap-propriations contained in generalappropriation bills must havebeen previously authorized by lawis discussed in a general way; butdetailed treatment of the prohibi-tion against unauthorized appro-priations and legislation on gen-eral appropriation bills is to befound in a separate chapter.(2)

Matters relating to the duties,prerogatives, and jurisdiction ofthe Committee on Appropriationsare discussed in the chapter oncommittees of the House.(3)

Dicussion of referral of bills tocommittees is accordingly to befound in that chapter, althoughadditional related precedents maybe found in the chapter on intro-duction and reference of bills.(4) Itmay be noted for present purposesthat the Committee on Appropria-tions has jurisdiction over all gen-eral appropriation bills.

Similarly, issues related to com-mittee hearings and various over-sight functions of the Committeeon Appropriations are to some ex-tent covered in the chapter oncommittees; procedures and issuesthat have developed too recentlyfor inclusion in this edition will betaken up in supplements to thisedition as they appear. Accord-ingly, the general oversight re-


4978

DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTSCh. 25 § 1

5. Ch. 13, supra. See House Rules andManual §§ 1007–11 (1981) for provi-sions from the Congressional BudgetAct.

6. For further discussion of the aboveprovisions, see materials containedin the latest edition of the HouseRules and Manual, and supplementsto this edition of Deschler’s Prece-dents. See also the summary ofBudget Act provisions in Ch. 13,supra.

sponsibilities of the committeewith respect to conducting studiesand examinations of the organiza-tion and operation of executive de-partments and agencies are notdiscussed at length here. More-over, the hearings on the budgetas a whole which are conductedby the committee in open sessionwithin 30 days of submission ofthe budget are not covered in anydetail in this chapter.

In particular, procedures underthe Congressional Budget Act of1974, and the impact of such acton the congressional budget proc-ess and on the role of the Com-mittee on Appropriations, are nec-essarily given only limited treat-ment in this edition. A summaryof the act’s major provisions canbe found in the chapter on thepowers and prerogatives of theHouse.(5)

At this point, it is clear that theimpact of the Congressional Budg-et Act on the appropriations proc-ess and on the responsibilities ofthe Committee on Appropriationswill be considerable. For example,the committee is given certain re-sponsibilities with respect to re-scissions of appropriations, trans-fers of unexpended balances, and

the amount of new spending au-thority to be effective for a fiscalyear. Its responsibilities extend tomeasures reported by other com-mittees which exceed the appro-priate allocation of new budgetauthority contained in the latestconcurrent resolution on the budg-et for the fiscal year (the resolu-tion setting forth, among otherthings, appropriate levels of budg-et outlays and of total new budgetauthority).

New provisions also require theCommittee on Appropriations (tothe extent practicable), before re-porting the first regular appro-priation bill for the fiscal year, tocomplete subcommittee markupand full committee action on allregular appropriation bills forthat year, and to submit to theHouse a summary report com-paring the committee’s rec-ommendations with provisions ofthe latest concurrent resolution onthe budget.(6)


4979

APPROPRIATION BILLS Ch. 25 § 2

7. Art. I § 9 clause 7.8. The prohibition against unauthor-

ized appropriations and legislationon general appropriation bills isfound in Rule XXI clause 2, HouseRules and Manual § 834 (1981). Theapplication of this rule is discussedin detail in Ch. 26, infra.

9. Parliamentarian’s Note: It follows,for example, that ‘‘authorizing’’ lan-guage does not itself constitute ‘‘newspending authority’’ which wouldprohibit the consideration of a billunder § 401 of the CongressionalBudget Act. Where the provision inquestion either impliedly con-templates further recourse to the ap-propriations process, or makes ex-press reference to the appropriationsprocess when required by § 401, suchconsideration is not precluded. (Note:The Budget Act is necessarily givenonly limited treatment herein; seethe remarks in § 1, supra, as to thescope of this article.)

10. See § 2.1, infra.11. 118 CONG. REC. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d

Sess., Apr. 26, 1972.

§ 2. Requirement That Ap-propriations Be Author-ized

The Constitution (7) states: ‘‘Nomoney shall be drawn from theTreasury, but in consequence ofappropriations made by law.’’ Ap-propriation bills are the devicethrough which money is permittedto be ‘‘drawn from the Treasury’’for expenditure.

But before a general appropria-tion bill may appropriate funds forparticular purposes, such pur-poses must be authorized by law.Thus, an appropriation for aproject or activity not authorizedby law is not in order on a generalappropriation bill, and a point oforder may be made against an ap-propriation that violates this re-quirement.(8)

It can be seen that every ‘‘au-thorization’’ for an appropriationis only one step in the process bywhich funds ultimately may be-come available, since it con-templates subsequent actionthrough appropriation meas-

ures.(9) Of course, the House maydecline to appropriate funds forparticular purposes, even thoughauthorization has been given forsuch purposes.(10)

The enactment of authorizinglegislation must occur prior to,and not following, the consider-ation of an appropriation for theproposed purpose. Thus, delayingthe availability of an appropria-tion pending enactment of an au-thorization will not protect thatappropriation against a point oforder.(11) A bill violates the intentof the requirement if it permits aportion of a lump sum—unauthor-ized at the time the bill is beingconsidered—to subsequently be-come available without a further


4980


12. See 119 CONG. REC. 19855, 93dCong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 (pro-ceedings related to H.R. 8619). Seealso §§ 2.3, 2.4, infra.

13. See 4 Hinds’ Precedents § 3587.14. See 4 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 3656–

3658, 3660.15. See § 2.5, infra.16. See Ch. 26, infra.

17. 108 CONG. REC. 1352, 87th Cong 2dSess., Jan. 31, 1962.

appropriation upon the enactmentof authorizing legislation.

The ‘‘authorization’’ for an ap-propriation must ordinarily derivefrom statute. An executive order,for example, does not constitutesufficient authorization in the ab-sence of proof of its derivationfrom a statute enacted by Con-gress.(12) On the other hand, suffi-cient ‘‘authorization’’ for an appro-priation may be found to exist ina treaty that has been ratified byboth parties; (13) in a resolution ofthe House of the same Con-gress; (14) or in legislation con-tained in a previous appropriationact which has been allowed to be-come permanent law.(15)

An appropriation in excess ofthe specific amount authorized bylaw is in violation of the rule pro-hibiting unauthorized appropria-tions.(16)

The rule prohibiting unauthor-ized appropriations and legislationon general appropriation bills wasoriginally intended primarily toprevent any delay of appropriationbills that might arise from conten-

tion over propositions of legisla-tion. However, as the authoriza-tion process itself became morecomplicated over the years, and asthe number of programs requiringannual authorization increased,there were frequent instanceswhere the congressional appro-priations process remaineduncompleted at the beginning of anew fiscal year. The rule as cur-rently implemented serves thepurpose of giving legislative com-mittees the first opportunity todetermine and report to bothHouses on priorities within spe-cific legislative programs and theconditions under which availablefunds may be expended, beforethe Appropriations Committeerecommends allocations of avail-able revenues among various leg-islative priorities during a givenfiscal year. Procedures under theCongressional Budget Act gen-erally contemplate authorizationof expenditures by legislative com-mittees as a prior step in thebudget process. (See, for example,Congressional Budget Act§§ 301(c) and 402(a).)

It should be emphasized thatthe rule applies to ‘‘general appro-priation bills.’’ Neither a resolu-tion providing an appropriationfor a single government agency,(17)


4981


18. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Ch. 25 § 2.2 (4th ed.).

1. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Ch. 25 § 2.3 (4th ed.).

2. 83 CONG. REC. 2174, 2175, 75thCong. 3d Sess. The principle is wellestablished. See also, for example, 88CONG. REC. 2114, 2115, 77th Cong.2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942 (a refusal toappropriate above a certain amountper designated recipient).

nor a joint resolution containingcontinuing appropriations for di-verse agencies (to provide fundsuntil regular appropriation billsare enacted),(18) is considered ageneral appropriation bill withinthe purview of the rule. In fact,the restrictions against unauthor-ized items or legislation in a gen-eral appropriation bill or amend-ment thereto are not applicable toa joint resolution continuing ap-propriations, despite inclusion ofdiverse appropriations which arenot ‘‘continuing’’ in nature.(1)

f

Refusal to Appropriate for Au-thorized Purposes

§ 2.1 The House in the Com-mittee of the Whole has theright to refuse to appropriatefor any object either inwhole or in part, eventhough that object may beauthorized by law.On Feb. 18, 1938,(2) during con-

sideration of the State, Justice,

Commerce, and Labor appropria-tions for 1939 (H.R. 9544), anamendment was offered as fol-lows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver:On page 104, after line 25, insert anew paragraph, as follows:

No part of any appropriation con-tained in this act for the Immigrationand Naturalization Service shall be ex-pended for any expense incident to anyprocedure by suggestion or otherwise,for the admission to any foreign coun-try of any alien unlawfully in theUnited States for the purpose of en-deavoring to secure a visa for readmis-sion to the United States, or for thesalary of any employee charged withany duty in connection with the read-mission to the United States of anysuch alien without visa.

The following proceedings thentook place:

MR. [SAMUEL] DICKSTEIN [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I make the samepoint of order. This comes right back tothe point I made originally, that thisprovision deals with the present immi-gration laws and is legislation on anappropriation bill. It changes ourpresent act, which contains the provi-sion that it is mandatory upon the offi-cials of the Department of Labor to ad-vise an alien of his status, whether heis legally or illegally in this country.This provision seems to suggest thateven a suggestion or an inference, evena suggestion over the phone, would bea violation of the law, and the menwho are on the pay roll of the Govern-ment would be penalized. I respectfullysubmit that the language offered as


4982


3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).

4. 79 CONG. REC. 9811, 74th Cong. 1stSess.

5. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).6. The Chair apparently relied on pro-

visions governing procedures where-

the amendment to the new section isabsolutely in the same category, andthat it is not germane to the presentbill or to the section now under consid-eration.

THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The Chair isready to rule.

The gentleman from New York (Mr.Dickstein) makes the point of orderthat the amendment now suggestedand offered by the gentleman fromGeorgia is legislation. The Chair feelshe is bound by precedents which havebeen established for a long time in thisHouse and have been ruled upon bymany occupants of the chair more dis-tinguished than he.

The fact that the failure to appro-priate money to carry out the purposesof an act may work an actual hardshipin the enforcement of that act or mayeven effect the practical repeal or cer-tain provisions of the act is entirelywithin the discretion of Congress itself.Congress does not have to appropriateany money for laws which have beenauthorized by bills reported from legis-lative committees. As long ago as 1896Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the Com-mittee of the Whole House, ruled asfollows, and I read from page 47 ofCannon’s Procedure in the House ofRepresentatives:

The House in Committee of theWhole House has the right to refuseto appropriate for any object eitherin whole or in part even though thatobject may be authorized by law.That principle of limitation has beensustained so repeatedly that it maybe regarded as a part of the par-liamentary law of the Committee ofthe Whole.

Therefore, the Chair is unable toagree with the contention of the gen-

tleman from New York and overrulesthe point of order.

Court Judgment as Authoriza-tion

§ 2.2 An appropriation to pay ajudgment awarded by a courtis not in order unless suchjudgment has been properlycertified to Congress.On June 20, 1935,(4) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 8554, a deficiency ap-propriation bill. The following pro-ceedings took place:

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 newparagraph following line 6, entitled‘‘Federal Trade Commission’’:

‘‘For payment to Mrs. William E.Humphrey, or executor of the estateof William E. Humphrey, $3,017amount due as salary at time of hisdeath as member of Federal TradeCommission.’’

MR. [JAMES P.] BUCHANAN [ofTexas]: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order that the amendment isnew legislation in that the judgmenthas not been certified according to law.. . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The Chair isready to rule. Under the law,(6) judg-


4983


by claimants obtaining judgmentsagainst the United States are com-pensated from appropriations madefor that purpose. See, for example,the present 28 USC § 2518 (based on26 Stat. 537, Sept. 30, 1890 and 43Stat. 939, Feb. 13, 1925), regardingcertification to Congress of judg-ments of the Court of Claims; seealso 28 USC § 2517 (payment ofjudgments of the Court of Claims outof general appropriations therefor);28 USC § 2414 (payment of judg-ments and compromise settlementson claims against the United States);31 USC § 724a (permanent appro-priation to pay final judgments,awards, and compromise settle-ments); 28 USC §§ 2671 et seq. (tortclaims procedure); and House RuleXXII clause 2, House Rules andManual § 852 (1981) (prohibiting pri-vate bills and resolutions, andamendments to bills and resolutions,authorizing payment of claims forwhich suit may be instituted undertort claims procedure).

7. 91 CONG. REC. 1682, 1683, 79thCong. 1st Sess. 8. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).

ments have to be certified to the Con-gress before an appropriation is made;therefore the Chair sustains the pointof order.

Executive Order as Authoriza-tion

§ 2.3 The words ‘‘authorized bylaw’’ in Rule XXI clause 2,were construed to refer to a‘‘law enacted by the Con-gress,’’ and not to encompassexecutive orders.On Mar. 2, 1945,(7) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-

ering H.R. 2374, a deficiency ap-propriation bill. At one point theClerk read as follows:

WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY

Salaries and expenses: The limita-tion in the appropriation for salariesand expenses, War Relocation Author-ity, in the National War Agency Appro-priation Act, 1945, on the amountwhich may be expended for travel ishereby increased from $375,000 to$475,000; and of said appropriationnot to exceed $280,477 is made avail-able for expenses incurred during thefiscal year 1945 incident to the estab-lishment, maintenance, and operationof the emergency refugee shelter at FortOntario, N.Y., provided for in thePresident’s message of June 12, 1944,to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).

MR. [HENRY C.] DWORSHAK [ofIdaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against that part of thesection following the semicolon in line20 and ending on page 14, line 2, thatit is legislation on an appropriationbill; furthermore, that there is no spe-cific authority in existing statutes forthe operation of this particular pro-gram. The Executive order of thePresident which created the War Relo-cation Authority does not encompassthe activities for which these fundswould be used. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The Chair is pre-pared to rule.

The gentleman from Idaho [Mr.Dworshak] makes the point of orderagainst the language beginning in theconcluding part of line 20 on page 13and extending through the balance of


4984


9. 91 CONG. REC. 7226, 7227, 79thCong. 1st Sess.

10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).

the paragraph, that this appropriationis not authorized by law.

Under the rules of the House, no ap-propriation shall be reported in anygeneral appropriation bill, or be inorder as an amendment thereto, forany expenditure not previously author-ized by law.

It is the opinion of the Chair that anExecutive order does not meet the re-quirement stated in that rule. There-fore, not being authorized by law en-acted by Congress, the appropriationwould not be in order. The mere factthat it may be a reappropriation wouldnot make it in order if the original ap-propriation was not authorized by law.

Therefore, the Chair sustains thepoint of order made by the gentlemanfrom Idaho.

§ 2.4 An executive order doesnot meet the requirementthat appropriations must beauthorized by law.On July 5, 1945,(9) the following

proceedings took place:MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis-

souri: Mr. Speaker, I move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill (H.R. 3649), makingappropriations for war agencies for thefiscal year ending June 30, 1946, andfor other purposes; and pending thatmotion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to dispense with general de-bate in the Committee of theWhole. . . .

THE SPEAKER: (10) The question is onthe motion offered by the gentlemanfrom Missouri.

The motion was agreed to.Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union forthe consideration of the bill (H.R.3649) with Mr. Sparkman in thechair. . . .

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent that thebill be considered as read and that allMembers desiring to submit amend-ments or points of order have leave tosubmit them at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: (11) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMissouri?

There was no objection.MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New

York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of theunanimous consent request that hasjust been granted, I make the point oforder against the first item, NationalWar Labor Board, on the ground thatit is an appropriation not authorizedby law.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, I concede the point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order issustained.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Chairman, Imake a point of order on the sameground against the item for the Officeof Defense Transportation on page 5.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: The pointof order is conceded, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromNew York (Mr. Marcantonio) makes apoint of order which the gentleman


4985


12. See § 2.3, supra.

13. See also 119 CONG. REC. 19855, 93dCong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 (H.R.8619).

14. 110 CONG. REC. 11422, 11423, 88thCong. 2d Sess.

from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) concedes.The Chair sustains the point of order.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, we do not allhave to concede the point of order. Iwant to ask the gentleman from Mis-souri a question. . . .

MR. RANKIN: . . . If these weretimes of peace and this agency hadbeen created by the Executive order, asit was, I submit that a point of orderwould lie against it. But the Presidentof the United States is the commanderin chief of the armed forces. One of thenecessary incidents to that position isthe ability and the power to see thatour troops and the materials to sup-port them are transported. For thatreason, in order to break a bottleneckin our transportation system, thePresident of the United States set upthe Office of Defense Transpor-tation. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman againstates his opinion, regardless of hisown beliefs as to the merits of this par-ticular office, that the point of ordermust be sustained.

The rule is very explicit to the effectthat no appropriation shall be reportedin any general appropriation bill or bein order as an amendment thereto, forany expenditure not previously author-ized by law.

In this present Congress, the presentoccupant of the chair ruled that an Ex-ecutive order was not a law such ascould comply with this rule.(12)

The Chair sees no reason for depart-ing from that holding. The Chair feelsconstrained to sustain the point oforder.

The point of order is sustained.(13)

Language in Prior Appropria-tion Measure as Authoriza-tion

§ 2.5 Legislation in an appro-priation bill may be subjectto a point of order underRule XXI clause 2, but it maybecome permanent law if itis not challenged and is per-manent in its language andnature; thus, language in aprevious appropriation actproviding that ‘‘hereaftersuch sums . . . as may be ap-proved by Congress shall beavailable (to increase domes-tic consumption of farm com-modities),’’ was held to bepermanent authorizing legis-lation capable of supportingsubsequent appropriationstherefor.On May 20, 1964,(14) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the agriculture appro-priations bill (H.R. 11202) for fis-cal 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illi-nois, raised a point of order as fol-lows:

MR. FINDLEY: My point of order is tolines 3 through 9, the portion of the


4986


15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).16. 119 CONG. REC. 38854, 38855, 93d

Cong. 1st Sess.

section beginning with the figure inparentheses 5. I will read it. It readsas follows:

(5) not in excess of $25,000,000 tobe used to increase domestic con-sumption of farm commodities pur-suant to authority contained in Pub-lic Law 88–250, the Department ofAgriculture and Related AgenciesAppropriation Act, 1964, of whichamount $2,000,000 shall remainavailable until expended for con-struction, alteration and modificationof research facilities.

There is legislation in an appropria-tion bill. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (15) The Chair isready to rule. The gentleman from Illi-nois (Mr. Findley) makes a point oforder addressed to the language ap-pearing on page 16, line 2, beginningwith ‘‘and’’ and continuing through andincluding line 9, on the ground that itis legislation on an appropriation bill.

The Chair has had called to its at-tention the section which was con-tained in Public Law 88–250, in whichit appears that the appropriation here,which incidentally is also in the natureof a limitation, was authorized by theCongress by the inclusion of the wordspointed out by the gentleman fromMississippi that ‘‘hereafter such sums(not in excess of $25,000,000 in anyone year) as may be approved by theCongress shall be available for suchpurpose,’’ and so forth.

The Chair therefore holds that thelanguage in that public law cited is au-thority for the inclusion in the pendingbill of the language to which the pointof order was addressed, and thereforeoverrules the point of order.

§ 2.6 A point of order havingbeen raised that a portion of

a lump sum supplemental ap-propriation for the WhiteHouse was not authorized bylaw, the Chairman deter-mined that the permanentlaw authorizing the Presi-dent to appoint certain staff,as well as legislative provi-sions authorizing additionalemployment contained in anearlier regular appropriationbill enacted for that fiscalyear, constituted sufficientauthorization.On Nov. 30, 1973,(16) during

consideration in the Committee ofthe Whole of a supplemental ap-propriation bill (H.R. 11576) apoint of order was raised againsta provision, as follows:


THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for ‘‘Sal-aries and expenses’’, $1,500,000.

MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder. . . .

I raise a point of order to the lan-guage of lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 of page 14under the provisions of rule XXI,clause 2, which prohibits legislation onappropriation bills and which prohibitsthe appropriation of funds withoutprior legislative authorization.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like toread from the language of the commit-


4987


17. James G. O’Hara (Mich.).

tee’s report on White House office, sal-aries and expenses:

The Committee recommends an ap-propriation of $1,500,000, a reductionof $110,000 below the amount of thebudget estimate.

These supplemental funds were re-quested to provide the additional fundsneeded for the activities of the Coun-selors to the President and their staffs,the President’s Foreign IntelligenceAdvisory Board, the President’s SpecialAssistant for Consumer Affairs, theCouncil on Economic Policy, and otherprofessional staff and consultants.

Mr. Chairman, before I pursue thismatter further, I would point out firstof all that when an item in an appro-priation bill is defective as violative ofthe rules of the House—in this in-stance, Rule XXI, clause 2—the wholeof the particular item under the pointof order falls.

I would point out further, Mr. Chair-man, that my point of order is directedspecifically to the President’s specialassistant for consumer affairs and tothat office, which was challenged ear-lier on this floor this year by the gen-tleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross). Uponhis point of order the Chair acted af-firmatively and ruled in support of thepoint of order and ruled out the item.

I challenge further on the samegrounds, Mr. Chairman, the appropria-tions for counsellor to the President inthat there is no statutory authority forcounsellors to the President. I chal-lenge further the President’s foreignintelligence advisory board in thatthere is also, to my knowledge, no stat-utory authority for this particular of-fice.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I challenge onthe same grounds again the counsel on

economic policy of the President andhis staff and offices, appurtenancesand expenditures pertinent thereto. Iwould point out further, Mr. Chair-man, that under the rules of the Houseof Representatives, that the burden isupon the proponent of the appropria-tion bill to establish the legislativebasis and to cite the statutes uponwhich the Appropriations Committeebases its action in appropriatingfunds. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) . . . Sections103, 105, and 106 of title 3 authorizeappropriations for the purpose of pay-ing the salaries of certain persons inthe Executive Office of the President.The appropriation bill itself, in theparagraph beginning on page 14, line5, gives no indication that the appro-priation would be used for any unau-thorized purpose. The paragraph mere-ly provides a lump sum for the Execu-tive Office.

The gentleman from Michigan, inmaking his point of order, goes beyondthe provisions of the bill and looks atthe provisions of the committee report.

The Chair does not believe that inthis case, any more than in the casemade by the gentleman from Iowa ear-lier in the consideration of the bill, it iswithin his province to go beyond theplain provisions of the bill, and the au-thorizing statute.

The Chair, therefore, overrules thepoint of order.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Theearlier ruling cited by Mr. Dingellhad taken place on June 15, 1973.Chairman James C. Wright, Jr.,of Texas, had sustained a point of


4988


18. 119 CONG. REC. 12781, 12782, 93dCong. 1st Sess.

order against an appropriation forthe Office of Consumer Affairs, es-tablished by executive order,where the Committee on Appro-priations had not cited statutoryauthority for the appropriation(contained in H.R. 8619, agri-culture-environment and con-sumer protection appropriationsbill). Congress subsequently en-acted Public Law No. 93–143, theTreasury, Executive Office Appro-priations Act for fiscal 1974, con-taining funds for the White HouseOffice and legislation, effective forthe same fiscal year covered bythe supplemental appropriationbill, permitting the President toemploy consultants notwith-standing other provisions of law.For that reason, and because itwas not readily apparent from thelanguage of either the supple-mental bill, the authorizing stat-ute, or the committee report thata portion of the lump sum was tofund an unauthorized office, theChair overruled the point of order.

Appropriation Bill as Con-taining Specific Approval

§ 2.7 The restriction in lawprohibiting the use of anyfunds for the preparation offinal plans or for construc-tion of the west front exten-sion ‘‘until specifically ap-proved and appropriated

therefor by the Congress’’was held not to require legis-lative ‘‘approval’’ prior to theappropriation, where the leg-islative history of the law in-dicated that other law was tobe considered sufficient au-thorization for the projectand that only further ap-proval through the appro-priation process was re-quired.On Apr. 17, 1973,(18) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the legislative branchappropriations bill (H.R. 6691) forfiscal 1974, Mr. J. Edward Roush,of Indiana, raised a point of orderagainst the following language inthe bill, and proceedings ensuedas indicated:

EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL

For an amount, additional toamounts heretofore appropriated, for‘‘Extension of the Capitol’’, in substan-tial accordance with plans for exten-sion of the West Central front here-tofore approved by the Commission forExtension of the United States Capitol,to be expended, as authorized by law,by the Architect of the Capitol underthe direction of such Commission,$58,000,000, to remain available untilexpended. . . .

MR. ROUSH: Mr. Chairman, my pointof order is based upon these followingfacts: The appropriation as proposed


4989


19. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).

lacks legislative authority and, sec-ondly, the language ‘‘$58,000,000 to re-main available until expended’’ con-stitutes legislation on a general appro-priation bill. . . .

I would refer to the appropriationbill last year, which would be PublicLaw 92–342, under the section ‘‘Exten-sion of the Capitol:’’

Funds available under this appro-priation may be used for the prepa-ration of preliminary plans for theextension of the west central front:Provided, however, That no fundsmay be used for the preparation ofthe final plans or initiation of con-struction of said project until specifi-cally approved and appropriatedtherefor by the Congress.

I point out to the Chairman that theplans have not been specifically ap-proved. . . .

Mr. Chairman, I have searched thismatter diligently and the only author-ity that I can find for the extension ofthe west front of the Capitol nec-essarily has to be inferred from thelanguage of a bill which was passed in1855. . . .

MR. [ROBERT R.] CASEY of Texas:. . . Mr. Chairman, this project is au-thorized, and I would point out thatthe gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Roush) who is making the point oforder, failed to read all of Public Law242 of the 84th Congress.

The law reads:

Extension of the Capitol: The Ar-chitect of the Capitol is hereby au-thorized, under the direction of aCommission for Extension of theUnited States Capitol, to be com-posed of the President of the Senate,the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives—

Et cetera.

In substantial accordance withScheme B of the architectural plansubmitted by a joint commission ofCongress and reported to Congresson March 3, 1905 (House DocumentNumbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Con-gress), but with such modificationsand additions, including provisionsfor restaurant facilities and suchother facilities in the CapitolGrounds, together with utilities . . .

It does not just refer to one item. Ithink this gives great latitude.

Together with utilities, equipment,approaches, and other appurtenantor necessary items . . . there ishereby appropriated $5,000,000, toremain available until expended:Provided, that the Architect of theCapitol under the direction of saidcommission and without regard tothe provisions of section 3709 of theRevised Statutes, as amended, is au-thorized to enter into contracts.

Et cetera.This law was amended February 14,

1956, and there was added this amend-ment under ‘‘Extension of the Capitol.’’This was Public Law 406, 84th Con-gress:

The paragraph entitled ‘‘Extensionof the Capitol’’ in the Legislative Ap-propriation Act, 1956, is herebyamended by inserting after thewords ‘‘to remain available until ex-pended’’ and before the colon, acomma and the following: ‘‘and thereare hereby authorized to be appro-priated such additional sums as maybe determined by said Commissionto be required for the purposes here-of. . . .’’

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) . . . The gen-tleman from Indiana . . . contendsthat Public Law 92–342 requires ‘‘spe-cific’’ approval by Congress of prepara-


4990


20. 97 CONG. REC. 4738, 82d Cong. 1stSess. 21. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).

tion of final plans or initiation of con-struction prior to an appropriationtherefor. The Chair has examined thelegislative history of the provision re-lied upon by the gentleman from Indi-ana in support of his argument thatthe appropriation must be specificallyapproved by Congress prior to the ap-propriation, and it is clear from the de-bate in the Senate on March 28, 1972,that approval in an appropriation billwas all that was required by the provi-sion in Public Law 92–342. The Chairfeels that there is sufficient authoriza-tion contained in [Public Law 84–242]as amended by Public Law 84–406 forthe appropriation contained in thepending bill, and that no further spe-cific authorization is required prior toan appropriation for final plans andconstruction for the West Front.

For these reasons the Chair over-rules the point of order.

§ Sec. 2.8 An amendment to ageneral appropriation billproviding that appropria-tions in the bill available fortravel expenses were to beavailable for expenses of at-tendance of officers and em-ployees at meetings or con-ventions was held to be inorder since such provisionwas authorized to be in-cluded in appropriation billsby statutory provisions.On May 2, 1951, (20) the Com-


ering H.R. 3790, an Interior De-partment appropriation. The fol-lowing proceeding took place:

Amendment offered by Mr. Jacksonof Washington: On page 36, line 17, in-sert the following:

Sec. 104. Appropriations in thisact available for travel expensesshall be available for expenses of at-tendance of officers and employees atmeetings or conventions of membersof societies or associations concernedwith the work of the bureau or officefor which the appropriation con-cerned is made.

MR. [KENNETH B.] KEATING [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I make the pointof order against the amendment that itinvolves legislation on an appropria-tion bill and is not authorized bylaw. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (21) The gentlemanfrom Washington has called the atten-tion of the Chair to section 83, title 5of the United States Code. Permit theChair to read the language containedin that provision:

No money appropriated by any actshall be expended for membershipfees or dues of any officer or em-ployee of the United States or of theDistrict of Columbia, in any societyor association or for expenses of at-tendance of any person at any meet-ing or convention of members of anysociety or association unless suchfees, dues, or expenses are author-ized to be paid by specific appropria-tions for such purposes or are pro-vided for in express terms in somegeneral appropriation.

The Chair feels that the languagewhich has just been read governs thematter and overrules the point of order


4991


22. 81 CONG. REC. 9175, 9176, 75thCong. 1st Sess. 1. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).

made by the gentleman from NewYork.

Senate Confirmation of Ap-pointees Required Prior toAppropriation for Positions

§ Sec. 2.9 Although the Presi-dent has the power to ap-point foreign ambassadorsand ministers, an appropria-tion to pay such salaries isnot in order unless the Sen-ate has confirmed the ap-pointment.On Aug. 17, 1937, (22) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 8245, a deficiency ap-propriation bill. The proceedingswere as follows:

Salaries of ambassadors and min-isters: For an additional amount forsalaries of ambassadors and ministers,fiscal year 1938, for the salary of anenvoy extraordinary and minister plen-ipotentiary to Lithuania at $10,000 perannum, $8,333.34: Provided, That theappropriation for salaries of ambas-sadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938,shall be available for payment of thesalary of an envoy extraordinary andminister plenipotentiary to Estoniaand Latvia at $10,000 perannum. . . .

MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [JR., of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointon order against the language on page28, lines 4 to 12, inclusive, as consti-tuting legislation on an appropriation

bill, not authorized by law. It creates anew position, that of Minister of Lith-uania. The President has no constitu-tional right and is empowered by noact of Congress to create additional po-sitions. Therefore, I make the point oforder, Mr. Chairman, and if the Chairis in doubt I would like to speak a lit-tle further on the matter and cite someprecedents. . . .

MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM [of Vir-ginia]: Mr. Chairman, I think the itemis subject to a point of order for thereason that the Minister has been ap-pointed but not confirmed. The Presi-dent has the right to appoint, but ifthe minister has not been confirmedthe Congress would have no right toappropriate. There has been no con-firmation. I think the gentleman’spoint of order is well taken, if hechooses to make it. . . .

The Chairman: (1) The Chair is readyto rule. As stated by the gentlemanfrom Virginia, the President has theright to appoint. At the present time,however, the Senate has not confirmedthe appointment. The appropriation,therefore, is subject to a point of order.

The Chair sustains the point oforder.

Implied Authorization

§ Sec. 2.10 Appropriations fortravel expenses, includingexamination of estimates forappropriations in the field,under the heading ‘‘Office ofthe Secretary, Department ofAgriculture,’’ were held au-thorized by law as necessary


4992


2. 96 CONG. REC. 5911, 81st Cong. 2dSess.

3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).4. 83 CONG. REC. 2655, 2656, 75th

Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 1, 1938.

to carry out the basic lawsetting up the Department ofAgriculture.On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7786, the Departmentof Agriculture chapter of the gen-eral appropriation bill of 1951.The following proceedings tookplace:

MR. [KENNETH B.] KEATING [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointof order against the language appear-ing in lines 6 to 7, page 204, ‘‘travel ex-penses, including examination of esti-mates for appropriations in thefield.’’. . .


The gentleman from New York [Mr.Keating] has made a point of orderagainst the language appearing onpage 204 of the chapter beginning inline 6, which has been quoted by him,on the ground that it is legislation onan appropriation bill in violation of therules of the House. The Chair has ex-amined the language and has listenedattentively to the arguments presentedand has also made an examination ofthe precedents and decisions of theHouse. It appears that in 1938 a pointof order was made against languagesimilar to this, and the Chairman, Mr.Jones, of Texas, overruled the point oforder. The decision is found on page2656 of the Record of March 1, 1938.On the basis of that precedent and de-

cision the Chair overrules the point oforder.

The 1938 decision relied on bythe Chair took place during con-sideration of H.R. 9621, appro-priations for the Department ofthe Interior. An amendment hadbeen offered, reading in part asfollows: (4)

Amendment offered by Mr.Scrugham: Page 72, beginning withline 12, insert the following:

Administration provisions and lim-itations: For all expenditures author-ized by the act of June 17, 1902, andacts amendatory thereof or supple-mentary thereto, known as the rec-lamation law, and all other actsunder which expenditures from saidfund are authorized, including not toexceed $100,000 for personal servicesand $15,000 for other expenses inthe office of the chief engineer . . .;examination of estimates for appro-priations in the field; refunds ofovercollections and deposits for otherpurposes; not to exceed $15,000 forlithographing, engraving, printing,and binding.

The following exchange tookplace:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the amendment upon theground that it is legislation upon anappropriation bill, that it includesitems not authorized by law, as, for in-stance, $5,000 for making photographicprints, not authorized by law in line 20and in line 22, provision for examina-tion of estimates for appropriations in


4993


5. 116 CONG. REC. 17310, 17311, 91stCong. 2d Sess.

the field, which is not authorized bylaw; $15,000 for lithographing and en-graving, not authorized by law; thepurchase of ice, the purchase of rubberboots for official use by employees, notauthorized by law.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. This amendment provides forall expenditures authorized by the actof June 17, 1902, and acts amendatorythereof or supplemenatary thereto,known as the reclamation law, and allother acts under which expendituresfrom said fund are authorized, and soforth. The Chair thinks that the itemsto which the gentleman from NewYork objects specifically are incidentalto the main purpose of carrying out thereclamation law. These incidentalitems it seems to the Chair are nec-essary to carry out the major purposesof the reclamation law, and the Chair,therefore, overrules the point of order.

Mr. Taber offered an amend-ment to strike the words ‘‘exam-ination of estimates for appropria-tions in the field,’’ which amend-ment was rejected.

Specific Project Authorized byGeneral Grant of Authority

§ 2.11 Legislation authorizingthe Administrator of the Fed-eral Aviation Administrationto develop and test improvedaircraft, and legislationtransferring and vestingthose functions ‘‘includingthe development and con-struction of a civil super-sonic aircraft’’ in the Sec-

retary of Transportation washeld to authorize an appro-priation for the constructionof prototypes of the civil su-personic aircraft.On May 27, 1970,(5) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Department ofTransportation appropriation billfor fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17755), Mr.Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raiseda point of order against certainlanguage in the bill:

For an additional amount for ex-penses, not otherwise provided for, nec-essary for the development of a civilsupersonic aircraft, including the con-struction of two prototype aircraft ofthe same design, and advances offunds without regard to the provisionsof section 3648 of the Revised Statutes,as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),$289,965,000, to remain available untilexpended. . . .

MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, this is anappropriation for the development of asupersonic aircraft under the terms ofa contract between the Governmentand the Boeing Co. The authorizationfor the appropriation is admittedly sec-tion 312(b) of the Federal Aviation Act,which provides as follows:

The Administrator is empoweredto undertake or supervise such de-velopment work and service testingas tends to the creation of improvedaircraft, aircraft engines, propellers,and appliances.

For such purpose, the Adminis-trator is empowered to make pur-


4994


6. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).

chases—including exchange—by ne-gotiation, or otherwise, of experi-mental aircraft, aircraft engines, pro-pellers, and appliances, which seemto offer special advantages to aero-nautics.

There is nothing in either provisionwhich authorizes the spending of pub-lic funds for private purposes or pri-vate gains. There is nothing in eitherprovision which gives the benefits ofwhatever development or testing is un-dertaken to the person or the companydoing the work. My point here is if theGovernment pays for the work, as it isin this case, then the Government isentitled to the product. The Govern-ment owns the product because it haspaid for it. There is no provision in thelaw which permits gifts or for makinggrants. That is not the case in this con-tract because the plane when built willbelong to Boeing. Under the contract,whatever results from the developmentbelongs to Boeing, which has the bur-den of producing the SST. Under thecontract the Government is to be re-paid for its money through royaltiesfrom the sale of planes, but the planeswhen completed will belong to the Boe-ing Co. Yet, as I said, there is no au-thority on the statute books for loansor grants to the contractor. . . .


The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.Yates) raised the point of order againstthe appropriation appearing on page 2of the bill, entitled ‘‘Civil SupersonicAircraft Development,’’ on the groundthat there is no authorization in lawfor the development of such an air-craft, and for the expenditure providedherein.

The gentleman from Massachusetts(Mr. Boland) in responding to the pointof order has cited certain provisions oflaw which have been recognized by thegentleman from Illinois as pertainingdirectly to the authorization of the civilsupersonic aircraft development pro-gram.

The Chair has examined the laws towhich attention has been directed.Chapter 20 of title 49, United StatesCode, relates to the Federal aviationprogram of the Federal Government,and sets forth the powers and duties ofthe Federal Aviation Agency and, ashas been pointed out, empowers theAdministrator to ‘‘undertake or super-vise such developmental work andservice testing as tends to the creationof improved aircraft. For such purpose,the Administrator is empowered tomake purchases—of experimental air-craft.’’

Even broader, I think, is the delega-tion of authority that appears in PublicLaw 89–670, establishing the Depart-ment of Transportation. Section 6(c)(1)of that act states as follows:

There are hereby transferred toand vested in the Secretary (ofTransportation) all functions, pow-ers, and duties of the Federal Avia-tion Agency, and of the Adminis-trator and other officers and officesthereof, including the developmentand construction of a civil supersonicaircraft.

The Chair has heard the argumentof the gentleman from Illinois with ref-erence to his contention that this mustbe construed narrowly, but does notfind in the law or in the precedentsany requirement for as narrow a con-struction as the gentleman has con-tended for. It is a broad delegation of


4995


7. 91 CONG. REC. 2378, 79th Cong. 1stSess. 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).

authority, and must not be construedas narrowly as the gentleman hassought.

In view of these citations, which givethe Secretary a broad experimentaland development authority and bestowupon him in explicit terms the author-ity to develop and construct a Civil Su-personic Aircraft, the Chair is con-strained to overrule the point of order.

Therefore the point of order is over-ruled.

‘‘Miscellaneous’’ Items as Au-thorized

§ 2.12 Language in an appro-priation bill making appro-priations for certain items‘‘and other miscellaneous ex-penses, not otherwise pro-vided for’’ was held to applyto regular expenses that areauthorized by law, and inorder.On Mar. 16, 1945,(7) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 2603, a State, Justice,Commerce, Judiciary, and FederalLoan Agency appropriation. A pro-vision was read as follows, and apoint of order was raised as indi-cated below:

Miscellaneous expenses: For sta-tionery, supplies, materials and equip-ment, freight, express, and drayagecharges, washing towels, advertising,purchase of lawbooks and books of ref-

erence, periodicals and newspapers,communication service and postage; forthe maintenance, repair, and operationof one motor-propelled delivery truck;for rent in the District of Columbia,and elsewhere; for official traveling ex-penses, including examination of esti-mates for appropriations in the field,and other miscellaneous expenses, nototherwise provided for, necessary to ef-fectively carry out the provisions of theact providing for the administration ofthe United States courts, and for otherpurposes, $26,000. . . .

MR. [ROBERT F.] JONES [ofOhio]: . . . I make a point of orderagainst the language beginning in line15 with the word ‘‘and’’ and ending inline 16 with the word ‘‘for.’’

THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The gentlemanmakes a point of order against the lan-guage reading:

And other miscellaneous expensesnot otherwise provided for?

MR. JONES: That is right.THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman

from Michigan desire to be heard onthe point of order?

MR. [LOUIS C.] RABAUT [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Chairman, this providesmerely for regular expenses that areauthorized by law. I do not see any-thing in this subject to a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair fails tosee any reason why the language re-ferred to should be subject to a point oforder, and unless the gentleman fromOhio can be more specific in his objec-tion the Chair is constrained to over-rule the point of order.

The Chair overrules the point oforder.


4996



Increasing AppropriationWithin Authorized Limits

§ 2.13 It is in order to increasethe appropriation in an ap-propriation bill for purposesauthorized by law if such in-crease does not exceed theamount authorized for suchobjects.On Mar. 10, 1942,(9) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6736, a War Depart-ment civil functions appropriationbill. An amendment was allowedwhich restored part of a sumwhich had previously been strick-en from the bill, where suchamendment did not cause the ap-propriation for the objects underconsideration to exceed the totalamount for such objects author-ized by law. The portion of the billin question, and proceedings relat-ing to it, were as follows:

Flood control, general: For the con-struction and maintenance of certainpublic works on rivers and harbors forflood control, and for other purposes, inaccordance with the provisions of theFlood Control Act, approved June 22,1936, as amended and supplemented,including printing and binding, news-papers, lawbooks, books of reference,periodicals, and office supplies andequipment required in the Office of theChief of Engineers to carry out the

purposes of this appropriation, and forpreliminary examinations and surveysof and contingencies in connection withflood-control projects authorized bylaw, $144,973,700: . . .

MR. [DAVID D.] TERRY [of Arkansas]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


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 Pennsyl-vania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve apoint of order against the amend-ment. . . .

MR. TERRY: Mr. Chairman, the pur-pose of this amendment is to raise theamount carried in the bill,$144,973,000 for flood control to anamount that will be sufficient to in-clude the beginning of the work on theTable Rock Reservoir.

Congress has authorized for theWhite River Basin $49,000,000 to beappropriated for the prosecution of acomprehensive dual purpose flood con-trol and power program in the WhiteRiver Basin. According to the testi-mony in the hearings, $15,870,000 wasallocated from funds previously appro-priated against this authorization. TheBudget has presented four projects inthe White River Basin which total$37,525,000.

The appropriation of this amount, inconjunction 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 authorizedto be appropriated.

The Committee of the Whole elimi-nated the $6,500,000 which was in-cluded in the Budget sent down on


4997


10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).

February 20 for the construction ofTable Rock Reservoir. When this mat-ter was up in the subcommittee at thetime of the marking up of the bill, amotion was made by a committeemember to eliminate Table Rock, butthe subcommittee voted against cuttingout the Table Rock item. When the billcame up in the full committee on ap-propriations, on a very close vote, thecommittee eliminated Table Rock onthe theory that—and it was a fact—theappropriation was over the authoriza-tion. So the Table Rock item was elimi-nated, as I say, by a very close vote.

My amendment merely seeks toraise the amount to the limit of thecongressional authorization. If weadopt my amendment we add$2,105,000 to the amount in the bill forflood control, but it will permit consid-erable work to be done on the TableRock project this year and the comingfiscal year, and we shall still be withinthe authorized appropriation limit car-ried in the Budget estimate for thewhole bill, and we shall not be abovethe $49,000,000 which has been au-thorized by the Congress for the WhiteRiver Basin. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) Does the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich]insist on his point of order?

MR. RICH: Mr. Chairman, I insist onmy point of order.

The authorization for these twoprojects was only $49,000,000. . . .

Mr. Chairman, this exceeds the totalamount authorized. . . .

MR. TERRY: Mr. Chairman, the com-mittee in charge of the bill has checkedthose figures with the Army engineers

in charge of flood control, and the fig-ure that I have included in the amend-ment is the figure given by the engi-neers. It shows a total of $53,395,000will be appropriated, including$15,870,000 past amounts, and thosein the Budget estimates for 1943, inthe sum of $37,525,000, with a$49,000,000 authorization. That wouldexceed the authorization $4,395,000. If$6,500,000 for Table Rock is strickenout, the authorizations will exceed theappropriations in an amount of$2,105,000, which is the amount of myamendment, and is an amount thatwill not exceed the Budget estimateand will not exceed the $49,000,000authorized by the Legislative Com-mittee of this House for the com-prehensive plan for the White RiverBasin.

MR. RICH: Mr. Chairman, I may saythe gentleman’s own figures show thatthese are the items to begin the projectand they will exceed the amount of theBudget estimate.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule.

This section of the bill, lines 4 and 5,is for preliminary examination, sur-veys, or for contingencies in connectionwith flood-control projects authorizedby law.

The gentleman from Arkansas in hisamendment raises the appropriation,but in that raise it only applies tothose projects which are authorized bylaw; therefore, the point of order isoverruled.

§ 2.14 An amendment pro-posing simply to increase anappropriation for a specificobject over the amount car-


4998


11. 84 CONG. REC. 2029, 2030, 76thCong. 1st Sess. 12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

ried in the appropriation billdoes not constitute a changein law unless such increaseis in excess of that author-ized.On Feb. 28, 1939,(11) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 4492, a Treasury andPost Office appropriation bill. Thefollowing proceedings took place:

Construction of public buildings out-side of the District of Columbia: Forcontinuation of construction of, and ac-quisition of sites for, public buildingsoutside of the District of Columbia, in-cluding the purposes and objects, andsubject to the limitations, specifiedunder this head in the Third Defi-ciency Appropriation Act, fiscal year1937, and also including those in-creases in the limits of cost of certainauthorized projects, 25 in number, asspecified in House Document No. 177,Seventy-sixth Congress, $30,000,000:Provided, That the provisions of sec-tion 322 of the act of June 30, 1932 (47Stat. 412), shall not apply with respectto the rental of temporary quarters forhousing Federal activities during thereplacement or remodeling of buildingsauthorized under this or previous acts.

MR. [JAMES F.] O’CONNOR [of Mon-tana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the fol-lowing amendment which I send to thedesk.


Amendment offered by Mr. O’Con-nor: 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 oforder that it is not authorized bylaw. . . .


The gentleman from Montana [Mr.O’Connor] offers an amendment onpage 51, line 8, seeking to increase theappropriation there stated,$30,000,000, to the figure of$60,000,000, to which amendment thegentleman from New York [Mr. Taber]makes a point of order on the groundthat the increase in the item sought tobe made is not authorized by law.

The Chair invites attention to PublicResolution 122, Seventy-fifth Congress,title III, Federal Public Buildings, andquotes in part as follows:

. . . is hereby increased from$70,000,000 to $130,000,000.

There is a balance remaining of thatauthorization of $71,000,000. Thepending bill carries an appropriation of$30,000,000, which would leave$41,000,000 unappropriated. Theamendment of the gentleman fromMontana 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. There-fore, the Chair overrules the point oforder.

§ 2.15 Language in an appro-priation bill providing an ad-ditional amount within thetotal authorized was held tobe in order.


4999


13. 104 CONG. REC. 2766, 85th Cong. 2dSess.

14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).15. 84 CONG. REC. 3454, 3455, 76th

Cong. 1st Sess.

On Feb. 25, 1958, (13) the Com-mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 10881, a bill makingsupplemental appropriations. Thefollowing provision was read anda point of order was raised as in-dicated below:

For an additional amount for ‘‘Acre-age reserve program,’’ fiscal year 1958,$250,000, which shall be available toformulate and administer an acreagereserve program in accord with theprovisions of subtitles A and C of theSoil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1821–1824 and1802–1814), with respect to the 1958crops, in an amount not to exceed $175million in addition to the amount spec-ified for such purposes in Public Law85–118.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the paragraph on page 4, lines1 to 9 of the bill on the ground that itchanges existing law. I refer the chair-man to the language of the appropria-tion bill which became law on the 2dday of August. . . .


The language objected to by the gen-tleman from New York [Mr. Taber]provides for an additional amount.This of course means an additionalamount to that provided for in the au-thorization contained in Public Law540 of the 84th Congress.

The Chair therefore feels that inview of the fact that there are amplefunds authorized to carry out this pro-

gram, and that the appropriation here-in proposed is within the authorizedamount, the point of order cannot besustained.


Parliamentarian’s Note: The lawreferred to in the point of orderwas contained in Pub. L. No. 85–118 which provided, ‘‘That no partof this appropriation shall be usedto formulate and administer anacreage reserve program whichwould result in total compensationbeing paid to producers in excessof’’ a designated amount. Thatlimitation, since it applied only tothe appropriation in that act, hadno applicability to the supple-mental appropriation which wasin dispute here.

Appropriation of Total Author-ization

§ 2.16 Where the law author-izes an appropriation of aspecific amount and a para-graph of an appropriationbill appropriates a portionthereof, an amendmentchanging the figure in thebill to the full amount au-thorized is in order.On Mar. 28, 1939,(15) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5269, an agricultural


5000


16. Wright Patman (Tex.).17. 104 CONG. REC. 11646, 85th Cong.

2d Sess.

appropriation bill. The followingportion of the bill was before thecommittee:

FARM TENANCY

To enable the Secretary of Agri-culture to carry out the provisions oftitle I of the Bankhead-Jones FarmTenant Act, approved July 22, 1937 (7U.S.C. 1000–1006), including the em-ployment of persons and means in theDistrict of Columbia and elsewhere, ex-clusive of printing and binding, as au-thorized by said act, $24,984,500, to-gether with the unexpended balance ofthe appropriation made under said actfor the fiscal year 1939.

MR. [JED] JOHNSON of Oklahoma:Mr. Chairman, I offer the followingamendment, which I send to the desk.


Amendment offered by Mr. John-son of Oklahoma: Page 93, line 22,after the word ‘‘Act’’, strike‘‘$24,584,500’’ and insert in lieuthereof ‘‘$50,000,000.’’

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder that the $50,000,000 is not au-thorized by law. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (16) The amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Okla-homa provides that the figures,$24,984,500, be stricken out and$50,000,000 inserted in lieu thereof.

This bill is making appropriationsfor the Department of Agriculture, andfor the Farm Credit Administration,for the fiscal year ending June 30,1940. The Chair has examined the law,and the law provides, on the questionof farm tenancy, that not to exceed

$10,000,000 shall be appropriated forthe year ending June 30, 1938; not toexceed $25,000,000 for the year endingJune 30, 1939; and not to exceed$50,000,000 for each fiscal year there-after.

Therefore the point of order is over-ruled.

Effect of Language LimitingAppropriations to PurposesAuthorized by Law

§ 2.17 A point of order will notlie against a lump-sum ap-propriation for river andharbor projects on theground that some of theprojects enumerated in thecommittee report for alloca-tion of funds have not beenauthorized, since language inthe bill limits use of the ap-propriation to ‘‘projects au-thorized by law.’’On June 18, 1958,(17) a point of

order was made against provisionsof H.R. 12858 (appropriations forcivil functions administered by theDepartment of the Army and cer-tain agencies of the Department ofthe Interior), as indicated below:


CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

For the prosecution of river andharbor, flood control, shore protec-tion, and related projects authorized


5001


by law; detailed studies, and plansand specifications, of projects (in-cluding those for development withparticipation or under considerationfor participation by States, local gov-ernments, or private groups) author-ized or made eligible for selection bylaw (but such studies shall not con-stitute a commitment of the Govern-ment to construction); and not to ex-ceed $1,600,000 for transfer to theSecretary of the Interior for con-servation of fish and wildlife as au-thorized by law; to remain availableuntil expended $577,085,500: . . .Provided further, That no part ofthis appropriation shall be used forprojects not authorized by law orwhich are authorized by a law lim-iting the amount to be appropriatedtherefor, except as may be within thelimits of the amount now or here-after authorized to be appro-priated. . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: [Imake a point of order against the]paragraph beginning page 3, line 22and ending on page 5, line 9, on theground it contains funds the appropria-tion which has not been authorized bylaw. The figure there is $577,085,500.I am advised by the Corps of Engi-neers, by letter dated June 11, 1958,that there is contained here$57,702,253 in projects which are notauthorized by law.

I am able by referring to the dif-ferent items on page 5 of the Reportthat there are the Beaver Reservoir inArkansas, the Bull Shoals Reservoir,Arkansas and Missouri. . . . Thereare probably 15 or 20 of thoseitems. . . .

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: [The] gentleman makes a pointof order against the figure$577,085,500 in line 8 on page 4. Butthe point of order does not lie for the

reason that in the proviso at the bot-tom of page 4 it is specifically pro-vided:

Provided further, That no part ofthis appropriation shall be used forprojects not authorized by law orwhich are authorized by a law limitingthe amount to be appropriated there-for, except as may be within the limitsof the amount now or hereafter author-ized to be appropriated.

So the point of order is not welltaken, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, theseprojects are without and beyond thelimits of the authorization. That is thepoint of order.

MR. CANNON: Mr. Chairman, may Ialso call attention to the language be-ginning on page 3 as follows:

For the prosecution of river andharbor, flood control, shore protec-tion, and related projects authorizedby law.

The figure the gentleman refers to isfor this specific purpose.

THE CHAIRMAN [Hale Boggs, of Lou-isiana]: The Chair is prepared to rule.

The language is very specific. As thechairman of the Committee on Appro-priations pointed out a moment ago,beginning on line 23, page 3, the lan-guage is as follows:

For the prosecution of river andharbor, flood control, shore protec-tion, and related projects authorizedby law.

Then further, as again pointed outby the chairman, there is this languageon the bottom of page 4:

That no part of this appropriationshall be used for projects not author-ized by law.

Now, that language, in the opinion ofthe Chair, is quite specific in that none


5002


18. 106 CONG. REC. 10979, 10980, 86thCong. 2d Sess. 19. Hale Boggs (La.).

of these funds regardless of theamount involved, can be used for anyproject which is not authorized by law.


§ 2.18 Language in an appro-priation bill providing fundsfor the construction of publicworks and specifying thatnone of the funds appro-priated should be used forprojects not authorized bylaw ‘‘or which are authorizedby a law limiting the amountto be appropriated therefor,except as may be within thelimits of the amount now orhereafter authorized to beappropriated’’ was held tolimit expenditures to author-ized projects and a point oforder against the languageas legislation was overruled.On May 24, 1960,(18) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of an appropriation bill(H.R. 12326), the following para-graph of the bill was read:

For the prosecution of river and har-bor . . . and related projects author-ized by law; detailed studies, and plansand specifications, of projects . . . au-thorized or made eligible for selectionby law . . .; and not to exceed$1,400,000 for transfer to the Sec-retary of the Interior for conservation

of fish and wildlife as authorized bylaw; $662,622,300, to remain availableuntil expended: Provided, That no partof this appropriation shall be used forprojects not authorized by law orwhich are authorized by a law limitingthe amount to be appropriated there-for, except as may be within the limitsof the amount now or hereafter author-ized to be appropriated: . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The Chair recog-nizes the gentleman to make (a) pointof order.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Chairman, I make the point of orderagainst the language to be found onpage 4, beginning on line 18 and intoline 21, ‘‘or which are authorized by alaw limiting the amount to be appro-priated therefor, except as may bewithin the limits of the amount now orhereafter authorized to be appro-priated.’’

Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against that language on theground that it is legislation on an ap-propriation bill. I make the furtherpoint of order that this is authorizingappropriations for projects not author-ized by law.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quotebriefly from ‘‘Cannon’s Precedents,’’page 63:

As a general proposition whenevera limitation is accompanied by thewords ‘‘unless,’’ ‘‘except,’’ ‘‘until,’’ ‘‘if,’’‘‘however,’’ there is ground to viewthe so-called limitation with sus-picion, and in case of doubt as to itsultimate effect the doubt should beresolved on the conservative side. Bydoing so appropriation bills will berelieved of much of the legislationwhich is being constantly grafted


5003


upon them and a check given a prac-tice which seems to the Chair, bothunwise and in violation of the spirit,as well as the substance, of ourrules.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] care to beheard on the point of order?

MR. [LOUIS C.] RABAUT: Mr. Chair-man, I wish to explain the language.The legislative committee has placedoutside limits on the amount of moneywhich can be spent in a given riverbasin. Such basin may have a numberof dams or projects in it. Without thelanguage these monetary limits couldbe exceeded by action on an appropria-tion bill, thus setting aside the actionof 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 morethan one member of the committee hasadmitted that there are appropriationsnot authorized by law, that this is asubterfuge, and I say, Mr. Chairman,designed to controvert the rule of theHouse.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Iowa care to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [BEN F.] JENSEN [of Iowa]: I do,Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have been on theCommittee on Appropriations for thepast 18 years. I cannot recall when apoint of order has ever been raisedagainst similar language in an appro-priation bill. The language is simplylimiting an appropriation expenditure,

providing that the expenditure shallnot be made until such project is au-thorized by law. I fail to see, Mr.Chairman, where a point of order couldlie against this language because it ispurely a simple limitation of expendi-ture on an appropriation bill; nothingmore, nothing less.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre-pared to rule.

It so happens that almost an iden-tical point of order to an identicalparagraph was raised on June 18,1958, by the gentleman from New York(Mr. Taber). It also happens that thepresent occupant of the chair was inthe chair at that time. The Chair ruledthen that the language was specific,that there was no question about itsreferring to the controlling phase ‘‘au-thorized by law,’’ and none of the ap-propriation can be expended unless au-thorized by law.

The Chair overrules the point oforder and sustains the ruling made onJune 18, 1958.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Thisprecedent and the preceding onedemonstrate that when alumpsum appropriation is re-stricted by specific language inthe bill to projects authorized bylaw, indications in the committeereport to the effect that certainunauthorized projects may be con-templated must be conceded to bewithout legislative effect. Wherethere is such a conflict in lan-guage, the language in the billitself would prevail. Further dis-cussion of this concept appears inChapter 26, infra.


5004


20. 105 CONG. REC. 10061, 86th Cong.1st Sess.

21. Hale Boggs (La.).1. 115 CONG. REC. 13267, 13268, 91st

Cong. 1st Sess.

§ 2.19 A point of order will notlie against an amendmentproposing to increase alump-sum appropriation forconstruction and rehabilita-tion of public works projectswhen language in the billlimits use of the lump-sumappropriation to ‘‘projects. . . as authorized by law.’’On June 5, 1959,(20) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a bill (H.R. 7509) mak-ing appropriations for civil func-tions administered by the Depart-ment of Defense, the followingproceedings took place:

MR. [HAMER H.] BUDGE [of Idaho]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Budge:On page 8, line 5, strike out‘‘$128,473,239’’ and insert‘‘$128,973,–239.’’. . .

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: The amendment has just beenread and I am reserving a point oforder to the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: (21) Will the gen-tleman from Missouri state his point oforder?

MR. CANNON: The point of order isthat the project is unauthorized.

MR. BUDGE: Mr. Chairman, may I beheard on the point of order?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is con-strained to overrule the point of order

without further discussion, because theamendment simply changes theamount of the bill without specific ref-erence to any project.

The point of order is overruled.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Theparagraph to which this amend-ment was offered began as fol-lows: ‘‘Construction and Rehabili-tation. For construction and reha-bilitation of authorized reclama-tion projects or parts thereof (in-cluding power transmission facili-ties) and for other related activi-ties, as authorized by law to re-main available until expended,$128,473,239 . . .’’

§ 2.20 A point of order washeld not to lie against alump-sum appropriation forincreased pay costs, wherethe objection was based onthe ground that a portion ofthe increase was not yet au-thorized by law; it was notedthat language in the bill lim-ited use of the appropriationto pay costs ‘‘authorized byor pursuant to law.’’

On May 21, 1969,(1) the Com-mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 11400, a supplementalappropriation bill. The following


5005


2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

3. See also 106 CONG. REC. 7941, 86thCong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1960 [H.R.11666], where a point of order wasmade against a paragraph of an ap-

paragraphs of the bill were readfor amendment:

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 orderagainst the language on page 23, lines12, 13, and 14, on the ground that, asadmitted by the committee, this con-tains moneys to be appropriated thathave not been authorized by Congress.

THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The Chair will in-quire: Does the gentleman’s point oforder refer to lines 12, 13, and 14?

MR. GROSS: Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14.THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman

from Texas desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I be-lieve, does not seek to reduce funds forthe Office of the Speaker, as shown online 14. The gentleman is, I believe,only referring to the pay increase forthe Speaker and other Members— theitem on line 12.

MR. GROSS: Very frankly, I do notknow which one of these line itemscontains all the funds, so I am just try-ing to take as much as I can to be sureI get the funds covered. If the gen-tleman will tell me what line they arein I will amend my point of order, withthe permission of the Chair.

MR. MAHON: The funds which havenot been authorized are included inline 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.

MR. GROSS: Those are the only fundsthat have not been authorized?

MR. MAHON: Yes; that is the figureinvolved. A small portion of that hasnot been authorized. . . .

The $19,835 included in line 12 hasnot been authorized. That is correct.

MR. GROSS: You mean the$1,975,000?

MR. MAHON: No; $19,835 has notbeen authorized. But it cannot be paidunless it is authorized. Otherwise, itwould revert unused to the Treasury.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair again isconfused. The Chair sees no referenceto a figure of $19,835 in the bill or inthe language referred to here.

MR. MAHON: It is part of the figureof $1,975,000. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is still ina quandary because the language inline 7 says, ‘‘for increased pay costs au-thorized by or pursuant to law.’’

MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, all com-pensation due by law to Members ofCongress is authorized. If it is not au-thorized, it cannot be paid.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. . . .The Chair is constrained to hold that

the gentleman’s point of order is notwell taken, because the money amountin line 12 cannot be used for any otherpurpose than increased pay costs au-thorized by or pursuant to law. There-fore, the gentleman’s point of order isoverruled.(3)


5006


propriation bill on the ground thatthe lump-sum figure therein con-tained, according to the report, fundsfor one organization in excess of theauthorization. Although the point oforder was conceded, the language ofthe bill specified that appropriationsin the paragraph were available onlyfor ‘‘expenses authorized by the per-tinent acts’’ providing for U.S. par-ticipation in certain organizations,and, under the precedents, thequoted language would limit theamount which could be used to theamount actually authorized, so thatthe point of order would not lie.

4. 116 CONG. REC. 16164, 16165, 91stCong. 2d Sess. 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

Authorizations Enacted AfterReporting Appropriation Bill

§ 2.21 A point of order againstan item in a general appro-priation bill was overruledwhen it became apparentthat the authorizing legisla-tion had been enacted intolaw between the time the ap-propriation bill was reportedand the time it was consid-ered in the Committee of theWhole.

On May 19, 1970,(4) during con-sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Department of theInterior appropriation bill for fis-cal 1971 (H.R. 17619) a point oforder was raised against certainlanguage in the bill as follows:

ANADROMOUS AND GREAT LAKES

FISHERIES CONSERVATION

For expenses necessary to carry outthe provisions of the Act of October 30,1965 (16 U.S.C. 757), $2,168,000.

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointof order against the language on lines1 through 3 of page 19 as unauthorizedfor an appropriation.

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) Does the gentle-woman from Washington desire to beheard on the point of order?

MRS. [JULIA BUTLER] HANSEN ofWashington: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

May I say, relative to the Anad-romous and Great Lakes FisheriesConservation, the bill was signed bythe President of the United States onMay 14.


The language in the bill indicatesthat this is under the provisions of theact of October 30, 1965. As the gentle-woman from Washington points out,the program has recently been reau-thorized—Public Law 91–249.


Repeal of Prior Authorization

§ 2.22 An act providing thatnotwithstanding any otherlaw, ‘‘no appropriation maybe made to the National Aer-onautics and Space Adminis-tration unless previously au-thorized by legislation here-after enacted by the Con-


5007



7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).8. Rule XXI clause 5 (renumbered as

clause 6 beginning with the 94th

gress,’’ was construed tohave voided all previous au-thorizations for appropria-tions to that agency; hencean appropriation was heldnot to be in order since notauthorized by law enactedafter the repeal.On June 29, 1959,(6) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a supplemental appro-priation bill (H.R. 7978), a point oforder was raised against certainprovisions of the bill:


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

For an additional amount for ‘‘Re-search and development,’’ fiscal year1959, $18,675,000, to remain avail-able until expended.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Chairman, a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The gentlemanwill state his point of order.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I makethe point [of] order against the lan-guage on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, onthe ground that there is no authoriza-tion in basic law for this appropriationto be made.

In connection with that, I send acopy of Public Law 86–45 of the 86thCongress to the Chair. I make thepoint of order on the ground that thereis no authorization in basic law for thisappropriation to be made. The author-

ization for this appropriation did existat one time, but it was repealed by theact of June 15, 1959, Public Law 86–45, section 4, which reads as follows:

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provi-sions of any other law, no appropria-tion may be made to the NationalAeronautics and Space Administra-tion unless previously authorized bylegislation hereafter enacted by theCongress.

This law, Mr. Chairman, was ap-proved on June 15, 1959. This lan-guage clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman,that appropriations can be made foritems authorized by legislation whichis hereafter enacted, meaning afterJune 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly statesthat appropriations can be made onlyfor items authorized after June 15,1959, hence all previous authorizationsare voided. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromIowa has made a point of order againstthat portion of the bill appearing inlines 2, 3, and 4, page 4, and has calledthe attention of the Chair to section 4of Public Law 86–45. In view of thelanguage cited, the Chair sustains thepoint of order.

§ 3. Reappropriations

A House rule states:No general appropriation bill or

amendment thereto shall be receivedor considered if it contains a provisionreappropriating unexpended balancesof appropriations; except that this pro-vision shall not apply to appropriationsin continuation of appropriations forpublic works on which work has com-menced.(8)


5008


Congress), House Rules and Manual§ 847 (1981).

9. See § 3.7, infra.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 theLegislative Reorganization Act of1946).

The rule is not applicable whenthe reappropriation language isidentical to legislative authoriza-tion language enacted subsequentto the adoption of the rule, sincethe law is a more recent expres-sion of the will of the House.(9)

The precedents in this sectionmust be compared with those car-ried in Chapter 26, infra, dis-cussing transfer of funds affectingother appropriations, wherein pro-visions which sought to authorizethe transfer of previously appro-priated funds into new accountsfor a different purpose have beenruled out as legislation changingexisting law in violation of clause2 Rule XXI. Section 139(c) of theLegislative Reorganization Act of1946, later incorporated into thestanding rules as clause 5 (nowclause 6) of Rule XXI in 1953,sought to preclude reappropri-ations of unexpended balances,which were understood to be legis-lative methods (1) for making anappropriation available after theperiod in which it may be obli-gated has expired, or (2) for trans-ferring to a given appropriationan amount not needed in anotherappropriation.(10) Prior to 1946,

provisions which reappropriatedin a direct manner unexpendedbalances and continued theiravailability for the same purposefor an extended period of timewere not prohibited by Rule XXIbecause those provisions did notcontain direct language changingexisting law by conferring new au-thority (see, e.g., 4 Hinds’ Prece-dents § 3592; 7 Cannon’s Prece-dents § 1152), and this doctrinewas extended even to include re-appropriations for different pur-poses than those for which origi-nally appropriated, if the newpurposes were authorized by law(see, e.g., 7 Cannon’s Precedents§ 1158; § 3.14, infra). Other prece-dents, however, indicate that priorto 1946, propositions to make anappropriation payable from fundsalready appropriated for a dif-ferent purpose have been ruledout as legislation (see e.g., 7 Can-non’s Precedents § 1466). Indeed,on Dec. 14, 1921, Speaker Fred-erick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts,stated that ‘‘there are several de-cisions in print which are con-tradictory. There are decisionsboth ways.’’ (7 Cannon’s Prece-dents § 1158). In light of more re-cent precedents contained in


5009


11. See 4 Hinds’ precedents § 3594.

12. 101 CONG. REC. 10232, 84th Cong.1st Sess. See also, for example, 106Cong. Rec. 6862, 86th Cong. 2dSess., Mar. 29, 1960; 101 Cong. Rec.8534, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16,1955.

Chapter 26, infra, however, itwould appear that the Chair mayproperly rule out as legislation inviolation of clause 2 Rule XXI pro-visions on a general appropriationbill which confer new authority toexpend previously appropriatedfunds for a new purpose or for un-authorized projects by inclusion oflanguage permitting or mandatingtransfers between accounts. Boththat chapter and this section indi-cate that the Chair has on occa-sion relied upon both clause 2 andclause 5 of Rule XXI to rule outprovisions which sought to author-ize the transfer of previously ap-propriated funds into new ac-counts. Despite the conferral ofRule X clause 1(b)(3) in the 93dCongress of jurisdiction over‘‘transfers of unexpended bal-ances’’ upon the Committee onAppropriations, that committeeremains restricted by clause 5(now clause 6) of Rule XXI fromincluding reappropriations of un-expended balances of appropria-tions in general appropriationbills, and only transfers betweenaccounts in the same general ap-propriation bill are permitted (seeCh. 26, infra, discussion of trans-fer of funds within the same bill).

The return of an unexpendedbalance to the Treasury is inorder.(11)

Generally

§ 3.1 An amendment to an ap-propriation bill proposing re-appropriation of unexpendedbalances of appropriations isin violation of Rule XXIclause 5 (now clause 6), andtherefore not in order.On July 11, 1955,(12) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7224, a mutual secu-rity appropriation bill. The fol-lowing provision of the bill wasread:

That the following sums are appro-priated, out of any money in the Treas-ury not otherwise appropriated, for thefiscal year ending June 30, 1956. . . .

An amendment was offered asindicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Whit-ten:

On page 1, line 3, strike out theword ‘‘appropriated’’ and substitute theword ‘‘reappropriated.’’

Page 1, line 4, strike out the words‘‘not otherwise’’ and substitute theword ‘‘heretofore.’’

The effect of which was tochange the text of the bill to read:

That the following sums are reappro-priated, out of any money in the Treas-


5010


13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).


15. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).

ury heretofore appropriated, for the fis-cal year ending June 30, 1956.

A point of order was made asfollows:

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointof order against the amendment that itis legislation on an appropriation bill.He attempts to appropriate moneyheretofore appropriated . . . and itgoes beyond the scope of the presentlegislation.

MR. [JAMES L.] WHITTEN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, it is my un-derstanding that a rule was had onthis bill on legislation included in it. Itis my understanding that money nowin the Treasury to the credit of the for-eign-aid program is not all expended.

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The legislationunder consideration is not here undera special rule. If the gentleman doesnot care to be heard, the Chair isready to rule on the point of order.

MR. WHITTEN: I have nothing fur-ther to add, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: Rule XXI, clause 5,is very plain. It provides that—

No general appropriation oramendment thereto shall be receivedor considered if it contains a provi-sion reappropriating unexpendedbalances of appropriations.

It seems to the Chair that this lan-guage very plainly deals with theamendment that has just been offered,and the Chair sustains the point oforder.

§ Sec. 3.2 An amendment to anappropriation bill reappro-

priating unexpended bal-ances of funds previously ap-propriated was held in viola-tion of the Legislative Reor-ganization Act of 1946, andnot in order for certain mon-itoring activities.On Aug. 20, 1951,(14) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5215, a supplementalappropriation bill. An amendmentwas offered and a point of orderwas raised as indicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips:On page 9, strike out lines 22 and 23and insert in lieu thereof the following:‘‘For an additional amount, for moni-toring activities, to be derived fromfunds previously appropriated,$1,000,000.’’

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.. . .

The appropriation is from ‘‘fundspreviously appropriated’’ and thereforeis tantamount to a reappropriation.Under amendments to the rules of theHouse enacted in the Legislative Reor-ganization Act of 1946, reappropri-ations are not in order on general ap-propriation bills. . . .


The provision in the gentleman’samendment providing that the fundsfor monitoring activities are to be de-rived from funds previously appro-priated is a violation of the Reorga-


5011


16. 100 CONG. REC. 2600, 83d Cong. 2dSess.

17. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).18. 115 CONG. REC. 38541, 38542, 91st

Cong. 1st Sess.

nization Act, and therefore the Chairsustains the point of order.

§ 3.3 In an appropriation bill aprovision that ‘‘the unex-pended balance of appropria-tions heretofore reserved formoving the InternationalBroadcasting Service to theDistrict of Columbia or itsenvirons shall remain avail-able for such purpose untilDecember 31, 1954,’’ wasruled out, being a reappro-priation in violation of RuleXXI clause 5 (now clause 6),the Chair also construing thelanguage to be legislation inviolation of clause 2 of RuleXXI.On Mar. 3, 1954,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice,and Commerce Department appro-priation. Proceedings were as fol-lows:

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of NewYork]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page 49,lines 11 to 14, I make a point of orderagainst that language.

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) Will the gen-tleman explain his point of order?

MR. ROONEY: This would make avail-able into another fiscal year funds ap-propriated in the current year. Thereis no authority in law for this.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Ohio wish to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [CLIFF] CLEVENGER [of Ohio]: Iconcede the point of order, Mr. Chair-man.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair thinksthis is legislation on an appropriationbill. Therefore, the point of order issustained.

§ 3.4 A provision in an appro-priation bill permitting anappropriation previouslymade in another act to beused for a new purpose wasconceded to be legislation.On Dec. 11, 1969,(18) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a bill (H.R. 15209) mak-ing supplemental appropriationsfor fiscal year 1970, Mr. H. R.Gross, of Iowa, raised a point oforder against certain language inthe bill:

MEMBERS’ CLERK HIRE

After June 1, 1970, but without in-creasing the aggregate basic clerk hiremonetary allowance to which eachMember and the Resident Commis-sioner from Puerto Rico is otherwiseentitled by law, the appropriation for‘‘Members’ clerk hire’’ may be used foremployment of a ‘‘student congres-sional intern’’ in accord with the provi-sions of House Resolution 416, Eighty-ninth Congress.

POINT OF ORDER

MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language on


5012




1. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).

page 6, beginning with line 11 andthrough line 18, as being legislation onan appropriation bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Does the gen-tleman desire to be heard in support ofthe point of order?

MR. GROSS: I thought I made thepoint of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Does the gentlemanfrom Texas desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [George H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Ap-propriations put this legislation in thebill for the purpose of accommodatingMembers. It is subject to a point oforder, and the point of order is con-ceded.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromTexas has conceded the point of order,and the Chair sustains the point oforder.

§ 3.5 Where the bill providingan annual authorization forthe Coast Guard Reserve hadnot yet been enacted intolaw, an amendment to a gen-eral appropriation bill con-taining funds for CoastGuard Reserve training andproviding that amountsequal to prior year appro-priations for that purposeshould be transferred to thatappropriation was held tocontain an unauthorized ap-propriation in violation ofRule XXI clause 2, and a re-appropriation of unexpended

balances in violation of RuleXXI clause 5 (now clause 6).On June 20, 1973,(20) during

consideration in the Committee ofthe Whole of the Department ofTransportation appropriation billfor fiscal 1974 (H.R. 8760), Mr.George H. Mahon, of Texas, raiseda point of order against anamendment offered by Mr. SilvioO. Conte, of Massachusetts. Pro-ceedings were as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Conte:Page 4, after line 23, insert:

RESERVE TRAINING

For all necessary expenses for theCoast Guard Reserve, as authorizedby law; maintenance and operationof facilities; and supplies, equipment,and services; $25,000,000: Provided,That amounts equal to the obligatedbalances against appropriations for‘‘Reserve training’’ for the two pre-ceding years shall be transferred toand merged with this appropriation,and such merged appropriation shallbe available as one fund, except foraccounting purposes of the CoastGuard, for payment of obligationsproperly incurred against such prioryear appropriations and against thisappropriation. . . .

MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I insiston my point of order against theamendment. The amendment, in myopinion, is legislation on an appropria-tion bill and the funds are not author-ized by law, so I make the point oforder against the amendment. . . .



5013


2. 106 CONG. REC. 13138, 86th Cong.2d Sess.

Clause 2, rule XXI, prohibits unau-thorized items from being included inamendments to a general appropria-tion bill, and also clause 5, rule XXI,has a prohibition against the reappro-priation of unexpended balances ofsums appropriated in prior years. Theamendment is subject to a point oforder for these reasons and the Chairsustains the point of order.

Later Rule as SupersedingStatute

§ 3.6 A provision in the mutualsecurity appropriation billreappropriating unexpendedbalances was conceded to bea reappropriation proscribedby Rule XXI clause 5 (nowclause 6), notwithstanding aprovision in the Mutual Se-curity Act of 1955 (§ 548,adopted July 8, 1955, 22 USCSec. 1767a) providing that‘‘unexpended balances areauthorized to be continuedavailable,’’ since the rules ofthe House readopted in 1959contained a later expressionof Congress to the contrary.On June 17, 1960,(2) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the bill (H.R. 12619)making appropriations for the mu-tual security program and relatedagencies for fiscal 1961, Mr. H. R.Gross, of Iowa, made a point of

order against certain language inthe bill:

MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language onpage 5, lines 1 through 8, inclusive, onthe grounds it is not in order on a gen-eral appropriation bill under clause 5of rule XXI. This language provides forthe reappropriation of funds previouslymade available and is not permittedunder the rules of the House—para-graph 5 of rule XXI which reads, inpertinent part, as follows:

No general appropriation bill oramendment thereto shall be receivedor considered if it contains a provi-sion reappropriating unexpendedbalances of appropriations.

It is true that the mutual securityauthorization law authorizes reappro-priation of unexpended balances, butthat authority was last contained insection 548 enacted in calendar year1956. Subsequent to that time, and atthe beginning of the 86th Congress,the House adopted rules from which Ihave just read. Inasmuch as this rule-making action occurred subsequent tothe latest action by law, and there hasbeen no enactment by statute on theparticular matter during the presentCongress, the rules of the House gov-ern in this situation. Furthermore, it iswell settled in the precedents that thepower of the House to make its ownrules may not be impaired by a lawpassed by a prior Congress. Therefore,I ask that my point of order be sus-tained.

MR. [Otto E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-isiana]: Mr. Chairman, the gentlemanfrom Iowa [Mr. Gross] was considerateenough to advise us in advance of hisintention to make this point of order.


5014


3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).4. 107 CONG. REC. 18133, 87th Cong.

1st Sess.

He has stated the facts of the matteraccurately. I have discussed this pointof order with other Members and wehave carefully reviewed the situation.Most regretfully I must concede thatthe point of order is well taken.

THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The Chair sus-tains the point of order.

Later Statute as SupersedingRule

§ 3.7 Rule XXI clause 5 (nowclause 6), relating to the re-appropriation of unexpendedbalances of appropriations,is not applicable when thereappropriation language isidentical to the authorizationlanguage enacted subsequentto adoption of the rule; thus,where the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961 (Pub. L. No. 87–195) specifically providedthat ‘‘unexpended balancesof funds made availableunder the Mutual SecurityAct of 1954 . . . are herebyauthorized to be continuedavailable for general pur-poses for which appro-priated,’’ the Speaker protempore held that a provi-sion in an appropriation billreappropriating the unex-pended balances of suchfunds was in order, notwith-standing Rule XXI clause 5

(now clause 6), since the leg-islative authorization billwas a more recent expres-sion of the will of the House.On Sept. 5, 1961,(4) Mr. H. R.

Gross, of Iowa, raised a point oforder against consideration of abill (H.R. 9033) making appropria-tions for foreign assistance and re-lated agencies for fiscal year 1962.The proceedings were as follows:

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make apoint of order against consideration ofthe bill.

Mr. Speaker, I call the attention ofthe Chair to the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives, 87th Congress, ruleXXI, paragraph 5, which reads as fol-lows:

No general appropriation bill oramendment thereto shall be receivedor considered if it contains a provi-sion reappropriating unexpendedbalances of appropriations; exceptthat this provision shall not apply toappropriations in continuation of ap-propriations for public works onwhich work has commenced.

Mr. Speaker, the language is explicitand there is only one exception; that isfor public works bills. I submit thatthis is not a public works bill.

Mr. Speaker, I call attention of theChair to the language contained inH.R. 9033 for which consideration isasked, on page 3 of that bill, lines 8through 24.

Unobligated balances (not to ex-ceed $50,000,000) as of June 30,


5015


5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

6. Parliamentarian’s Note: The rules ofthe House, 87th Congress (includingRule XXI clause 5) were adopted onJan. 3, 1961 (H. Res. 8). The foreign-aid authorization bill (S. 1983) wassigned by the President on Sept. 4,1961 (becoming Pub. L. No. 87–195).Section 645 of this law contained aspecific authorization for the reap-propriation of certain unexpendedbalances of mutual security funds.

1961, of funds heretofore made avail-able for military assistance underthe authority of the Mutual SecurityAct of 1954, as amended, are, exceptas otherwise provided by law, herebycontinued available for the fiscalyear 1962 for the same general pur-poses for which appropriated.

Further, Mr. Speaker, section 101 onthe same page reads:

Amounts certified pursuant to sec-tion 1311 of the Supplemental Ap-propriation Act, 1955, as havingbeen obligated against appropria-tions heretofore made under the au-thority of the Mutual Security Act of1954, as amended, for the same gen-eral purpose as any of the subpara-graphs under ‘‘Economic assistance’’except the subparagraph of this titlefor ‘‘Administrative expenses,’’ arehereby continued available for thesame period as the respective appro-priations in such subparagraphs forthe same general purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the language which Ihave read relates to funds not in thebill and clearly reappropriates unex-pended balances of appropriations inviolation of the rules of theHouse. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (5) TheChair is prepared to rule.

Section 645 of the Foreign Assist-ance Act of 1961, which was passed byboth Houses of Congress and signed bythe President yesterday, and is nowPublic Law 87–195, specifically author-izes:

Unexpended balances of fundsmade available pursuant to the Mu-tual Security Act of 1954, as amend-ed, are hereby authorized to be con-tinued available for the general pur-poses for which appropriated, and

may at any time be consolidated,and, in addition, may be consolidatedwith appropriations made availablefor the same general purposes underthe authority of this act.

That is the will of both branches ofthe Congress as expressed very re-cently. The language in the pendingappropriation bill is identical and con-sistent with the authority contained insection 645.

The Chair overrules the point oforder, for the reason that the recentact of the Congress makes the actionsof the Committee on Appropriationspursuant to law.(6)

§ 3.8 Language in an appro-priation bill continuing theavailability of unobligatedbalances of prior appropria-tions was held in orderwhere provisions of theoriginal authorizing legisla-tion still in effect had pro-vided for such a reappropri-ation, and a dollar limitationin the current authorizationbill was interpreted to be alimitation on new appropria-tions only and not to restrict


5016


7. 111 CONG. REC. 23181, 23182, 89thCong. 1st Sess. 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

the reappropriation of unex-pended balances of prioryear funds.On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 10871, a foreign-aidappropriation bill for fiscal 1966.The Clerk read the following por-tion of the bill:

Page 3, line 19:

Unobligated balances as of June30, 1965, of funds heretofore madeavailable under the authority of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, asamended, except as otherwise pro-vided by law, are hereby continuedavailable for the fiscal year 1966, forthe same general purposes for whichappropriated and amounts certifiedpursuant to section 1311 of the Sup-plemental Appropriation Act, 1955,as having been obligated against ap-propriations heretofore made underthe authority of the Mutual SecurityAct of 1954, as amended, and theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, asamended, for the same general pur-pose as any of the subparagraphsunder ‘‘Economic Assistance’’ arehereby continued available for thesame period as the respective appro-priations in such subparagraphs forthe same general purpose: Provided,That such purpose relates to aproject or program previously justi-fied to Congress and the Committeeson Appropriations of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate arenotified prior to the reobligation offunds for such projects or programs.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the language appearing onpage 3, beginning with line 19 and

running through the remainder of thatpage to and through line 13 on page 4.

I made the point of order on thebasis that the authorization bill con-tains section 649, which reads as fol-lows:

Sec. 649. Limitation on aggregateauthorization for use in fiscal year1966.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of this Act, the aggregateof the total amounts authorized to beappropriated for use during the fis-cal year 1966, for furnishing assist-ance and for administrative expensesunder this Act shall not exceed$3,360,000,000.

Mr. Chairman, I point out that listedat the top of page 3 of the committeereport is the ‘‘carryover from prior yearappropriations,’’ in the amount of$158,352,000, which is a part of theunobligated carryover that is con-trolled under the language which Iseek to strike under the point of order.There is further ‘‘deobligations of prior-year obligations’’ listed in the report atthe top of page 3. This is also con-trolled under the language that I seekto have stricken under the point oforder.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to findthe total amounts of all appropriationscontained in the language to be foundon pages 3 and 4, to which I have re-ferred, but in order that this bill to bemade to conform to the new sectionthat was written into the authorizationbill, which has been signed by thePresident of the United States and isnow law, I submit that the language inthe bill to which I have referred mustbe stricken.

THE CHAIRMAN: (8) Does the gen-tleman from Louisiana desire to beheard on the point of order?


5017


9. 119 CONG. REC. 27291, 93d Cong. 1stSess.

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-isiana]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

It appears to me that we are dealingwith two different acts.

Under the authorizing legislationthere was a ceiling of $3,360 million ofnew appropriations. The bill before theHouse calls for only $3,285 million innew appropriations. Some part of theprevious money appropriated is 1-yearfunds and does not necessarily carryover, and we are following the lan-guage in the authorizing legislationitself.

I refer to section 645 of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961 as amended:

Unexpended balances of fundsmade available pursuant to this Act,the Mutual Security Act of 1954, asamended or Public Law 86–735 arehereby authorized to be continuedavailable for the general purposes forwhich appropriated, and may at anytime be consolidated, and, in addi-tion, may be consolidated with ap-propriations made available for thesame general purposes under the au-thority of this Act.

Mr. Passman further made theargument, apparently accepted bythe Chair, that since section 645of the Foreign Assistance Act of1961 had not been deleted fromthe current bill in conference, itappeared the conference intendedthat the right to continue unobli-gated funds should remain in theauthorization.


The gentleman from Iowa made hispoint of order against the language online 19, page 3, and through line 13 onpage 4.

The Chair, after careful examinationof the sections in the conference reportreferred to by the various Memberswho have commented on this point oforder, is constrained to agree that thelanguage found in the conference re-port on page 25 referred to authoriza-tions contained in that particular billand pertains only to new money.

There is a definite feeling on thepart of the Chair that it did not per-tain to carryover funds or to the mak-ing available of funds which under sec-tion 645 would remain and continue tobe available.

The Chair feels that section 645 issufficient to make these carryoverfunds in order and the Chair, there-fore, overrules the point of order.

Transfer of Funds

§ 3.9 A section in a general ap-propriation bill requiring theavailability of funds avail-able in other acts for employ-ment of guards for govern-ment buildings and confer-ring certain powers on thoseguards and on the Post-master General was con-ceded to be subject to a pointof order and was ruled out asin violation of Rule XXIclauses 2 and 5 (clause 5 isnow clause 6).On Aug. 1, 1973,(9) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Treasury, postal


5018


10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).11. 112 CONG. REC. 27425, 89th Cong.

2d Sess.

service, and executive office ap-propriations bill (H.R. 9590) forfiscal 1974, Mr. John D. Dingell,of Michigan, raised a point oforder against certain language inthe bill:

Sec. 610. Funds made available bythis or any other Act to the ‘‘Buildingmanagement fund’’ (40 U.S.C. 490(f)),and the ‘‘Postal service fund’’ (39U.S.C. 2003), shall be available for em-ployment of guards for all buildingsand areas owned or occupied by theUnited States or the Postal Serviceand under the charge and control ofthe General Services Administration orthe Postal Service, and such guardsshall have, with respect to such prop-erty, the powers of special policemenprovided by the first section of the Actof June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40U.S.C. 318), but shall not be restrictedto certain Federal property as other-wise required by the proviso containedin said section, and, as to propertyowned or occupied by the Postal Serv-ice, the Postmaster General may takethe same actions as the Administratorof General Services may take underthe provisions of sections 2 and 3 ofthe Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281;40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b) attaching there-to penal consequences under the au-thority and within the limits providedin section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948(62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).

MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, Imake, again, the same point of orderagainst the entirety of section 610, be-ginning with line 4 on page 36.

MR. [THOMAS J.] STEED [of Okla-homa]: Mr. Chairman, we concede thepoint of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The point oforder is conceded and sustained.

Holman Rule Not Applicable

§ 3.10 A reappropriation of un-expended balances, prohib-ited by Rule XXI clause 5(now clause 6), is not inorder on a general appro-priation bill under the guiseof a Holman rule exceptionto Rule XXI clause 2.On Oct. 18, 1966,(11) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 18381, a supplementalappropriation bill. Proceedingswere as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: Onpage 16 after line 3 add a new sectionas follows:

Sec. 803. Notwithstanding anyother provision, appropriations here-in, as the President shall determine,shall, not later than 120 days afterthe date of enactment of this Act, bereduced in the aggregate by not lessthan $1,500,000,000 through substi-tution by reduction and transfer offunds previously appropriated forgovernmental activities that thePresident, within the aforementioned120 days, shall have determined tobe excess to the necessities of theservices and objects for which appro-priated.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst this amendment.


5019




MR. MAHON: The point of order isthat the amendment goes far beyondthe scope of this bill and applies tofunds made available by other laws forwhich appropriations are not providedin the pending measure.

I make the further point of orderthat the amendment would obviouslyimpose additional duties on the Presi-dent.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Ohio wish to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Yes,I do wish to be heard, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to this amendment Ishall not repeat the provisions of theHolman rule.

I believe we have changed the Hol-man rule today by making it relate tothis bill. The previous precedents ofthe House have been it must not nec-essarily apply to this particular billwhen there is a retrenchment so, weare making new precedents today.

This is a general appropriation billaffecting various agencies. Since theamendment also deals with and affectsvarious appropriations of various agen-cies, it is germane.

Again, there can be no speculationas to its retrenching Federal expendi-tures because it reduces appropriationsin this bill—in this bill by $1.5 billionand requires the President to fund ac-tivities in this bill from previously ap-propriated funds that are excess to thenecessities of the services and objectsfor which appropriated.

I point out again that the Holmanrule does not go along with the deci-

sion suggested by the distinguishedchairman of the committee that addi-tional duties are involved.

Under the Holman rule it is a ques-tion of retrenchment of expenditures.

The legislation in this amendment isnot unrelated to the retrenchment ofexpenditures. Instead, it is directly in-strumental in accomplishing the reduc-tion of expenditures. Thus, the pro-posed retrenchment and the legislationare inseparable and must be consid-ered together.

‘‘Cannon’s Precedents’’, in volumeVII, 1550 and 1551, holds that anamendment may include such legisla-tion as is directly instrumental in ac-complishing the reduction of expendi-tures proposed. That is the precise sit-uation with respect to this pendingamendment.

Again I cite ‘‘Cannon’s Precedents,’’volume VII, 1511, which holds thatlanguage admitted under the Holmanrule is not restricted in its applicationto the pending bill, and to the June 1,1892, decision, to which I referred be-fore, of the Committee of the Wholeand its Chairman, that an amendmentwas in order under the Holman ruleeven though it changed existing law.

I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if thisis held to be out of order we will bechanging the precedents and the rulesof the House, and we will be destroyingthe Holman rule.

I urge the Chair to overrule thepoint of order.


The amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Ohio specifies that appro-priations herein, as the President shalldetermine, shall be reduced in the ag-


5020



gregate by not less than $1.5 billion.This reduction would be achieved byauthorizing and directing the Presi-dent to utilize previously appropriatedfunds for the activities carried in thisbill.

The Chair feels that the amendmentis clearly legislation. It places addi-tional determinations and duties onthe President and involves funds otherthan those carried in this bill.

Therefore, if the amendment were tobe permitted it would have to qualify,as the gentleman has attempted toqualify it, under the Holman exception,under the Holman rule, rule XXI,clause 2.

In the opinion of the Chair, the Hol-man exception is inapplicable in thisinstance for three reasons.

First, the payment from a fund al-ready appropriated of a sum whichotherwise would be charged againstthe Treasury has been held not to be aretrenchment of expenditures underthe Holman rule.

Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruledto the same effect when a propositioninvolving the Holman rule was beforethe House on January 26, 1921.

Second, it seems to the Chair thatthe language proposed by the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) authorizesthe reappropriation of unexpended bal-ances, a practice prohibited by clause 5of rule XXI.

Third, the amendment goes to fundsother than those carried in this billand is not germane.

With respect to the latter point andthe citation that has been given by thegentleman from Ohio, which is foundin the precedents of the House, volumeVII, 1511, the Chair will note that the

proposition reduced the number ofArmy officers and provided the methodby which the reduction should be ac-complished. It was an amendment, asit appears in the citation, to a War De-partment appropriation bill and wastherefore germane in spite of whateverthe general proposition in the headingmay have stated.

For the reasons given, the Chair willsustain the point of order made by thegentleman from Texas.

Limitation of Funds in Bill soLong as Previously Appro-priated Funds Remain Unex-pended

§ 3.11 To an appropriation bill,an amendment providingthat no part of the fundstherein should be availablefor expenditure so long asthe funds theretofore appro-priated for such purpose andunexpended exceeded threebillion dollars, was held to bea proper limitation and notan affirmative reappropri-ation of unexpended bal-ances.On July 11, 1955,(13) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7224, a mutual secu-rity appropriation bill. The fol-lowing proceedings took place:

Provided further, That no part of anyappropriation contained in this act


5021



15. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, § 139(c),60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI clause 6,House Rules and Manual § 847(1981).

16. 90 CONG. REC. 8941, 8942, 78thCong. 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.

shall be available for expense of trans-portation . . . and unpacking of house-hold goods and personal effects in ex-cess of an average of 5,000 pounds netbut not exceeding 9,000 pounds net inany one shipment, but the limitationsimposed herein shall not be applicablein the case of employees transferred toor serving in stations outside the conti-nental United States under orders re-lieving them from a duty station with-in the United States prior to August 1,1953.

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Whit-ten: On page 9, after line 9, add thefollowing: ‘‘Provided, That no part ofthe funds herein appropriated shallbe available for expenditure so longas the funds heretofore appropriatedfor such purposes and unexpendedby the Mutual Security Administra-tion exceed $3 billion.’’

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against the amendmentthat it is legislation on an appropria-tion bill and that it attempts to re-appropriate money previously appro-priated. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (14) As the Chair un-derstands it, the amendment providesa very definite limitation to this appro-priation. In the opinion of the Chair itis merely a limitation and thereforeoverrules the point of order.

Reappropriations PermittedPrior to Legislative Reorga-nization Act of 1946

§ 3.12 Prior to the LegislativeReorganization Act of 1946

which prohibited it,(15) thereappropriation of funds car-ried in a prior appropriationbill for purposes authorizedby law was held in order onan appropriation bill.On Dec. 6, 1944,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5587, a supplementalappropriation bill. An amendmentwas offered and a point of orderraised as indicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver:On page 19, line 3, insert:

‘‘CONSERVATION AND USE OF

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES

‘‘The funds appropriated in the De-partment of Agriculture AppropriationAct, 1945, under the head ‘Conserva-tion and Use of Agricultural Land Re-sources,’ notwithstanding any alloca-tion thereof heretofore made by depart-mental order, may be used to dischargein full payments and grants earned byfarmers in carrying out authorized soiland water conservation practices.’’

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the amendment that it islegislation on an appropriation bill andthat it changes existing law.


5022


17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).18. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, § 139(c),

60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI clause 6,House Rules and Manual § 847(1981).

1. 80 CONG. REC. 2987, 74th Cong. 2dSess. 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

It is apparent from the reading of itthat if it were not legislation, therewould be no occasion for offering it,that if it did not require legislation topermit the reallocation of these fundsthere is no reason why the Departmentwould not have done it before. Therewould be nothing to stop it. So it isperfectly apparent that this is legisla-tion. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The Chair holdsthat this is a reappropriation of for-merly appropriated money, so as tocarry out existing law and, therefore,overrules the point of order.

§ 3.13 Prior to the LegislativeReorganization Act of 1946which prohibited reappropri-ations,(18) the reappropri-ation of unobligated or unex-pended balances for pur-poses authorized by law wasin order, even though for dif-ferent purposes than thosefor which originally appro-priated.On Feb. 28, 1936,(1) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 11418, an AgricultureDepartment appropriation bill.The following portion of the billwas under consideration:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SYSTEM

For carrying out the provisions ofthe act entitled ‘‘An act to provide that

the United States shall aid the Statesin the construction of rural post roads,and for other purposes’’, approved July11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355–359), andall acts amendatory thereof and sup-plementary thereto, to be expended inaccordance with the provisions of saidact, as amended, including not to ex-ceed $556,000 for departmental per-sonal services in the District of Colum-bia, $60,000,000 to be immediatelyavailable and to remain available untilexpended, which sum is part of thesum of $125,000,000 authorized to beappropriated for the fiscal year 1936,by section 4 of the act approved June18, 1934 (48 Stat. 994). . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,which I send to the desk.


Amendment offered by Mr. Taber:On page 70, line 24, after‘‘$60,000,000’’, insert the following:‘‘of the unobligated balances of fundsallocated for other purposes thanroad and grade-crossing eliminationsappropriated by Public ResolutionNo. 11, Seventy-fourth Congress, ap-proved April 8, 1935.’’

MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHITTINGTON [ofMississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order that it is legislationupon an appropriation. . . .

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman is clearly in error, because thisis a pure reappropriation of funds thatwere appropriated under the act ofApril 8, 1935, out of unobligated bal-ances other than those providing forthe elimination of grade crossings androads. It involves a reappropriationonly. . . .



5023


3. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, § 139(c),60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI clause 6,House Rules and Manual § 847(1981).

4. 81 CONG. REC. 4684, 4685, 75thCong. 1st Sess. See also 91 CONG.REC. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.,Mar. 16, 1945. 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

The amendment offered by the gen-tleman from New York [Mr. Taber]seeks to reappropriate certain unobli-gated funds heretofore appropriated.The Chair has before him a syllabuswhich is directly applicable to thepoint raised. It may be found in Can-non’s Precedents, section 1158, and isas follows:

The reappropriation of unexpendedbalances for purposes authorized bylaw is in order, even though for dif-ferent purposes than those for whichoriginally appropriated.

The Chair thinks, therefore, that theamendment is in order, and overrulesthe point of order.

§ 3.14 Prior to the LegislativeReorganization Act of 1946which prohibited it,(3) the re-appropriation of an unex-pended balance could bemade in a general appropria-tion bill; but a reappropri-ation of an unexpended bal-ance, to be applied toprojects unauthorized bylaw, was not in order.On May 17, 1937,(4) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering for amendment a paragraph

of the bill H.R. 6958, an InteriorDepartment appropriation.

For administrative expenses on ac-count of the above projects, includingpersonal services and other expensesin the District of Columbia and in thefield, $750,000, in addition to and forthe same objects of expenditure as arehereinbefore enumerated in para-graphs 2 and 3 under the caption ‘‘Bu-reau of Reclamation’’; in all,$9,500,000, to be immediately avail-able: Provided, That of this amount notto exceed $75,000 may be expended forpersonal services in the District of Co-lumbia: Provided further, That the un-expended balances of the amounts ap-propriated from the Reclamation Fund,Special Fund, under the caption ‘‘Bu-reau of Reclamation, Construction,’’ inthe Interior Department AppropriationAct, fiscal year 1937, shall remainavailable for the same purposes for thefiscal year 1938.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the language on page 79,line 4, beginning with the word ‘‘Pro-vided’’ down to the end of the para-graph.

Mr. Chairman, this includes a lot ofallotments to irrigation projects, whichwould expire on the 30th of June,amounting to $33,000,000. As I under-stand, a great many of them have notbeen authorized by law. There is in-cluded, amongst others, the Gilaproject that was ruled out on a point oforder previously. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The Chair isready to rule. . . .

The Chair invites attention to thefact it is obvious that quite a number


5024



7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).

of projects are sought to be covered bythe provision here contained. TheChair feels that under the rule cited bythe gentleman from Nevada there canbe no question but what unappropri-ated balances may be reappropriated,but the Chair is unable to see how thisrule meets the situation here pre-sented, because the question here iswhether or not these various projectshave been authorized by law. TheChair feels the burden of proof is onthose supporting the projects and theprovision contained in the bill to makesome satisfactory showing, to the effectthat the projects have been authorized.The Chair invites attention to the factthat such a showing has not beenmade. It follows, therefore, that thelanguage to which the point of orderhas been made, in the opinion of theChair, would be legislation on an ap-propriation bill, a proper showing nothaving been made that these itemshave been authorized by law.

The Chair is of the opinion this pro-vision is not in order and, therefore,sustains the point of order.

Works in Progress

§ 3.15 Language in an appro-priation bill providing thatthe Public Works Adminis-tration allotments (madeavailable to the Bureau ofReclamation, pursuant to theNational Industrial RecoveryAct, either by direct allot-ments or by transfer of allot-ments originally made fromthe Emergency Relief Appro-priation Act of 1937) should

remain available for the pur-pose for which allotted dur-ing the fiscal year 1939 washeld in order under the prin-ciple relating to ‘‘works inprogress.’’On Mar. 2, 1938,(6) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering the following paragraph ofH.R. 9621, an Interior Depart-ment appropriation:

The Public Works Administration al-lotments made available to the Depart-ment of the Interior, Bureau of Rec-lamation, pursuant to the National In-dustrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933,either by direct allotments or by trans-fer of allotments originally made to an-other Department or agency, and theallocations made to the Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,from the appropriation contained inthe Emergency Relief AppropriationAct of 1935 and the Emergency ReliefAppropriation Act of 1937, shall re-main available for the purposes forwhich allotted during the fiscal year1939.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the paragraph upon theground that it is not authorized bylaw.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) Does the gen-tleman from Nevada desire to be heardon the point of order?

MR. [JAMES G.] SCRUGHAM [of Ne-vada]: Mr. Chairman, the unexpended


5025


balances proposed to be appropriatedby this paragraph are lawful projectswhich have qualified as being in orderunder the rules of the House for one ormore of the following reasons:

First. That they are for improve-ments of existing projects.

Second. That the work on them is inprogress.

Third. That there has been a findingof feasibility by the President, whichautomatically authorizes appropria-tions, as provided by the reclamationlaw, title 43, sections 412, 413, and414.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromNevada states that all of these projectsare already under way and that thisparagraph simply reappropriatesmoney already available.

MR. TABER: These allotments havebeen made for all sorts of projects notauthorized by law, and yet the adop-tion of this provision would authorizeevery project that has not yet been au-thorized for which an allotment hasbeen made.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlemanstates that these projects are alreadyunder way.

MR. TABER: That would not author-ize them.

THE CHAIRMAN: It authorizes reap-propriation of appropriations here-tofore made if the work is in progress.The Chair, therefore, overrules thepoint of order.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Whilethis decision predates the enact-ment of clause 5 (now clause 6) ofRule XXI as part of the Legisla-tive Reorganization Act of 1946(which rule prohibits the reappro-

priation of unexpended balancesexcept with respect to appropria-tions in connection with appro-priations for public works onwhich work has commenced),clause 2 of Rule XXI, in effect onthe date of this decision, likewiseprecluded appropriations for pur-poses not authorized by law un-less in continuation of appropria-tions for public works and objectsalready in progress. Thus this de-cision stands for the propositionthat reappropriations of unex-pended balances may be includedon general appropriation bills atleast if made for the same unau-thorized public works in progressfor which originally made. For adiscussion of precedents involvingpublic works in progress, seeChapter 26, infra (including asimilar ruling made on May 13,1941, discussed in that chapter).

§ 4. Appropriations in Leg-islative Bills

A House rule provides:No bill or joint resolution carrying

appropriations shall be reported by anycommittee not having jurisdiction toreport appropriations, nor shall anamendment proposing an appropria-tion be in order during the consider-ation of a bill or joint resolution re-ported by a committee not having thatjurisdiction. A question of order on an


5026


8. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules andManual § 846 (1981).

9. See §§ 4.34 et seq., infra.10. See § 4.34, infra.11. See § 4.3, infra.


appropriation in any such bill, jointresolution, or amendment thereto maybe raised at any time.(8)

Rulings on points of order underthe above provision have fre-quently depended on whether lan-guage allegedly making an appro-priation was in fact merely lan-guage authorizing an appropria-tion.(9) For example, language in abill authorizing an appropriationof not less than a certain amountfor a specified purpose has beenheld not to be an appropriation.(10)

Points of order under this rule,while in order ‘‘at any time,’’ arereceived at any time while theamendment or provision of the billis pending under the five-minuterule. See discussion in notes atHouse Rules and Manual § 846(1981), citing decision of Mar. 18,1946.

Points of order based on theabove rule have sometimes beenwaived by resolution.(11)

Generally

§ 4.1 Language in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee reappropriating, mak-ing available or diverting anappropriation or a portion of

an appropriation alreadymade for one purpose to an-other is not in order.On Apr. 7, 1936,(12) the House

was considering H.R. 12037, thetobacco compact bill. A point oforder was raised and, after de-bate, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, ofTennessee, ruled as follows:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready torule.

The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.Mapes] makes a point of order againstsection 7(a), which reads as follows:

For the purpose of administeringthis act the Secretary of Agricultureis hereby authorized to expend$300,000, or so much thereof as maybe necessary for that purpose, out offunds appropriated by section 12(a)of the Agricultural Adjustment Act,as amended.

The gentleman from Michigan callsattention to clause 4 of rule XXI, whichprovides:

No bill or joint resolution carryingappropriations shall be reported byany committee not having jurisdic-tion to report appropriations, norshall an amendment proposing anappropriation be in order during theconsideration of a bill or joint resolu-tion reported by a committee nothaving that jurisdiction. A questionof order on an appropriation in anysuch bill, joint resolution, or amend-ment thereto may be raised at anytime.

The question, of course, arises as towhether or not an appropriation madeby a preceding Congress or by this


5027



14. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).

Congress for a particular purpose maybe diverted for another purpose notcontemplated at the time the appro-priation was made, under the rulewhich the Chair has just read.

The gentleman from Michigan hasread rulings which were made in theSeventy-third Congress, first session,in which it is said—

Language reappropriating, makingavailable or diverting an appropria-tion or a portion of an appropriationalready made for one purpose to an-other is not in order.

Of course, we all know that the Com-mittee on Agriculture is not authorizedunder the rules to report appropria-tions. In the opinion of the Chair it isvery clear, in a reading of the sectionreferred to, that the language con-stitutes a diversion of funds heretoforemade by the Congress for an entirelydifferent purpose and, therefore, sus-tains the point of order of the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes]against section 7(a).

Portion of Bill Subject to Pointof Order

§ 4.2 Rule XXI clause 4 (subse-quently clause 5) is limitedin application to the objec-tionable language in a billand not to the bill in its en-tirety.The rule cited above has been

held to disallow the following lan-guage in a bill reported by a legis-lative committee, without at thesame time disallowing the remain-der of the bill:

Provided further, That out of reve-nues from and appropriations for theAlaska Railroad, there is authorized tobe used such amount thereon as maybe necessary for the purchase of prop-erty of the Mount McKinley Tourist &Transportation Company, and the pur-chase, construction, operation andmaintenance of the facilities for thepublic as herein authorized.

Thus, on Mar. 6, 1940,(13) aMember raised a point of orderagainst the language quoted aboveduring consideration of H.R. 4868,a bill concerning Mount McKinleyNational Park. The following ex-change took place:

MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a pointof order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The gentlemanwill state it.

MR. DIRKSEN: I make the point oforder against the entire bill on theground that the provisions beginningin line 23, on page 2, are in contraven-tion of the rule prohibiting appropria-tions in a bill for legislative purposes.

MR. [ROBERT A.] GREEN [of Florida]:Mr. Chairman, I concede the point oforder and desire to offer an amend-ment.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:But, Mr. Chairman, under the point oforder the bill goes out.

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Oh,no; it does not go out. The enactingclause is still there, and anyone has


5028


15. 113 CONG. REC. 9121–23, 9134, 90thCong. 1st Sess.

authority to offer any amendment thathe desires under the rules of theHouse.


This provision comes under clause 4of rule XXI, which, in effect, prohibitsappropriations being made by commit-tees not having jurisdiction over appro-priations. Beginning with line 23 onpage 2 of the bill provision is made foran appropriation. Therefore, the pointof order is sustained.

Waiver of Points of Order

§ 4.3 Consideration of a legisla-tive bill has sometimes takenplace pursuant to a resolu-tion waiving points of orderagainst the bill, when a pro-vision in the bill could con-stitute an appropriation inviolation of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).On Apr. 12, 1967,(15) a Member

addressed Speaker John W.McCormack, of Massachusetts, asfollows:

MR. [CLAUDE D.] PEPPER [of Florida]:Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com-mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso-lution 411 and ask for its immediateconsideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 411

Resolved, That upon the adoptionof this resolution it shall be in order

to move that the House resolve itselfinto the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union forthe consideration of the bill (H.R.5404) to amend the National ScienceFoundation Act of 1950 to makechanges and improvements in the or-ganization and operation of theFoundation, and for other purposes,and all points of order against saidbill are hereby waived. After generaldebate, which shall be confined tothe bill and shall continue not to ex-ceed one hour, to be equally dividedand controlled by the chairman andranking minority member of theCommittee on Science and Astronau-tics, the bill shall be read for amend-ment under the five-minute rule. Atthe conclusion of the consideration ofthe bill for amendment, the Com-mittee shall rise and report the billto the House with such amendmentsas may have been adopted, and theprevious question shall be consideredas ordered on the bill and amend-ments thereto to final passage with-out intervening motion except onemotion to recommit. . . .

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker. . . .

I wonder if the gentleman can ex-plain to the House why in line 7, page1, House Resolution 411, all points oforder against the bill are waived in thewisdom of the committee?

MR. PEPPER: I will ask the distin-guished author of the bill, the gen-tleman from Connecticut [Mr.Daddario], if he will make the responseto the able gentleman from Missouri,and I yield to him for that purpose.

MR. [EMILIO Q.] DADDARIO: Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman foryielding. I would advise the gentlemanfrom Missouri that on page 17, line 12,section (g), there is reference to thetransfer of funds from one departmentto another.


5029


16. 79 CONG. REC. 5277, 5278, 74thCong. 1st Sess. 17. William W. Arnold (Ill.).

[Note: the language referred tosought to permit funds availableto any department of the govern-ment for scientific research to betransferred to the NationalScience Foundation under certainconditions.]

Transfer or Diversion of Fundsto New Purposes

§ 4.4 The diversion or reappro-priation of funds to a newpurpose is an appropriationand is therefore not in orderon a rivers and harbors bill.On Apr. 8, 1935,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6732, a bill dealingwith the construction, repair, andpreservation of public works onrivers and harbors. An amend-ment was offered and a point oforder raised as indicated below:

MR. [JAMES W.] MOTT [of Oregon]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,which is on the Clerk’s desk.


Amendment offered by Mr. Mott:On page 1, line 9, after the word‘‘documents’’, change the colon to aperiod and add the following: ‘‘TheAdministrator of Public Works ishereby directed to allot and makeavailable for the prosecution of saidauthorized works of improvement ofrivers and harbors and other water-ways, such sum or sums out of thefunds provided in House Joint Reso-

lution 117 as may be necessary toprosecute and complete such worksor improvements.’’

MR. [JOSEPH J.] MANSFIELD [ofTexas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire tomake a point of order to the amend-ment. As I understand the amend-ment, it is the equivalent of an appro-priation. It applies to a matter notwithin the jurisdiction of this com-mittee. We have no jurisdiction overlegislation of the Public Works Admin-istration. Furthermore, I consider thatamendment as an appropriation. . . .

MR. [JOHN J.] O’CONNOR [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, as I heard theamendment read, it makes an appro-priation, because it directs the Admin-istrator of Public Works to allocatepart of the funds already appropriatedfor these specific purposes. This is atleast a reappropriation and comeswithin the rule forbidding appropria-tions coming from legislative commit-tees. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) . . . This bill, ofcourse, cannot carry an appropriation.The gentleman offers an amendment tothe effect that the Administrator ofPublic Works is hereby directed to allotand make available for the prosecutionof such authorized works of improve-ment on rivers and harbors and otherwaterways such sum or sums from thefunds provided in House Joint Resolu-tion 117.

This, clearly, is a diversion of fundsalready appropriated, which is tanta-mount, in the opinion of the Chair, toan appropriation.

The Chair, therefore, sustains thepoint of order.


5030


18. 83 CONG. REC. 5083–98, 75th Cong.3d Sess. 19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

§ 4.5 Language in a legislativebill to reorganize the govern-ment, providing for thetransfer of unexpended bal-ances of appropriations andmaking such funds availablefor expenditure, was held tobe an appropriation in viola-tion of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).On Apr. 8, 1938,(18) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering S. 3331, a government reor-ganization bill. At different pointsthe Clerk read two sections as fol-lows, and proceedings ensued asindicated below:

Sec. 410. Such of the personnel ofthe General Accounting Office em-ployed in connection with the functionsexercised by the General AccountingOffice through the Audit Division ofthat Office, and such of the unex-pended balances of appropriationsavailable to the General AccountingOffice for the exercise of such func-tions, as the President shall deem tobe necessary to enable the AuditorGeneral to exercise the functions vest-ed in and imposed upon him by thistitle, are transferred to the office of theAuditor General, and any unexpendedbalances of appropriations so trans-ferred shall hereafter be available tothe Auditor General for the purpose ofexercising the functions of his officeand for otherwise carrying out the pro-visions of this title: Provided, That the

transfer of personnel under this sectionshall be without change in classifica-tion or compensation . . . Providedfurther, That such of the personnel sotransferred who do not already possessa classified civil-service status shallnot acquire such status by reason ofsuch transfer. . . .

Sec. 307. There is authorized to beappropriated, out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriatedsuch sums as may be necessary tocarry out the provisions of this title.

Sec. 308. The provisions of this titleshall become effective 60 days after itsenactment.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the words beginning in line 4,of page 57, ‘‘and such of the unex-pended balances of appropriationsavailable to the General AccountingOffice for the exercise of such func-tions’’; and then, beginning in line 10,‘‘and any unexpended balances of ap-propriations so transferred shall here-after be available to the auditor gen-eral for the purpose of exercising thefunctions of his office and for otherwisecarrying out the provisions of thistitle.’’

MR. FRED M. VINSON [of Kentucky]:Mr. Chairman, I concede the point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The Chair sus-tains the point of order on the groundthat it is in conflict with clause 4 ofRule XXI and the language to whichthe point of order is addressed isstricken from the title.

Subsequently in the pro-ceedings, a point of order based on


5031



the same grounds was sustainedagainst the following language:

Sec. 420. Such portions of the unex-pended balances of appropriations orother funds available for the UnitedStates Civil Service Commission, theoffices of the Civil Service Commis-sioners, and all other offices of suchCommission, as the President shalldeem necessary, are transferred to theAdministration. Unexpended balancesof appropriations or other funds avail-able for such Commission or offices,not so transferred pursuant to thePresident’s determination under thissection, shall be impounded and re-turned to the Treasury.

§ 4.6 A provision in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee providing that suchpart as the President mightdetermine of the unexpendedbalances of appropriations,allocations, or other fundsavailable for expenditure inconnection with the Manhat-tan Engineer District weretransferred to the commis-sion and were to be availablefor expenditure for carryingout the provisions of the actwas held to be an appropria-tion in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5), andnot in order.On July 20, 1946,(20) the Com-


ering S. 1717, the Atomic EnergyAct of 1946. At one point theClerk read as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 18. (a) There are hereby author-ized to be appropriated such sums asmay be necessary and appropriate tocarry out the provisions and purposesof this act. The acts appropriating suchsums may appropriate specified por-tions thereof to be accounted for uponthe certification of the Commissiononly. Funds appropriated to the Com-mission shall, if obligated by contractduring the fiscal year for which appro-priated, remain available for expendi-ture for 4 years following the expira-tion of the fiscal year for which appro-priated. After such 4-year period, theunexpended balances of appropriationsshall be carried to the surplus fundand covered into the Treasury.

(b) Such part as the President maydetermine of the unexpended balancesof appropriations, allocations, or otherfunds available for expenditure in con-nection with the Manhattan EngineerDistrict are hereby transferred to theCommission and shall be available forexpenditure for the purpose of carryingout the provisions of this act.

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE [of South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point oforder against subparagraph (b) onpage 52, lines 18 to 23, inclusive, onthe ground that it constitutes an ap-propriation and may not be reported bythe Committee on Military Affairs,which is without jurisdiction to reportappropriations. I am constrained tomake this point of order, Mr. Chair-


5032


1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).2. 103 CONG. REC. 13056, 85th Cong.

1st Sess.

man, for two or three reasons. The ap-propriations now carried in the WarDepartment appropriation bill for$375,000,000 were made in a largeramount than would have been madefor 1 year only because the Budget re-quest was for only $200,000,000. Theadditional $175,000,000 was added inplace of contractual authorizations forobligations to mature in fiscal 1948.The total appropriation was made forthe military features of the atomicservice. It is now proposed that theseappropriations be transferred for thepurpose of carrying out the provisionsof this act, which is much broader, pro-viding for loans, providing for the de-velopment of civilian production and li-censing, and many other features notcontemplated in the appropriations forthe Military Establishment. Con-sequently, this paragraph constitutesan appropriation, and I make the pointof order that it may not be reported inthis bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (1) Does the gen-tleman from Kentucky desire to beheard on the point of order?

MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]:I do not, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. In the opinion of the Chair, thelanguage referred to by the gentlemanfrom South Dakota, beginning on line18, page 52, and extending throughline 23, is in violation of clause 4 ofrule 21. Therefore, the Chair sustainsthe point of order.

§ 4.7 To a bill establishing anAirways ModernizationBoard and providing for

transfer of personnel,records, and the like, author-ity to transfer ‘‘unexpendedbalances of appropriations,allocations, and other fundsavailable,’’ was ruled out asan appropriation reportedfrom a legislative committeein violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).On July 30, 1957,(2) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering S. 1865, a bill providing forthe development and moderniza-tion of the national system ofnavigation and traffic control fa-cilities to serve present and futureneeds of civil and military avia-tion. At one point the Clerk readas follows:

TRANSFER OF RELATED FUNCTIONS

Sec. 4. The Board, upon unanimousdecision and with approval of thePresident, may transfer to itself anyfunctions (including powers, duties, ac-tivities, facilities, and parts of func-tions) of the Departments of Defense orCommerce or of any officer or organiza-tional entity thereof which relate pri-marily to selecting, developing, testing,or evaluating systems, procedures, fa-cilities, or devices for safe and efficientair navigation and air traffic control.In connection with any such transfer,the President may provide for appro-priate transfers of records, property,necessary civilian personnel, and unex-


5033


3. George H. Mahon (Tex.).4. 112 CONG. REC. 10913, 10918, 89th

Cong. 2d Sess.

pended balances of appropriations, al-locations, and other funds available orto be made available of the officers, de-partment, or other agency from whichthe transfer is made.

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr.Chairman, a point of order.


MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against the language insection 4, page 7, beginning on line 12,reading ‘‘and unexpended balances ofappropriations, allocations, and otherfunds available or’’ as being an appro-priation on a legislative bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Arkansas desire to be heard onthe point of order?

MR. [OREN] HARRIS [of Arkansas]:Mr. Chairman, we concede the point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre-pared to rule. The Chair has examinedthe language to which the point oforder has been made, and after consid-eration finds that the language is ob-noxious to clause 4 of rule 21 of theHouse and therefore sustains the pointof order.

§ 4.8 In a bill reported fromthe Committee on Bankingand Currency, providinginter alia, a revolving fund inthe Treasury for higher edu-cation facility loans, a provi-sion authorizing the Commis-sioner of Education to‘‘transfer to the fund avail-able appropriations under

§ 303(c) [of the Higher Edu-cation Act] to provide capitalfor the fund,’’ was held toconstitute an appropriationand was ruled out as a viola-tion of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).On May 18, 1966,(4) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Participation SalesAct of 1966 (H.R. 14544) a point oforder was raised against a provi-sion thereof, as follows:

REVOLVING LOAN FUND

‘‘Sec. 305. (a) There is hereby createdwithin the Treasury a separate fundfor higher education academic facilitiesloans (hereafter in this section called‘‘the fund’’) which shall be available tothe Commissioner without fiscal yearlimitation as a revolving fund for thepurposes of this title. The total of anyloans made from the fund in any fiscalyear shall not exceed limitations speci-fied in appropriation Acts.

‘‘(b)(1) The Commissioner is author-ized to transfer to the fund availableappropriations provided under section303(c) to provide capital for the fund.All amounts received by the Commis-sioner as interest payments or repay-ments of principal on loans, and anyother moneys, property, or assets de-rived by him from his operations inconnection with this title, includingany moneys derived directly or indi-rectly from the sale of assets, or bene-ficial interests or participations in as-


5034


5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).6. 112 CONG. REC. 10893, 10894, 89th

Cong. 2d Sess.

sets of the fund, shall be deposited inthe fund. . . .’’

MR. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language onpage 8 of the bill, lines 5, 6, and 7through the word ‘‘fund.’’ The point isbased upon my feeling that the lan-guage violates rule XXI, clause 4, ofthe Rules of the House of Representa-tives.

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard onthe point of order.

The appropriations referred to arefuture appropriations authorized andto be made for the specific purpose ofmaking the transfers here authorized.This is not a case of changing the ob-ject of past appropriations, and thepoint of order should be overruled.

That refers to section 303(c), which Ihave before me now. It provides:

For the purpose of making pay-ments into the fund establishedunder section 305, there is herebyauthorized to be appropriated . . . .

It is not making the appropriation; itis authorizing the appropriation.

I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman,that this is not subject to the point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) . . . The gen-tleman from North Carolina [Mr.Jonas] makes a point of order to thelanguage appearing on page 8, lines 5through 7, to the end of the sentenceon that line, on the ground that it is inviolation of rule XXI of the Rules of theHouse of Representatives.

The Chair has examined the lan-guage and has listened attentively to

the gentleman from Texas, but is ofthe opinion that since this language di-rects a transfer of available appropria-tions it is in fact in violation of ruleXXI; and therefore sustains the pointof order.

§ 4.9 Where a legislative bill(reported from the Com-mittee on Banking and Cur-rency) authorized certaingovernment agencies that ex-tend credit to individuals touse any appropriated fundsor other amounts availableto them for certain new pur-poses specified in the bill,the provision was concededto be in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).On May 18, 1966,(6) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 14544, the Participa-tion Sales Act of 1966. At onepoint the Clerk read as follows,and proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

Sec. 2. (a) Section 302(c) of the Fed-eral National Mortgage AssociationCharter Act is amended [by insertingat a designated point]:

. . . Any trustor creating a trust ortrusts hereunder is authorized to pur-chase, through the facilities of thetrustee, outstanding beneficial inter-ests or participations to the extent ofthe amount of his responsibility to thetrustee on beneficial interests or par-


5035


7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

ticipations outstanding, and to pay hisproper share of the costs and expensesincurred by the Federal National Mort-gage Association as trustee pursuantto the trust instrument, and for thesepurposes may use any appropriatedfunds or other amounts available tohim for the general purposes or pro-grams to which the obligations sub-jected to the trust are related.

(3) If any trustor shall guarantee tothe trustee the timely payment of obli-gations he subjects to a trust pursuantto this subsection, and it becomes nec-essary for such trustor to meet his re-sponsibilities under such guaranty, heis authorized to fulfill such guarantyby using any appropriated funds orother amounts available to him for thegeneral purposes or programs to whichthe obligations subjected to the trustare related. . . .

MR. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The gentlemanwill state the point of order.

MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language ap-pearing on page 4, line 22, beginningwith the word ‘‘and’’, which language isas follows: ‘‘and for these purposes mayuse any appropriated funds or otheramounts available to him for the gen-eral purposes or programs to which theobligations subjected to the trust arerelated.’’

Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against this language in the billon the ground that it violates clause 4,rule XXI, of the rules of the House ofRepresentatives, which requires thatbills making appropriations may not

originate in committees other than theCommittee on Appropriations.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Texas desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, we concede the point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair sustainsthe point of order.

MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language ap-pearing on page 5, line 5, beginningwith the word ‘‘he’’ and continuingthrough lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the word‘‘related,’’ which language is as follows:‘‘he is authorized to fulfill such guar-anty by using any appropriated fundsor other amounts available to him forthe general purposes or programs towhich the obligations subjected to thetrust are related.’’

Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against this language on theground that it violates clause 4, ruleXXI of the House of Representatives.

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Chairman, I won-der if the gentleman from North Caro-lina has added some language whichhe does not really intend to include inhis point of order? As I understand,the gentleman intended to make apoint of order against the language onpage 5, line 5, starting with the word‘‘by’’ down to and including the word‘‘related’’ on line 8. In other words, asI understand, the gentleman intends tomake a point of order against the lan-guage reading as follows: ‘‘by using anyappropriated funds or other amountsavailable to him for the general pur-poses or programs to which the obliga-tions subjected to the trust are re-lated.’’


5036


8. 81 CONG. REC. 7838–40, 75th Cong.1st Sess. 9. Emmet O’Neal (Ky.).

MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman from Texas is correct and itwas my purpose to have the point oforder lie against the language on page5, line 5, beginning with the word ‘‘by’’down to and including the word ‘‘re-lated’’ on line 8.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against this language onthe ground that it violates clause 4,rule XXI, of the House of Representa-tives.

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Chairman, I con-cede the point of order.


Unobligated Funds PreviouslyAppropriated for Same or Re-lated Purposes

§ 4.10 Language in a legislativebill providing that the cost ofsurveys therein authorizedwould be paid from the ap-propriation theretofore orthereafter made for suchpurposes was held to be anappropriation and thereforein violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).On July 29, 1937,(8) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering House Joint Resolution 175,a bill to authorize the submissionto Congress of a comprehensivenational plan for the preventionand control of floods of all the

major rivers of the United States.The following proceedings tookplace:


Sec. 2. There is hereby authorizedto be appropriated such sums as maybe necessary to carry out the provi-sions of this resolution.

With the following committeeamendment:

Strike out all of section 2 and in-sert: ‘‘The cost of surveys and pre-paring plans as herein authorizedshall be paid from appropriationsheretofore or hereafter made forsuch purposes.’’

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to haveto make a point of order against thecommittee amendment. The amend-ment changes the authorization to adirect appropriation, and, of course, anappropriation is not in order on a legis-lative bill. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The languageagainst which the point of order israised reads as follow:

The cost of surveys and preparingplans as herein authorized shall bepaid from the appropriations here-tofore or hereafter made for suchpurposes. . . .

It seems clear to the Chair that thelanguage of the amendment is prohib-ited by rule XXI, section 4, and, there-fore, the Chair sustains the point oforder.

§ 4.11 Language in a legislativebill making available unobli-gated balances of appropria-


5037


10. 92 CONG. REC. 2371, 2372, 79thCong. 2d Sess. 11. Fadjo Cravens (Ark.).

tions ‘‘heretofore’’ made tocarry out the provisions ofthe bill was held to be an ap-propriation in violation ofRule XXI clause 4 (nowclause 5) and therefore not inorder.On Mar. 18, 1946,(10) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5407, a bill grantingcertain powers to the FederalWorks Administrator. The Clerkread as follows, and proceedingsensued as indicated below:

Be it enacted, etc., That the FederalWorks Administrator is hereby author-ized under the provisions of the PublicBuildings Act of May 25, 1926, asamended (40 U.S.C. 341–347), and ashereby further amended—

(a) For projects outside of the Dis-trict of Columbia: To construct exten-sions to the marine hospitals at Se-attle, Wash., and San Francisco,Calif. . . . and design new buildingprojects where the sites are in Govern-ment ownership, notwithstanding thefact that appropriations for construc-tion work shall not have been made.The total limit of cost for the foregoingshall be $13,000,000 and the unobli-gated balances of appropriations here-tofore made for the construction ofprojects outside the District of Colum-bia are hereby made available for thispurpose.

(b) To construct an additional build-ing for the General Accounting Office.

. . . The unobligated balances of ap-propriations heretofore made for the

building are hereby made available forthe enlarged project, including the ac-quisition of addition land, and con-tracts may be entered into for con-struction work within the full limit ofcost pending additional appropriations.

(c) To acquire additional land in andcontiguous to the area in the Districtof Columbia defined in the act ofMarch 31, 1938 (52 Stat. 149), under alimit of cost of $2,000,000. Funds forthis purpose are hereby made availablefrom the unobligated balances of ap-propriations heretofore made for theconstruction of buildings outside theDistrict of Columbia.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, a point of order.


MR. TABER: I make a point of orderagainst the words beginning on page 2,line 4: ‘‘and the unobligated balances ofappropriations heretofore made for theconstruction of projects outside theDistrict of Columbia are hereby madeavailable for this purpose’’; on theground that it is an appropriation andcoming from a committee not author-ized to report appropriation bills to theHouse. . . .

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE [of South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to makea point of order against the languagein paragraph (b) and paragraph (c),and in paragraph (b) I make the pointof order against the language begin-ning in line 15 which reads:

The unobligated balances of appro-priations heretofore made for thebuilding are hereby made availablefor the enlarged project, includingthe acquisition of additional land,


5038



and contracts may be entered intofor construction work within the fulllimit of cost pending additional ap-propriations. . . .

MR. [FRITZ G.] LANHAM [of Texas]: Icall the gentleman’s attention to thefact that there is a committee amend-ment striking out section (b).

MR. CASE of South Dakota: But thecommittee amendment has not beenmade. Consequently, I am making apoint of order lest, by some slip, theamendment might not be accepted. Imake the point of order that thatwould make appropriations for an un-authorized project by means of an ap-propriation reported by a committeewithout jurisdiction. . . .

MR. LANHAM: Mr. Chairman, I mustreluctantly concede the points of order.I do it reluctantly because I had hopedthey would not be made.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the Chair un-derstand that the gentleman fromTexas concedes each point of order?

MR. LANHAM: The gentleman fromTexas does reluctantly concede thepoints of order.


The point of order made by the gen-tleman from New York [Mr. Taber]and the two points of order made bythe gentleman from South Dakota [Mr.Case] are sustained by reason of thefact the language against which theyare made is tantamount to new appro-priations; and the language is strickenfrom the bill in each instance.

§ 4.12 Provisions in a bill re-ported from a legislativecommittee that funds appro-priated and made available

under specified items in theAgricultural AppropriationAct of 1946, to the extent thatsuch funds have been validlyobligated, should be contin-ued available for use by theFarmers’ Home Corporationestablished in the bill, andthat certain appropriatedfunds should be transferredfrom one agency to anotheragency created in the bill,were held to be appropria-tions in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5), andtherefore not in order.On Apr. 9, 1946,(12) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5991, a bill creatingthe Farmers’ Home Corporation.The following proceedings tookplace:

MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor-gia]: Mr. Chairman, I have severalpoints of order to submit.

My first point of order is against thelanguage contained on page 5, lines 4to 15, inclusive, on the ground that itconstitutes an appropriation upon alegislative bill and is out of order forthat reason. That language reads asfollows:

(c) The funds appropriated, au-thorized to be borrowed, and madeavailable under the items ‘‘Farmers’crop production and harvestingloans’ (under the heading ‘‘FarmCredit Administration’’), ‘‘Loans,


5039


13. Philip A. Traynor (Del.).

grants, and rural rehabilitation’’,and ‘‘Farm tenancy’’, in the Depart-ment of Agriculture AppropriationAct, 1946, to the extent that suchfunds are validly obligated or com-mitted by the Secretary of Agri-culture, the Governor of the FarmCredit Administration, or their dele-gates, shall not lapse on June 30,1946, but shall be continued avail-able for use by the Corporation infulfilling such obligations or commit-ments, subject to the limitations setforth in the acts appropriating or au-thorizing such funds.

I make the same point of orderagainst the language contained onpage 6, lines 4 to 18, inclusive, as fol-lows:

(e) All funds made available by ap-propriation or authorization to theSecretary of Agriculture for the fiscalyear 1947 for loans and administra-tive expenses for carrying on thefarm tenancy program shall be avail-able to the Corporation for loansunder the provisions of section40(d)(13)(A) hereof and for adminis-trative expenses incident thereto. Allsuch appropriations and authoriza-tions for loans, grants, and rural re-habilitation and farmers’ crop pro-duction and harvesting loans shallbe available to the Corporation forloans for the purposes of section40(d)(13)(B) hereof and for adminis-trative expenses incident thereto.The limitations on the amounts ofeach such appropriations and au-thorization for loans and administra-tive expenses for each such purposeshall be observed by the Corporation.

I make the same point of orderagainst the language contained onpage 6, lines 19 to 25, inclusive, and onpage 7, lines 1 to 5, as follows:

(f) There is hereby transferred tothe Corporation from the revolvingfund established for the purpose of

increasing the capital of the regionalagricultural credit corporations, pur-suant to section 84 of the FarmCredit Act of 1933, approved June16, 1933, as amended (U.S.C., 1940ed., title 12, sec. 1148a), $10,001,000.$1,000 of the funds so transferredshall be used for capital of the Cor-poration, as provided in section40(b)(1) of the Bankhead-Jones FarmTenant Act, as amended, and$10,000,000 of such funds shall becovered into the farm tenant mort-gage insurance fund, pursuant tosection 11(a) of the Bankhead-JonesFarm Tenant Act, as amended.

MR. [JOHN W.] FLANNAGAN [Jr., ofVirginia]: Mr. Chairman, while I amnot certain, I am afraid the points oforder are well taken.

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The points oforder are well taken. The Chair sus-tains the points of order.

§ 4.13 Language in a bill au-thorizing participation bythe United States in theInternational DevelopmentAssociation (which prohib-ited further United Statessubscription to the fund ‘‘ex-cept that loans or other fi-nancing may be provided by[an] agency . . . which is au-thorized . . . to make loansor provide other financing tointernational organizations,’’which would have includedfunds theretofore appro-priated) was held to be inviolation of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5), and ruled out


5040



15. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).

on a point of order where itwas not clear that the excep-tion merely restated existingauthority in law to makeloans to this particular orga-nization.On June 28, 1960,(14) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 11001, a bill providingfor U.S. participation in the Inter-national Development Association.At one point, the Clerk read asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

Sec. 5. Unless Congress by law au-thorizes such action, neither the Presi-dent nor any person or agency shall,on behalf of the United States, (a) sub-scribe to additional funds under articleIII, section 1, of the articles; (b) acceptany amendment under article IX of thearticles; or (c) make a loan or provideother financing to the Association, ex-cept that loans or other financing maybe provided to the Association by aU.S. agency created pursuant to an actof Congress which is authorized by lawto make loans or provide other financ-ing to international organizations.

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr.Chairman, a point of order.


MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against the language onpage 3, beginning at the end of line 4down through line 8, ‘‘except that loans

or other financing may be provided tothe Association by a United Statesagency created pursuant to an act ofCongress which is authorized by law tomake loans or provide other financingto international organizations.’’

I will say to the Chair that I havemade inquiry of the committee here onthe floor and the committee says thatthese are organizations already in ex-istence, with the possibility of trans-fers being made under Public Law 480or by other organizations now author-ized to make loans to these variouscountries. I make the point of orderthat this is a transfer of appropriatedfunds and is an appropriation on a leg-islative bill. . . .

MR. [ABRAHAM J.] MULTER [of NewYork]: . . . I suggest that the point oforder should be overruled. I do notthink I said anything to indicate thatthere was any attempt to transfer anyappropriated funds or any authorizedfunds.

May I read from page 11 of the re-port which refers precisely to the lan-guage now under attack by the point oforder?

The excepting clause does not con-fer upon any U.S. agency any au-thority it would not otherwise haveand is intended to make clear thatthe prohibitory language does not inany way narrow, or preclude the useof, authority which any agency of theU.S. Government, including thePresident, possesses under other leg-islation to make loans or provideother financing to international orga-nizations, including the Inter-national Development Association.

I suggest the point of order is notwell taken.

MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, may Ireply to that and say that the one I am


5041


16. 80 CONG. REC. 273, 274, 74th Cong.2d Sess. 17. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).

referring to is the exception to whatthe gentleman from New York has juststated.

MR. MULTER: I have referred only tothe language which begins with thewords against which the point of orderis made. It is that exception to whichthe report from which I have read isdirected.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wouldlike to inquire of the gentleman fromNew York whether or not he interpretsthis to be that the U.S. agencies coulduse funds heretofore appropriated forthe purposes of this section?

MR. MULTER: Only if so authorizedby the enabling or enacting legislationand the appropriation making thefunds available to such other agencies.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. Under the interpretation of thegentleman from New York, the point oforder would lie; and therefore theChair sustains the point of order.

Directing Treasury to MakeFunds Available

§ 4.14 Language directing theSecretary of the Treasury tomake a certain fund avail-able for the payment ofadjusted-service certificateswas held to be an appropria-tion and not in order on alegislative bill.On Jan. 9, 1936,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing

with payment of adjusted-servicecertificates (bonus bill). The Clerkread an amendment as followsand proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fish:Page 7, line 13, add section 6A, as fol-lows:

‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury ishereby directed to make the exchangestabilization fund of $2,000,000,000that expires on January 30, 1936,available on that date for payment ofthe adjusted-service certificates.’’

MR. [JERE] COOPER of Tennessee:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the amendment that it isnot germane to this section or to anypart of the bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The Chair willhear the gentleman from New York onthe point of order.

MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, the bill reads,‘‘To provide for the immediate paymentof World War adjusted-service certifi-cates’’, and my amendment offers amethod for the payment of these cer-tificates. This is one of the manymeans that may be proposed for thepayment of these certificates, and Ishould think there would be the great-est amount of latitude by the Chair forany Member to offer a specific way ofpaying the certificates.

THE CHAIRMAN: The bill is merely anauthorization for an appropriation. TheChair thinks that a reading of theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom New York clearly shows that theamendment is an appropriation, and


5042


18. 84 CONG. REC. 9060, 9061, 76thCong. 1st Sess. 19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).

not proper on this bill, and the Chair,therefore, sustains the point of order.

§ 4.15 Language in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee authorizing the Treas-urer of the United States tohonor requisitions of the Ar-chivist in such manner andin accordance with such reg-ulations as the Treasurermight prescribe was held anappropriation and not inorder under Rule XXI clause4 (now clause 5).On July 13, 1939,(18) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering Senate Joint Resolution 118,a bill to provide for the establish-ment and maintenance of theFranklin D. Roosevelt Library.The following proceedings tookplace:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the section on the ground thatit contains an appropriation of publicfunds and that it is reported by a com-mittee not having jurisdiction to bringinto the House an appropriation bill.

I call the attention of the Chair tothe following language on page 6, inline 7:

The Treasurer of the UnitedStates is hereby authorized to honorthe requisitions of the Archivistmade in such manner and in accord-ance with such regulations as the

Treasurer may from time to timeprescribe.

Those words take money directlyfrom the Treasury of the United Stateswithout any limitation and are in vio-lation of the provisions of clause 4 ofrule XXI of the House. . . .

Now, this is a permanent appropria-tion which will go on forever of what-ever amount the Archivist cares todraw for upon the Treasurer undersuch rules and regulations as theTreasurer may from time to time pre-scribe. I make the point of orderagainst the section.

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The Chair de-sires to direct a question to the gen-tleman from New York. In line 8, onpage 6, is the gentleman of the opinionthat the authorization there takesmoney from the United States Treas-ury or merely honors requisitions?

MR. TABER: It authorizes the Treas-urer of the United States, without anyfurther legislation, to take money rightout of the United States Treasury. It isa permanent appropriation.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Illinois wish to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [KENT E.] KELLER [of Illinois]:Yes, Mr. Chairman, it seems to methat the point of order is ill taken forthis reason: This is not an appropria-tion. There is no appropriation pro-vided in this at all. It is simply andsolely for the purpose of accepting therequisitions of the proper authority incharge of all archives of all kinds andcharacter, because this bill providesthat the expense shall be appropriatedfor as a part of the Archivist’s ex-penses to the Government as a whole.


5043


MR. [JOHN J.] COCHRAN [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I call attentionto the fact that the language in thesection provides for the creation of atrust fund to be deposited in the Treas-ury of the United States. It providesfor the raising of a trust fund to beplaced in the Treasury, and the lan-guage does not take appropriatedmoney out of the Treasury. It is notout of Government funds, but out ofthe trust fund. It is not in itself a di-rect appropriation, but more of an au-thorization for those in charge to drawon the trust fund.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I call theattention of the Chair to the fact thatthere is no limitation on the funds thatthis should be taken out of. The way itreads it would be taken directly out ofthe Treasury and not out of any trustfund whatever. It does not say that itshall be taken out of a trust fund, noris it implied in any way.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom New York limit his point of orderto the sentence which he read?

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I madethe point of order against the section.

MR. KELLER: Have you read what isat the bottom of page 5 as to the meth-od of depositing the money in theTreasury first?

MR. TABER: Yes; I have read that.There is nothing whatever that limitsthe amount that can be taken out tothe amount that is put in, nor is thereanything whatever that limits it tobeing taken out of that fund. It is di-rect authority to the Treasury to payit.

MR. KELLER: Well, what is a requisi-tion, then?

MR. TABER: A requisition is a draftupon the Treasurer. This constitutes apermanent appropriation.

MR. KELLER: Only where the moneyis already provided, not where it is notprovided.

MR. TABER: No; there is no such lim-itation.


The Chair is of the opinion that thepoint of order made by the gentlemanfrom New York against the section iswell taken, and therefore sustains thepoint of order.

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr.Chairman, I offer an amendment. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromTexas is recognized for 5 minutes onhis amendment.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

MR. RAYBURN: I yield.MR. TABER: Will the gentleman tell

us briefly what his amendment does?MR. RAYBURN: I may say to the gen-

tleman from New York that I concededthat his point of order was good.

The amendment I offer leaves outthe language objected to by the gen-tleman from New York in lines 7, 8, 9,and 10 on page 6, reading:

The Treasurer of the UnitedStates is hereby authorized to honorthe requisitions of the Archivistmade in such manner and in accord-ance with such regulations as theTreasurer may from time to timeprescribe.

This undoubtedly meets the objec-tion raised by the gentleman from NewYork, and I contend that the amend-ment is in order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Texas.

The amendment was agreed to.


5044


20. 81 CONG. REC. 5915–18, 75th Cong.1st Sess.

21. James M. Mead (N.Y.).1. Points of order against appropria-

tions in legislative bills may be

Allocation of Agency’s Receipts

§ 4.16 Language in a legislativebill providing for the collec-tion of certain fees and au-thorizing the use of the feesso collected for the purchaseof certain installations wasconstrued to be an appro-priation and not in orderunder Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).On June 17, 1937,(20) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7472, the District ofColumbia tax bill. At one point,the Clerk read as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

The Commissioners of the District ofColumbia are hereby authorized andempowered, in their discretion, to fix,prescribe, and collect fees for the park-ing of automobiles in or upon anystreet, avenue, road, highway, or otherpublic space within the District of Co-lumbia under their jurisdiction andcontrol, and to make and enforce regu-lations to provide for the collection ofsuch fees. Any person violating anysuch regulation shall be punished by afine of not more than $100 or impris-onment not to exceed 10 days.

The Commissioners of the District ofColumbia are further authorized andempowered, in their discretion, to pur-chase, rent, and install such mechan-ical parking meters or devices as the

Commissioners may deem necessary oradvisable to insure the collection ofsuch fees as may be prescribed for theparking of vehicles as aforesaid, and topay the purchase price or rental andcost of installation of the same fromthe fees collected, the remainder ofsuch fees to be paid to the collector oftaxes for deposit in the Treasury of theUnited States to the credit of the reve-nues of said District. . . .

MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis-consin]: I make the point of order thatthis section appropriates money out offees to be collected, and therefore it isappropriation on a legislative bill. Line24 provides that the purchase price ofthese machines shall be paid from thefees collected and the remainder of thefee shall be paid into the Treasury.

MR. [JACK] NICHOLS [of Oklahoma]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder that the point of order comes toolate. The section has been debated andamendments have been offered, and anamendment to strike out the sectionhas been offered.

MR. O’MALLEY: I was attempting toget recognition from the very begin-ning.

THE CHAIRMAN: (21) The Chair isready to rule. The last sentence of sec-tion 4, rule 21, provides as follows:

A question of order on an appro-priation in any such bill, joint resolu-tion, or amendment thereto may beraised at any time.

It is the opinion of the Chair thatthe point of order is properly raised atthis time (1) and that this is purely an


5045


raised even after debate on the mer-its has taken place. See § 12.15,infra.


3. Wright Patman (Tex.).

appropriation, and, therefore, that lan-guage, as indicated in the gentleman’spoint of order, is ruled out of order.


§ 4.17 A provision in a legisla-tive bill authorizing the Di-rector of the Census to usefunds collected for issuanceof birth certificates in ad-ministering the provisions ofthe bill until expended washeld to be an appropriationnot in order under Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).On July 15, 1942,(2) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7239, a bill authorizingthe Director of the Census to issuebirth records. The following pro-ceedings took place:

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of [South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the pointof order against the last sentence ofthe section just read that the languagecreates a revolving fund, constitutes anappropriation, and is reported in thebill by a committee which is withoutauthority to report appropriations.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN of Mississippirose.

THE CHAIRMAN: (3) Does the gen-tleman from Mississippi desire to beheard on the point of order?

MR. RANKIN of [Mississippi]: I wishto say that this is not an appropria-tion. This money never goes into theFederal Treasury. Therefore it does notcome under the rule on which the gen-tleman from South Dakota relies.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: I pointedout that this creates a revolving fund.

THE CHAIRMAN: Where does thismoney go if it does not go into theTreasury?

MR. RANKIN of Mississippi: Themoney is used by the Director of theCensus to pay for the copying of theserecords.

THE CHAIRMAN: What happens tothe money?

MR. RANKIN of Mississippi: It is heldin the Bureau of the Census just ex-actly as the Tennessee Valley Author-ity holds the money that is paid inthere, and that is used in a revolvingfund for the construction of dams,transmission lines, and so forth.

THE CHAIRMAN: The question seemsto be whether or not the language isequivalent to appropriating thismoney. The language is:

All amounts collected in paymentof such fees may be used by the Di-rector in administering only the pro-visions of this act and shall be avail-able until expended.

There are certain precedents whichindicate that that language is equiva-lent to the phrase ’is hereby appro-priated,’ which would be in violation ofthe rule. The Chair cites Cannon’sPrecedents, volume VII, section 2152,page 896:

Provision for establishment of aspecial fund, to be available withother funds appropriated for the pur-pose in payment of refunds, was


5046



ruled to be an appropriation andsubject to a point of order under sec-tion 4 of rule XXI.

On January 12, 1933, in thecourse of the consideration of the bill(H.R. 13991), the Farm Relief Bill, inthe Committee of the Whole Houseon the state of the Union, this para-graph was read:

‘‘(b) The proceeds of all taxes col-lected under this section, less 21⁄2percent for the payment of adminis-trative expenses under this act, shallbe covered into the Treasury into aspecial fund to be available, togetherwith any other funds hereafter ap-propriated for the purpose, for thepayment of any refunds under thissection.’’

Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois,raised the question of order that theparagraph was in violation of section4 of rule XXI prohibiting committeesother than the Committee on Appro-priations from reporting appropria-tions.

The Chairman, Mr. Lindsay C. War-ren, of North Carolina, sustained thepoint of order.

The Chair believes that the languageobjected to is in violation of section 4 ofrule XXI, and sustains the point oforder.

§ 4.18 Language in a bill re-ported from a legislativecommittee providing that allmoneys received by the Mari-time Commission under theact would be deposited in theconstruction fund of thecommission, and all disburse-ments made by the commis-sion in carrying out the actwould be paid from suchfund, was held to be an ap-propriation and not in order.

On Oct. 2, 1945,(4) the Com-mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 3603, a bill concerningthe sale of surplus war vessels. Atone point the Clerk read as fol-lows and proceedings ensued asindicated below:

Sec. 13. (a) The Commission is au-thorized to reconvert or restore for nor-mal operation in commercial services,including removal of national defenseor war service features, any vessel au-thorized to be sold or chartered underthis act. The Commission is authorizedto make such replacements, alter-ations, or modifications with respect toany vessel authorized to be sold orchartered under this act . . . as maybe necessary or advisable to make suchvessel suitable for commercial oper-ation on trade routes or services orcomparable as to commercial utility toother such vessels of the same generaltype. . . .

(d) All moneys received by the Com-mission under this act shall be depos-ited in the construction fund of theCommission, and all disbursementsmade by the Commission in carryingout this act shall be paid from suchfund. The provisions of sections 201(d),204(b), 207, 209(a), and 905(c) of theMerchant Marine Act, 1936, as amend-ed, shall apply to all activities andfunctions which the Commission is au-thorized to perform under thisact. . . .

MR. [HERBERT C.] BONNER [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder.


5047


5. William G. Stigler (Okla.).6. 118 CONG. REC. 10749–51, 92d Cong.

2d Sess.


MR. BONNER: Mr. Chairman, I makethe point of order against the languageon page 21, line 6, first sentence, onthe ground that it is an appropriation.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Virginia care to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [SCHUYLER OTIS] BLAND [of Vir-ginia]: Reluctantly, upon advice fromthe parliamentarian on the point oforder that I would be foolish to argueotherwise, I concede the point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order isconceded; the point of order is sus-tained.

Use of Proceeds From UserCharges

§ 4.19 An amendment estab-lishing a user charge andmaking the revenues col-lected therefrom availablewithout further appropria-tion is not in order to a billreported by a committee nothaving the jurisdiction to re-port appropriations.

On Mar. 29, 1972,(6) during consider-ation in the Committee of the Whole ofthe bill (H.R. 11896) to amend the Fed-eral Water Pollution Control Act, thefollowing proceedings took place:

MR. [JOHN] HEINZ [of Pennsylvania]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz:On page 350 following line 6:

‘‘Sec. 319(a) It is the purpose ofthis Section to supplement the en-forcement procedures of this Act byproviding for desirable economic in-centives to water users to conservewater and to minimize pollutionthrough reduction in the quantity ofwaste products dumped into thesewaterways. It is also the purpose ofthis Section to encourage the forma-tion of regional waste treatmentmanagement organizations pursuantto section 208(a) of this Act.

‘‘(b)(1) In furtherance of the pur-pose of this Section, the Adminis-trator and the Secretary of theTreasury shall prescribe such regula-tions as are necessary to establishand put into effect two years afterthe enactment of this Act a scheduleof national effluent charges for allthose discharges including municipalsewage which detract from the qual-ity of the water for municipal agri-cultural, industrial, recreational,sport, wildlife, and commercial fishuses. These discharges shall include,but not be limited to, biochemical ox-ygen demand (BOD), suspended sol-ids, thermal discharges, and toxicwastes. The charges shall be set at alevel which will provide for the at-tainment of the standards and goalsof this Act. Such regulations shallalso provide for making available aspublic information all amounts col-lected pursuant to such charges.

‘‘(2) Any person who willfully failsto pay any charge as required byregulations established pursuant tothis Section or who willfully fails tomake any return, keep any records,supply any information, or to do anyother act required by such regula-tions shall be guilty of a mis-demeanor and, upon convictionthereof, shall be fined not more than$10,000, or imprisoned not morethan one year or both, together withcosts of prosecution. . . .


5048


7. Neal Smith (Iowa).

‘‘(c) Revenues collected by the Sec-retary of the Treasury pursuant tosuch charges shall be deposited in atrust fund (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘fund’) in the Treasury to beavailable without further appropria-tion to the Administrator for use asprescribed in subsection (d).

‘‘(d) Money from the fund shall beavailable for distribution by the Ad-ministrator in each year for the pur-pose of funding Section 106 of thisAct (to assist water pollution controlprograms of States and interstateagencies) . . . .’’

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The Chair willhear the gentleman from Ohio.

MR. [WILLIAM N.] HARSHA [of Ohio]:Mr. Chairman, my point of order is asfollows: . . . [T]his amendment is notwithin the jurisdiction of the Com-mittee on Public Works. It proposes atax on effluents, and raises revenues,and therefore violates rule XI, whichplaces jurisdiction of revenue raising inthe Committee on Ways and Means.

Section 319(c), Mr. Chairman, cat-egorically refers to revenues collectedby the Secretary of the Treasury pur-suant to such charges.

. . . [T]he amendment violates ruleXXI, clause 4 prohibiting appropria-tions in legislative bills. Section 319(c)and (d) of the amendment directs theaction to be taken with the revenuesraised in accordance with the amend-ment. In addition to the clear languageof the amendment, the stated purposeof the amendment in the proponent’sMarch 22, 1972, letter demonstratesthe intent that these funds be used fora specific purpose in violation of ruleXXI, clause 4.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insistupon my point of order. . . .

MR. HEINZ: Mr. Chairman, I wouldargue, in response to the statement ofthe distinguished gentleman from Ohio(Mr. Harsha) in urging his point oforder, that effluent charges are basi-cally user charges, and user chargesare fundamental to the bill. The billwould not work without them; they arethe primary means of financing the op-eration and construction of the watertreatment works herein.

And I would add further that this initself is an important consideration inruling on this.

Also I would hasten to add thatclearly under sections 204(b)(2) and204(b)(3) that in fact the purpose ofthis bill is to raise revenues for thepurposes of the bill, and without thiswe could not possibly construct anywater treatment facilities.

Finally—and to be brief—there aretwo historical precedents that I believeare important that establish the prin-ciple that user charges are germane tothe legislation.

Volume IV, section 4119 of Hinds’Precedents of the House of Representa-tives—no relation, I would add—statethat on February 23, 1905, the Riverand Harbor Appropriations Bill wasunder consideration, and included insuch bill was a section permitting thecollection of tolls on freight and pas-sengers. A point of order was made tothat. The point of order was not sus-tained.

Similarly, at a later date, in VolumeVII, section 1929 of the same prece-dents, a bill that included a provisioncalling for fines and penalties for of-fenses on lands of the public domainwas reported from the Committee onPublic Lands, now called the Depart-


5049


8. 104 CONG. REC. 13277, 13284,13285, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.

ment of the Interior, and it was deter-mined that those charges might prop-erly be considered by the Committee ofthe House as a Whole.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully requestthat the Chair consider these prece-dents in ruling on the point of orderraised by the gentleman fromOhio. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: . . . The Chair hasexamined the amendment.

The gentleman from Pennsylvaniastates that the bill contains similarprovisions. However, the rule underwhich we are operating specificallywaives all points of order against sec-tions 2, 8, and 12 of the committeeamendment, but it does not waive suchpoints of order against an amendmentto the committee amendment.

So far as nongermaneness is con-cerned, the Chair finds in clause 3(c) ofthe amendment submitted a provisionfor collecting revenues or taxes. Also insection 3(d) it provides for money col-lected from the fund shall be availablefor distribution—in other words, an ap-propriation.

So the Chair finds it is not germanefor the reason that it provides for rais-ing revenue, or a tax, and appropriatesmoney. Therefore, the amendment is inviolation of clause 7, rule XVI and alsoit is in violation of clause 4, rule XXI,prohibiting appropriations on legisla-tive bills.


Parliamentarian’s Note: Pointsof order had been waived againstappropriations contained in thecommittee amendment in the na-ture of a substitute, but not

against amendments offered fromthe floor containing such provi-sion. Hence, the amendment wassubject to a point of order underRule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 ofRule XXI in the 1981 House Rulesand Manual].

Allocation of Proceeds of Sale

§ 4.20 In a bill providing, inpart, authority to constructcertain facilities at militaryreservations, a provision per-mitting immediate use offunds derived from the saleof the San Jacinto Depot forpurchase of a site and con-struction of a depot at Point-Aux-Pins, Alabama, wasruled out as an appropria-tion reported from a legisla-tive committee in violation ofRule XXI clause 4 (nowclause 5).On July 9, 1958,(8) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 13015. At one point theClerk read as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

Sec. 110. The Secretary of the Armyis authorized and directed to enter intoa contract or contracts for the sale ofthe San Jacinto Ordnance Depot,Texas. . . . The Secretary of the Armyis directed to act as follows:


5050


9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).10. 80 CONG. REC. 5207, 74th Cong. 2d

Sess.

(1) The depot shall be moved to, andintegrated with, the ammunition out-loading terminal previously authorizedfor construction at Point-Aux-Pins,Ala., and, notwithstanding any otherprovisions of this or any other act, theauthority contained in the act of July27, 1954 (68 Stat. 536), for the acquisi-tion of land and initiation of construc-tion for the Point-Aux-Pins facilityshall continue in effect until specifi-cally superseded, modified, or repealed.

(2) The sale of the San Jacinto Depotproperty shall be offered by the Chiefof Engineers, United States Army, onbehalf of and under the supervision ofthe Secretary of the Army within 18months from the date of this act. Nopart of the land herein shall be sold,transferred, or occupied, by virtue ofthis transaction, by any Governmentagency or department.

(3) A contract or contracts for thesale of the San Jacinto Depot shall beconsummated as expeditiously as pos-sible thereafter. . . .

(4) All proceeds from the sale shallbe available to administer the provi-sions of this section and to pay anyand all expenses, including land acqui-sition, in connection with the reloca-tion, exchange, or sale of the SanJacinto Depot or the establishment of afully integrated depot at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., or all proceeds depositedinto the Treasury of the United Statesfor obligation by the Army. . . .

MR. [HARRY R.] SHEPPARD [of Cali-fornia]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder.


MR. SHEPPARD: Mr. Chairman, Imake a point of order against para-

graph 4 of section 110 which appearson page 18 of the bill. This paragraphis on appropriation in a bill from acommittee not having jurisdiction toreport appropriations, and is in viola-tion of rule 21, paragraph 4.

Specifically, this provides that fundsfrom the sale of the San Jacinto Am-munition Depot shall be available tothe Secretary of the Army to pay anyand all expenses, including land acqui-sition, in connection with the reloca-tion, change, or sale of the San JacintoDepot or for the establishment of afully integrated depot at a specified lo-cation in Alabama.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Georgia desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [CARL] VINSON [of Georgia]: I donot desire to be heard on the point oforder, Mr. Chairman. I concede thepoint of order. Therefore, paragraph 4,if the Chair sustains the point of order,will be eliminated.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromGeorgia concedes the point of order.The Chair sustains the point of order.

Allocating Money Repaid FromLoans

§ 4.21 A provision in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee making available foradministrative purposesmoney repaid from advancesand loans was held to be anappropriation and not inorder.On Apr. 8, 1936,(10) the Com-



5051


11. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).12. 113 CONG. REC. 23974, 23975, 90th

Cong. 1st Sess.

ering H.R. 12037, the tobaccocompact bill. At one point theClerk read a provision of the billand proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

Sec. 7. (b) Any advances or loanswhich are repaid to the Secretary byany commission pursuant to section 3of this act shall be held in a specialfund in the Treasury of the UnitedStates and shall be available until ex-pended for the purpose of admin-istering this act or until such time asthe Secretary shall determine that allor any part of such funds will not beneeded for such purpose, whereuponall or any part of such funds shall,upon approval by the Secretary, revertto the general fund of the Treasury ofthe United States.

MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]:Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I de-sire to make a point of order againstthat paragraph.

MR. [MARVIN] JONES [of Texas]: Weintend to offer an amendment strikingout the appropriation.

MR. MAPES: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the paragraph. Ido not care to argue it. It is concededby the chairman of the committee, Ithink.

Mr. JONES: It is subject to a point oforder.

THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The Chair sus-tains the point of order.

Use of Excess Foreign Currency

§ 4.22 Language in a bill au-thorizing funds for the For-

eign Assistance Act and mak-ing excess foreign currenciesavailable to stimulate privateenterprise abroad was con-ceded to be an appropriationand in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).On Aug. 24, 1967,(12) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 12048, the Foreign As-sistance Act for 1967. A provisionwas read, and a point of order wasraised as indicated below:

On page 35, line 1: . . .‘‘Sec. 301. Chapter 1 of part III of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, asamended, which relates to general pro-visions, is amended as follows: . . .

‘‘(d) Section 612, which relates to theuse of foreign currencies, is amendedby adding at end thereof the followingnew subsection:

‘‘ ‘(d) Notwithstanding section 1415 ofthe Supplemental Appropriation Act,1953, excess foreign currencies, as de-fined in subsection (b) may be madeavailable, in addition to funds other-wise available, to encourage the estab-lishment, improvement, or expansionof private enterprises in friendly lessdeveloped countries. . . . The Presi-dent may make loans or guarantieswith such currencies on such termsand conditions as he may deem appro-priate in the circumstances. To themaximum extent practicable in makingsuch loans or guaranties, the Presidentshall utilize the services of private fi-nancing institutions, including inter-


5052


13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).14. 102 CONG. REC. 13393, 84th Cong.

2d Sess.

mediate credit institutions which fi-nance private business activity eventhough there may be a governmentalinterest in such institutions. . . .’ ’’

MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Penn-sylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that the portion ofthe bill starting on page 35, line 1, tothe bottom of page 37, be considered asread and printed in the Record, andopen to amendment at any point.

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromPennsylvania? The Chair hears none,and it is so ordered.

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willstate his point of order.

MR. ROONEY of New York: Mr.Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the language on page 36, be-ginning on line 3 and running throughline 23, on the grounds that it makesan appropriation and is therefore inviolation of paragraph 4 of rule XXI.. . .

MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, weconcede the point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order isconceded. The Chair sustains the pointof order.

Additional Use of Existing For-eign Credits

§ 4.23 To a law authorizing, forcertain purposes, use of for-eign credits already gen-erated from sale of agricul-tural products abroad, a sec-

tion of a bill reported by theCommittee on Agriculture toauthorize use of such fundsfor an additional purpose,was ruled out as an appro-priation in violation of RuleXXI clause 4 (now clause 5).On July 18, 1956,(14) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of H.R. 11708, a bill toamend the Agricultural Trade De-velopment and Assistance Act of1954 the following proceedings oc-curred:

Sec. 2. Section 104 (h) of the act isamended by inserting the followinglanguage immediately before the pe-riod at the end of the section: ‘‘and forthe providing of assistance to activitiesand projects authorized by section 203of the United States Information andEducational Exchange Act of 1948, asamended (22 U.S.C. 1448)’’.

MR. [THOMAS B.] CURTIS [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the pointof order against all of section 2 that itis an appropriation on a bill by a com-mittee not authorized to deal with ap-propriations.

In support of that statement, may Isay that this is exceedingly technicaland very difficult to follow. Nonethe-less, by referring to the basic act, Pub-lic Law 480, with which this deals, wefind that it refers to foreign currenciesand I quote, ‘‘which accrue to theUnited States under this act.’’ Thenrefer to the specific section whichstates, ‘‘to use the foreign currencies


5053


15. Prince H. Preston, Jr. (Ga.).

which accrue.’’ Then go right on downto section (h), to which this is anamendment. It states, ‘‘for the financ-ing of.’’ I submit this is obviously anappropriation. I might say that if thiswere only an authorization I wouldhave no objection to it at all, but I donot believe this is a proper place to ap-propriate. . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, This currency unques-tionably belonging to the Governmentof the United States, which it receivesunder the provisions of section 2 ofPublic Law 480, 83d Congress, andbeing turned over by the terms of sec-tion 104 for specific purposes is forother things or for anything that theydesire to purchase.

Paragraph (a) provides for providingnew markets for United States agricul-tural commodities.

Paragraph (b) to purchase strategicand critical materials. . . .

Paragraph (e) for promoting bal-anced economic trade among nations.

Paragraph (f) to pay United Statesobligations abroad.

Paragraph (g) for loans to promotemultilateral trade.

Mr. Chairman, the adding of onemore item for which the funds can beused constitutes an additional appro-priation of these currencies which be-long to the Government of the UnitedStates as a result of the operationsunder paragraph (a) section 2. . . .

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, all of themoney that goes into the financing ofthese programs have already been ap-propriated and turned over to thePresident to be used by the President.In the original act, he is given the

right to barter. He is given the right tosell for local currencies. He is given theright to give away. This only providesthat he can barter just as has beenpointed out heretofore in the debate;one of the rights he now has is to bar-ter. We say he cannot barter with theU.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, butthat he can barter with all other coun-tries in the world. So it is not an ap-propriation on legislation at all. Themoneys have already been appro-priated and now are in the hands ofthe President. Mr. Chairman, withoutunduly delaying the matter, may Ipoint out the language. It says:

The President may use or enterinto agreements with friendly na-tions or organizations of nations anduse the foreign currencies which ac-crue under this title for one or moreof the following purposes.

And following that is barter, whichis one of those purposes.

THE CHAIRMAN: (15) The Chair wouldlike the gentleman from North Caro-lina to comment on this question. Dowe not acquire foreign currencieswhich belong to this Government,which we receive for selling commod-ities?

MR. COOLEY: Certainly, we are ac-quiring foreign currencies, and the actprovides for the use of those currenciesby the President of the United States.One of the uses that he can use themfor is (c) to produce military equip-ment, materials and so forth and serv-ices for the common defense.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point at issue iswhether the funds can be used withouta further appropriation by the Con-gress.


5054


MR. COOLEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman,that is the question. But the point is,as I have pointed out, that the fundshave already been appropriated andhave already been used largely, andthis act itself authorizes the increase ofthe authorization, but it does not au-thorize the President to use the foreigncurrencies or commodities for any pur-pose foreign to or in addition to theenumerated uses set forth in the act,one of which is to barter.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wouldlike to inquire of the gentleman fromNorth Carolina [Mr. Cooley] if all thecurrencies previously acquired havebeen used by this Government.

MR. COOLEY: They have been obli-gated. To the exact extent, I am notsure, but practically all of them havebeen obligated but not actually used.They are covered by gentlemen’s agree-ments, some of which have not beenfully consummated.

I would like to emphasize one point,if I may. The point of order is to the ef-fect that we are adding to the enu-meration of uses that the Presidentcould employ. We are not doing any-thing of the kind. Under the act wehave a right to barter. That is whatthis provision authorizes him to do. Weare only saying that he can barter withthis money. The fact of the business isit might be considered a limitation be-cause we limit the use of the money, inthat he cannot use it in North Korea orChina.

MR. TABER. If the Chair will permit,this is not barter at all. It is the use offunds. The appropriations having al-ready been established in section 104,that of course can be continued. But toadd new money and appropriate money

for other purposes that were not al-lowed in the first bill is beyond therule, and it constitutes a new appro-priation. Therefore, it is subject to apoint of order because it comes from acommittee other than the Committeeon Appropriations.

MR. CURTIS [of Missouri]: Mr. Chair-man, might I add also that in the com-mittee hearings witnesses testifying onthe part of the executive departmentused as one of their arguments thatthis would give them additional funds.

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Chairman, may Iadd one comment? The gentleman fromNew York [Mr. Taber] points out thatwe are adding something to the au-thority of the President by this amend-ment in the bill. Actually, I think someof these funds are now used in connec-tion with the school lunch program inJapan. They are being used in othercountries in connection with the edu-cation of the children of those coun-tries. Certainly we are not adding tothe authority of the President. It israther strange that an objection to giv-ing authority to the President shouldcome from that side of the aisle. I donot think this is subject to a point oforder.

THE CHIRMAN: The Chair is ready torule. The gentleman from Missouri[Mr. Curtis] has made a point of orderagainst section 2 of the bill, that thisconstitutes an appropriation. The billunder consideration by the Committeeseeks to amend existing law known asPublic Law 480 of the 83d Congress. Inthe pending bill it is clearly evidentthat a new activity is being created bythe legislation. New authority is beinggranted in the handling of the foreigncredit derived from the sale of com-modities. Therefore, in the opinion of


5055



17. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (Va.).18. 84 CONG. REC. 5679, 76th Cong. 1st

Sess.

the Chair, it constitutes an appropria-tion. The Chair therefore feels con-strained to sustain the point of order.

Parliamentarian’s Note: See§ 4.44, infra, where language au-thorizing use only of future for-eign currency proceeds was heldnot to be an appropriation.

Amendment to LegislativeBills—Generally

§ 4.24 An amendment appro-priating money is not inorder on a bill reported by acommittee not having juris-diction over appropriations.On May 22, 1936,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering S. 3531, a bill to amend anact relating to Mississippi Riverflood control. The following pro-ceedings took place:

MR. [ARTHUR P.] LAMNECK [of Ohio]:Mr. Chairman, I offer the followingamendment.


Page 2, line 7, after the word ‘‘En-gineers’’, add the following: ‘‘Pro-vided, That the Chief of Engineers,under the supervision of the Sec-retary of War, shall at the expense ofthe United States Government, con-struct a system of levees and res-ervoirs to adequately control thefloodwaters of the Scioto, Olentangy,and Sandusky River Valleys in Ohio:And provided further, There is here-by appropriated the sum of

$40,000,000 for the carrying out ofthe above project.’’

MR. [RILEY J.] WILSON [of Lou-isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make thepoint of order against the amendmentthat it makes a direct appropriation.. . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The amendmentproposes to appropriate $40,000,000.Rule XXI provides that no bill or jointresolution carrying appropriationsshall be reported by any committee nothaving jurisdiction to report appropria-tions nor shall an amendment pro-posing an appropriation be in orderduring consideration of a bill or jointresolution reported by a committee nothaving that jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as the amendment appro-priates money in violation of the rule,the Chair sustains the point of order.

Emergency Fund

§ 4.25 An amendment to a leg-islative bill proposing tomake available not to exceed$120,000 of appropriationsfor rivers and harbors workas an emergency fund to beexpended for repairing dam-age to and checking erosionon the Bayocean Peninsulain Oregon was held in viola-tion of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).On May 17, 1939,(18) the Com-



5056


19. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).20. 90 CONG. REC. 7464, 78th Cong. 2d

Sess.

ering H.R. 6264, a bill dealingwith public works on rivers andharbors. At one point the Clerkread as follows, and proceedingsensued as indicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Mott:Page 9, after line 6, insert a new para-graph, as follows:

‘‘The sum of not to exceed $120,000of appropriations available for riverand harbor work shall be immediatelyavailable as an emergency fund to beexpended under the direction of theSecretary of War and the supervisionof the Chief of Engineers for repairingdamage to and checking erosion on theBayocean Peninsula in Oregon, causedby storm in January 1939, in order toprovide adequate protection to prop-erty on such peninsula and inTillamook, Oreg.’’

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the amendment that it isan appropriation on a legislative bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Does the gen-tleman from Oregon desire to be heardon the point of order made by the gen-tleman from New York?

MR. [JAMES W.] MOTT [of Oregon]:Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlemanfrom New York did not hear theamendment correctly, because it is notan appropriation but an authorizationfor the engineers to use river and har-bor money.

Mr. Chairman, there is no languagein this amendment which is appro-priating language. The amendment au-thorizes the use by the Army engineersof money available for river and harbor

work to be used in emergency work onthis project.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom New York insist on his point oforder?

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I think Ishall have to insist on the point oforder. If we are to have an appropria-tion, it should come in an appropria-tion bill after a hearing, and then itwould go through quicker, if the needwere shown, than this bill.


The Chair is of the opinion that theamendment of the gentleman from Or-egon contains language which proposesto divert an appropriation heretoforemade to a new purpose and is there-fore in violation of clause 4 of rule XXIof the House of Representatives. TheChair sustains the point of order.

Unemployment Benefits

§ 4.26 To a bill amending theSocial Security Act to pro-vide a national program forwar mobilization and recon-version, an amendment di-recting payments to states onaccount of unemploymentbenefits was held to be anappropriation in violation ofRule XXI clause 4 (nowclause 5), and not in order.On Aug. 31, 1944, the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering S. 2051, the war mobiliza-tion and reconversion bill of 1944.The following proceedings tookplace: (20)


5057


1. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the [committee] amend-ment that it is an appropriation offunds in violation of clause 4 of ruleXXI of the House. I call the attentionof the Chair particularly to this lan-guage. I refer to the page and line ofthe Senate bill rather than the amend-ment, because I have that in front ofme and I assume the Chair can referto it readily. It begins on page 21, line6:

(c) Each State shall be entitled toreceive from the Federal unemploy-ment account for each quarter, be-ginning with the first quarter com-mencing after enactment of this act,an amount equal to the total of allpayments of unemployment com-pensation made by such State duringsuch quarter, pursuant to an agree-ment under this section.

(d) In the event that any Statedoes not agree to make such pay-ments to such persons, the CivilService Commission is hereby au-thorized and directed to make suchpayments. . . .

(f) In case of an agreement underthis section that a State agency willmake payments as agent of theUnited States, there shall be paid inadvance to the State such sum asthe Board estimates the State will beentitled to receive for each quarterunder such section. All money paidto a State under this subsectionshall be used solely for the paymentof unemployment compensation. Anymoney so paid to a State which isnot used for the purpose for which itwas paid shall, upon termination ofthe agreement, be returned to theTreasury. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (1) The Chair willstate to the gentleman from Rhode Is-

land that the rule under which we areconsidering this measure, waivespoints of order against the committeesubstitute, but not against the amend-ments which would be offered to thatsubstitute. The rule cited by the gen-tleman from New York is very clearand specific:

No bill or joint resolution carryingappropriations shall be reported byany committee not having jurisdic-tion to report appropriations, norshall an amendment proposing anappropriation be in order during theconsideration of a bill or joint resolu-tion reported by a committee nothaving that jurisdiction. A questionof order on an appropriation in anysuch bills, joint resolution, or amend-ment thereto may be raised at anytime.

In the opinion of the Chair, the lan-guage cited by the Chair and otherlanguage cited by the gentleman fromNew York, clearly provides for an ap-propriation.

MR. [AIME J.] FORAND [of Rhode Is-land]: Mr. Chairman, if the committeeamendment, which is an entire newbill, had not been brought to the floorof the House as it is now, we would beconsidering the George [Senate] bill,and that would be in the George bill.Would not the rule given to us by theCommittee on Rules clear that? We un-derstood this was a broad rule.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; the rule wouldclear the Senate bill, but we are notconsidering the Senate bill; we are con-sidering the committee substituteamendment to the Senate bill. This isoffered as an amendment to the com-mittee amendment. In the opinion ofthe Chair the point of order is welltaken.

The Chair sustains the point of orderon the authorities cited.


5058



3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).

Guaranteeing Agencies’ Useof Previously AppropriatedFunds

§ 4.27 Language in an amend-ment to a bill reported by theCommittee on Banking andCurrency providing that cer-tain guaranteeing agencieswere thereby authorized touse for the purposes of thesection any funds ‘‘here-tofore’’ appropriated washeld to be an appropriationin violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5), andnot in order.On Aug. 2, 1950,(2) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 9176, the Defense Pro-duction Act of 1950. At one point,a Member raised a point of orderagainst an amendment. The pro-ceedings were as follows:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the amendment.


MR. TABER: I make the point of orderthat the amendment violates the provi-sions of section 4 of rule 21. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentlemanfrom New York point out the specificlanguage in the bill to which he ob-jects?

MR. TABER: I call the Chair’s atten-tion to page 7, lines 18 to 23:

(d) Each guaranteeing agency ishereby authorized to use for the pur-poses of this section any funds whichhave heretofore been appropriated orallocated or which hereafter may beappropriated or allocated to it, orwhich are or may become availableto it, for such purposes or for thepurpose of meeting the necessities ofthe national defense. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. . . .

. . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinionthat the language there does constitutean appropriation in violation of therule cited by the gentleman from NewYork, and accordingly sustains thepoint of order against the amendmenton account of that objectionable lan-guage.

Use of Foreign Interest Pay-ments

§ 4.28 To a bill authorizing thefurnishing of emergency foodrelief assistance to India onspecified credit terms, anamendment providing thatinterest on the principal ofany debt incurred pursuantto such relief program be de-posited in a special accountin the Treasury, to be imme-diately available for certaintypes of expenditures by theDepartment of State washeld to be an appropriationin violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5).


5059


4. 97 CONG. REC. 5837, 5838, 82d Cong.1st Sess. 5. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).

On May 24, 1951,(4) the Com-mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 3791, a bill to furnishemergency food relief assistance toIndia. An amendment was offeredand a point of order raised as in-dicated below:

MR. [WILLIAM G.] BRAY [of Indiana]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Bray:On page 3, at line 20, add a new sec-tion reading as follows:

‘‘Sec. 4 (a) any sums payable bythe Government of India, under theinterest terms agreed to between theGovernment of the United Statesand the Government of India, on orbefore January 1, 1957 . . . as inter-est on the principal of any debt in-curred under this act shall, whenpaid, be placed in a special depositaccount in the Treasury of theUnited States, notwithstanding anyother provisions of law, to remainavailable until expended. This ac-count shall be available to the De-partment of State for the followinguses:

‘‘(1) Allocation, for designated edu-cational, agricultural, experimental,scientific, medical, or philanthropicactivities, to American institutionsengaged in such activities in India.. . .’’

MR. [JOHN M.] VORYS [of Ohio]: Mr.Chairman, because of my admirationfor the gentleman I dislike to press thepoint of order, but I think the rules ofthe House keep our thinking straight.I therefore make the point of order. Isubmit the gentleman’s amendmentgoes far beyond the scope of the legis-

lation. It introduces a great deal ofnew matter and provides for an appro-priation in a legislative act, and istherefore not in order. . . .


The gentleman from Indiana offersan amendment, which the Clerk hasreported, providing certain conditionsrelating to the assistance proposed tobe granted under the pending bill; inaddition it proposes the creation of afund and makes available those fundsfor certain specific purposes.

The gentleman from Ohio makes apoint of order against the amendmenton two grounds: One, that it is not ger-mane; two, that it seeks to make anappropriation.

The Chair would call attention topage 88 of Cannon’s Precedents wherethe following statement is made:

The mere fact that an amendmentproposes to attain the same endsought to be attained by the bill towhich offered—

Which is the contention of the gen-tleman from Indiana—

does not render it germane.

Though the proposed amendmentseeks accomplishment of ends un-doubtedly worthy and somewhat re-lated to the aims of the pending bill,it does provide conditions separateand apart from the pending bill.

Clause 4 of rule 21 provides:

No bill or joint resolution carryingappropriations shall be reported byany committee not having jurisdic-tion to report appropriations, norshall an amendment proposing anamendment be in order during the


5060


6. 97 CONG. REC. 7274, 7275, 82d Cong.1st Sess. 7. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).

consideration of a bill or joint resolu-tion reported by a committee nothaving that jurisdiction.

The proposed amendment would inthe opinion of the Chair, violate thisrule.

The Chair, therefore, sustains thepoint of order made by the gentlemanfrom Ohio in both respects.

Appropriations to AnotherGovernment Agency

§ 4.29 To a bill to amend theAgriculture Act of 1949 topermit the importation ofMexican agricultural work-ers, an amendment relatingto the detention of Mexicanaliens, generally, in theUnited States and providingthat appropriations madeheretofore shall be availablefor expenditures to carry outthe purposes of the provisionwas held to be an appropria-tion in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (subsequently clause5).On June 27, 1951,(6) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of H.R. 3283, a bill toamend the Agricultural Act of1949, the following proceedingsoccurred:

MR. [EMANUEL] CELLER [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Celler:Add a new section:

‘‘Sec. 512. Notwithstanding anyother provision of law to the contraryand without regard to section 3709of the revised statutes, the AttorneyGeneral is authorized to purchase,construct, lease, equip, operate, andmaintain on either Government-leased or Government-owned landsuch detention facilities as may benecessary for the apprehension andremoval to Mexico of Mexican aliensillegally in the United States Appro-priations made to the Immigrationand Naturalization Service shall beavailable for expenditures to carryout the purposes of this act.’’

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve apoint of order against the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. Celler). . . .

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I renewmy point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) Will the gen-tleman please state the grounds of hispoint of order?

MR. COOLEY: First, that it broadensthe scope of the legislation under con-sideration. It is not germane, and it ac-tually constitutes an appropria-tion. . . .


The gentleman from New York offersan amendment to the bill before thecommittee and the gentleman fromNorth Carolina makes the point oforder against the amendment on theground that it is not germane and thatit contains an appropriation.

The Chair has had an opportunity tostudy the amendment offered by the


5061


8. 99 CONG. REC. 10392, 83d Cong. 1stSess. 9. Glenn R. Davis (Wisc.).

gentleman from New York. As theChair understands the bill before thecommittee, H.R. 3283, it applies to cer-tain Mexican aliens as a class and asdescribed in the bill. The amendmentoffered by the gentleman from NewYork broadens the group to includeMexican aliens illegally in the UnitedStates, beyond the class described inthe bill. The amendment also proposesto appropriate funds for a certain pur-pose described in the amendment.

For these two reasons, the Chair isconstrained to sustain the point oforder.

Funds Previously Appropriatedfor Mutual Security Agency

§ 4.30 To a bill reported by theCommittee on Agriculture,an amendment authorizingthe use of funds ‘‘heretoforeappropriated for the use ofthe Mutual Security Agency’’was ruled out as an appro-priation in violation of RuleXXI clause 4 (now clause 5).On July 29, 1953,(8) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6016, a bill concernedwith emergency famine relief. Anamendment was offered and thefollowing proceedings occurred:

MR. [PAUL C.] JONES [of Missouri]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendmentto the committee amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Jonesof Missouri: Page 2, lines 10 and 11,strike out the words ‘‘(including theCorporation’s investment in the com-modities)’’ and insert in lieu thereof‘‘of funds heretofore appropriated forthe use of the Mutual Security Agen-cy.’’

MR. [CLIFFORD R.] HOPE [of Kansas]:Mr. Chairman, a point of order.


MR. HOPE: I make the point of orderagainst the amendment that it is notgermane and that it constitutes an ap-propriation. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. This amendment as drafted,would divert previously appropriatedfunds to a new purpose. Therefore theChair sustains the point of order.

Foreign Credits for NewPurpose

§ 4.31 To a bill providing forextension of a law author-izing, for certain purposes,use of foreign credits gen-erated from the sale of sur-plus agricultural productsabroad, an amendment pro-posing use of a limited per-centage of the generatedfunds for an additional pur-pose, was ruled out as an ap-propriation in violation ofRule XXI clause 4 (nowclause 5).


5062



11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).

On June 4, 1957,(10) the Com-mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6974, a bill to extendthe Agricultural Trade Develop-ment and Assistance Act of 1954,among other things. At one pointa Member offered the followingamendment, and proceedings en-sued as indicated below:


Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley:On page 2, following line 3, add thefollowing new paragraph No. 4:

‘‘Section 104(e) of such act isamended by striking out the semi-colon at the end thereof and addinga comma and the following: ‘forwhich purposes not more than 25percent of the currencies receivedpursuant to each such agreementshall be available through and underthe procedures established by theExport-Import Bank for loans mutu-ally agreeable to said bank and thecountry with which the agreement ismade to United States businessfirms and branches, subsidiaries, oraffiliates of such firms for businessdevelopment and trade expansion insuch countries for the establishmentof facilities for aiding in the utiliza-tion, distribution, or otherwise in-creasing the consumption of, andmarkets for, United States agricul-tural products. Foreign currenciesmay be accepted in repayment ofsuch loans.’ ’’



MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, this is anappropriation on a bill coming from a

committee which has no authority toreport appropriations to thisbody. . . .

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of NorthCarolina]: As I understand it, thePresident now has the authority in ex-isting law to make these agreementsand to use the money as provided bylaw. This is in effect saying he shallnot use more than 25 percent of it forthese purposes.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. The Parliamentarian has di-rected the Chair’s attention to the factthat on July 18, 1956, in the consider-ation of a similar measure, the gen-tleman from Georgia [Mr. Preston],being Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole, ruled on a point of ordersimilar to that made by the gentlemanfrom New York.

This is the ruling, and the reasonsfor it in the language of ChairmanPreston, which the Chair adopts:

The gentleman has made a pointof order against section 2 of the bill.The bill under consideration by theCommittee seeks to amend existinglaw known as Public Law 480 of the83d Congress. In the pending bill itis clearly evident that a new activityis being created by the legislation.New authority is being granted inthe handling of the foreign credit de-rived from the sale of commodities.Therefore, in the opinion of theChair, it constitutes an appropria-tion. The Chair, therefore, feels con-strained to sustain the point oforder.

The Chair sustains the point of ordermade by the gentleman from New York[Mr. Taber].

Use of Tax Receipts for SchoolConstruction

§ 4.32 An amendment (to a billreported from the Committee


5063


12. 103 CONG. REC. 12728, 12729,12733, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.

on Education and Labor)providing that the DistrictDirector of Internal Revenueshall, under a formula, payan allotment to each stateout of tax funds for schoolconstruction has been ruledout as an appropriation inviolation of Rule XXI clause 4(subsequently clause 5).On July 25, 1957,(12) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 1, a bill to authorizefederal assistance to the statesand local communities in financ-ing an expanded program ofschool construction so as to elimi-nate the national shortage ofclassrooms. The following pro-ceedings took place:

MR. [EDWIN H.] MAY [Jr., of Con-necticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. May:Page 31, beginning with line 19,strike out everything down throughline 11, page 46, and insert the fol-lowing:

‘‘TITLE I—PAYMENTS TO STATEEDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

‘‘Authorization of appropriations

‘‘Sec. 101. There are hereby au-thorized to be appropriated for thefiscal year beginning July 1, 1957,and the four succeeding fiscal years,such amounts, not to exceed $300

million in any fiscal year, as may benecessary for making payments toState educational agencies as pro-vided in section 104.

‘‘Allotments to States

‘‘Sec. 102(a)(1) The sums appro-priated for any fiscal year pursuantto section 101 shall be allottedamong the States on the basis of theincome per child of school age, theschool-age population, and effort forschool purposes, of the respectiveStates. Subject to the provisions ofsection 103, such allotments shall bemade as follows: The Commissionershall allot to each State an amountwhich bears the same ratio to thesums appropriated pursuant to sec-tion 101 for such year as the productof—

‘‘(A) the school-age population ofthe State, and

‘‘(B) the state’s allotment ratio (asdetermined under paragraph (2)),bears to the sum of the cor-responding products for all theStates.

‘‘Payments to States

‘‘Sec. 104. When he has computeda State’s allotment for a year, theCommissioner shall certify theamount thereof to the District Direc-tor of Internal Revenue for the Inter-nal Revenue District of which theState is a part (or, if the State lies inmore than one such District, to theDistrict Director designated by theSecretary of the Treasury). From thecollections made from such Statefrom taxes levied under part I ofsubchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitleA of the Internal Revenue Code of1954 (relating to income tax on indi-viduals), the District Director of In-ternal Revenue shall retain anamount equal to the State’s allot-ment. He shall then pay the State’sallotment for the year, in equalmonthly installments, to the Stateeducational agency. . . .’’


5064


13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).14. 108 CONG. REC. 21883, 21884, 87th

Cong. 2d Sess.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst the amendment on the groundthat section 104 of the amendmentconstitutes an appropriation and it ison a bill coming from a committee notauthorized to report appropriations.

That motion is in order at any timebefore the bill is enacted.

MR. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indi-ana]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to beheard on the point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The gentleman isrecognized.

MR. HALLECK: In my opinion, thepoint of order comes too late. Theamendment has been offered and re-ported and debate has begun on theamendment.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, it is spe-cifically specified in the rules that thatpoint of order is available at any timeduring the progress of the bill.

MR. [H. R.) GROSS [of Iowa]: Underrule XXI

MR. TABER: Under rule XXI.THE CHAIRMAN: As to the question of

timeliness of the point of order, thereis no question but that it can be madeat this time.

The Chair feels that this language‘‘shall pay the State’s allotment for theyear, in equal monthly installments, tothe State educational agency’’ makesthe amendment subject to the point oforder.


Corps of Engineers—Use ofPrior Appropriations

§ 4.33 Where a committeeamendment to a rivers and

harbors authorization billcontained language whichpermitted the Chief of Engi-neers to use, for certain pur-poses, appropriations here-tofore or hereinafter madefor civil works, the amend-ment was conceded to con-tain an appropriation andwas ruled out as in violationof Rule XXI clause 4 (subse-quently clause 5).On Oct. 3, 1962,(14) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 13273, the rivers andharbors authorization bill for1962. At one point the Clerk reada committee amendment as fol-lows, and proceedings ensued asindicated below:


Committee amendment: Page 13,line 15, insert:

‘‘Sec. 102. (a) The Act approvedAugust 13, 1946, as amended by theAct approved July 28, 1956 (33U.S.C. 426e–h), pertaining to shoreprotection, is hereby further amend-ed as follows: . . .

‘‘(4) Sections 2 and 3 are amendedto read as follows:

‘‘ ‘Sec. 2. The Secretary of theArmy is hereby authorized to reim-burse local interests for work doneby them . . . Provided, That thework which may have been done onthe projects is approved by the Chiefof Engineers as being in accordancewith the authorized projects: Pro-vided further, That such reimburse-


5065




17. H.R. 8781.

ment shall be subject to appropria-tions applicable thereto or fundsavailable therefor and shall not takeprecedence over other pendingprojects of higher priority for im-provements.

‘‘ ‘Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers ishereby authorized to undertake con-struction of small shore and beachrestoration and protection projectsnot specifically authorized by Con-gress, which otherwise comply withsection 1 of this Act, when he findsthat such work is advisable, and heis further authorized to allot fromany appropriations heretofore orhereinafter made for civil works, notto exceed $3,000,000 for any one fis-cal year for the Federal share of thecosts of construction of such projects.. . .’ ’’

MR. [WILLIAM C.] CRAMER [of Flor-ida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point oforder against the amendment in that itappears clearly in the amendment thatit is an appropriation on an authoriza-tion bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (15) Does the gen-tleman from Minnesota desire to beheard?

MR. [JOHN A.] BLATNIK [of Min-nesota]: Mr. Chairman, the committeeconcedes the point of order.


The Chair will state, this applies tothe entire amendment from page 13,line 15, down to and including line 19on page 16.

MR. BLATNIK: Mr. Chairman, am Icorrect, then, that this applies to theentire section 102, it deletes that sec-tion?

THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

Language Held To Be ‘‘Author-ization’’

§ 4.34 Language in a bill au-thorizing an appropriation ofnot less than a certainamount for a specified pur-pose has been held not to bean appropriation.On May 11, 1934,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering a bill (17) which stated inpart as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That for the pur-pose of increasing employment by pro-viding for emergency construction ofpublic highways and other relatedprojects there is hereby authorized tobe appropriated, out of any money inthe Treasury not otherwise appro-priated, the sum of not less than$400,000,000 for allocation under theprovisions of section 204 of the Na-tional Industrial Recovery Act.

A point of order was raisedagainst the provision, as follows,and proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:The language of this section providesthat there is authorized to be appro-priated the sum of not less than$400,000,000. That is, in effect, a man-datory piece of legislation, and mustresult in an appropriation. This billdoes not come from the Committee onAppropriations and therefore this sec-


5066


18. David D. Glover (Ark.).1. 80 CONG REC. 274, 74th Cong. 2d

Sess.

2. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).3. Reappropriations are no longer per-

mitted. See § 3, supra.

tion, with that language in it, is out oforder. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (18) . . . This is sim-ply an authorization, and the point oforder is overruled.

Reappropriation

§ 4.35 Language of an amend-ment providing that an ap-propriation when madeshould come out of any unex-pended balances heretoforeappropriated or made avail-able for emergency purposeswas held to be in order on alegislative bill since such lan-guage did not constitute anappropriation.On Jan. 9, 1936,(1) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 9870, a bill dealingwith payment of adjusted servicecertificates. At one point the Clerkread as follows, and proceedingsensued as indicated below:

Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized tobe appropriated such sums as may benecessary to carry out the provisions ofthis act. . . .

MR. [ALLEN T.] TREADWAY [of Mas-sachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment, which I send to theClerk’s desk.


Amendment by Mr. Treadway:Page 7, line 13, after the word ‘‘ap-

propriated’’, insert ‘‘out of any unex-pended balances heretofore appro-priated or made available for emer-gency purposes.’’

MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHITTINGTON [ofMississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I makethe point of order against the amend-ment that it is not definite enough. Itdoes not specify what law or what ap-propriation is intended to be coveredby the proposed amendment.

MR. TREADWAY: Mr. Chairman, Ishould like to be heard on the point oforder.

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas-sachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I make thefurther point of order that it is an ap-propriation. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The Chair doesnot think it necessary to hear the gen-tleman from Massachusetts unless thegentleman seeks to convince the Chairthat the Chair would be in error inholding his amendment in order.

While it is restrictive and limitsCongress to just one source in makingits appropriation, while the bill in noway limits, the amendment is merelyan authorization. It will require actionon the part of Congress later to appro-priate the money, and the Chair,therefore, overrules the point oforder.(3)

Funds Made Available to OtherAgencies

§ 4.36 Language in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee providing that all


5067



funds available for carryingout the act would be avail-able for allotment to otherbureaus and offices for asimilar purpose was held notto be an appropriation, inas-much as the bill permittedno use of existing funds butmerely authorized newfunds, when appropriated, tobe so allocated.On Apr. 8, 1936,(4) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of H.R. 12037, the tobaccocompact bill, the Clerk read as fol-lows, and a point of order wasmade as indicated below:

Sec. 8. All funds available for car-rying out this act shall be available forallotment to the bureaus and offices ofthe Department of Agriculture and fortransfer to such other agencies of theFederal or State governments as theSecretary may request to cooperate orassist in carrying out this act.

MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]:Mr. Chairman, I desire to make apoint of order against section 8 for thesame reason as applied to section 7.The section makes available and trans-fers funds in the Treasury for a dif-ferent purpose than that for whichthey have been appropriated, and Ithink under the precedents and deci-sion of the Speaker and of the Chair itis subject to the same point of order aswas raised to section 7. . . .

I call the Chair’s attention to thefact that the fees paid by the handlers

of tobacco for so-called marketingagreements under section 3 go into theTreasury of the United States and area part of the funds referred to in thissection. They would remain in theTreasury and not be available to theSecretary of Agriculture or to anyoneexcept for the language in section 8.. . .

MR. [MARVIN] JONES [of Texas]: Mr.Chairman, I submit the suggestionthat by the provisions of the amend-ment to the previous section any ad-vance or loans repaid to the Secretaryby any commission, and so forth, shallrevert to the Treasury of the UnitedStates; so the point of order made bythe gentleman is not applicable. Sec-tion 7(a) is where provision is madewith reference to the funds mentionedin section 3. All that is involved in sec-tion 8 is the amount appropriated tothe Secretary of Agriculture for admin-istrative purposes, and this is merely amatter of allowing him to permit someother bureau assisting him to use thesame fund. It is not a new appropria-tion, it is the same appropriation andit is for the same function, that of ad-ministration. It does not involve a newappropriation if a man’s assistantspends the man’s money helping do thejob. In fact, this involves no appropria-tion at all. It only refers to the use offunds authorized to be appropriated ina previous section—if and when suchappropriation is made.

If the gentleman from Michigan willlook at the previous section, he willfind the funds mentioned in section 3,and the collections thereof revert to theTreasury automatically, under theamendment which we just adopted andwhich takes the place of the provisionwhich was stricken out. . . .


5068


5. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).6. 81 CONG. REC. 394–98, 75th Cong.

1st Sess.

7. Note: Loans are not consideredcharges against the Treasury.

8. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).

MR. MAPES: Will not the gentlemanfrom Texas admit that section 8 mightdivert some of the funds which may beappropriated under the committee’ssubstitute for section 7, which wouldnot be so diverted except for section 8?

MR. JONES: That would be true forany part of the funds that are appro-priated there for administrative pur-poses but not for advances and loans,because subdivision (b) of section 7specifically eliminates all loans and ad-vances and puts them back into theTreasury when they are repaid. So, byvirtue of the limitation in section (b)this can apply only to administrativefunds.

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) . . . As the Chairunderstands, this bill does not carryany appropriation—that part of the billwas stricken out on a point of order—and therefore there are no funds avail-able so far as the bill stands at thepresent time.

The Chair therefore overrules thepoint of order.

Farm Loans

§ 4.37 An amendment author-izing the making of farmloans was held not to be anappropriation under RuleXXI clause 4 (now clause 5).On Jan. 25, 1937,(6) the Com-


Sec. 2. (a) No loan shall be madeunder this act to any applicant who

shall not have first established to thesatisfaction of the proper officer or em-ployee of the Farm Credit Administra-tion, under such regulations as theGovernor may prescribe, that such ap-plicant is unable to procure from othersources a loan in an amount reason-ably adequate to meet his needs for thepurposes for which loans may be madeunder this act; and preference shall begiven to the applications of farmerswhose cash requirements are small.. . .

Amendment offered by Mr.Massingale: Amend paragraph C ofsection 2, page 3, by striking out theperiod after the word ‘‘prescribe’’, online 5 of said paragraph, inserting acomma, and adding the following: ‘‘andloans for seed oats shall be imme-diately available in localities where itis customary that sowing or plantingshall be done in the late winter orearly spring months.’’ . . .(7)

MR. [MARVIN] JONES [of Texas]: Mr.Chairman, I am sorry to have to dis-agree with the gentleman from Okla-homa [Mr. Massingale].

Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder that the gentleman’s amendmentwould amount to inserting an appro-priation in a legislative bill. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The Chair over-rules the gentleman’s point of order in-sofar as the point of order is based onthe ground that the amendment in-volves an appropriation.

Advances From Treasury

§ 4.38 Language authorizingand directing an executive


5069



10. James M. Mead (N.Y.).11. 81 CONG. REC. 5910, 75th Cong. 1st

Sess.

officer to advance, when ap-propriated, sums of moneyout of the Treasury was heldnot to constitute an appro-priation on a legislative bill.On June 17, 1937,(9) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7472. At one point anamendment was offered and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:


Amendment offered by Mr. Nich-ols: Page 1, after line 4, insert thefollowing:

‘‘TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION FORADVANCE OF FUNDS

‘‘Until and including June 30,1938, the Secretary of the Treasury,notwithstanding the provisions ofthe District of Columbia Appropria-tion Act approved June 29, 1922, isauthorized and directed, when ap-propriated, to advance, on the req-uisition of the Commissioners of theDistrict of Columbia, made in themanner now prescribed by law, outof any money in the Treasury of theUnited States not otherwise appro-priated, such sums as may be nec-essary from time to time during saidfiscal year to meet the general ex-penses of said District, as providedby law, and such amounts so ad-vanced shall be reimbursed by thesaid Commissioners to the Treasuryout of the taxes and revenue col-lected for the support of the govern-ment of the said District of Colum-bia.’’

MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder. . . .

. . . I make the same point of orderagainst the amendment as was raisedby the gentleman from New York [Mr.Taber] and upon which the Chair justruled. The language of the District ofColumbia Appropriation Act makesthis amendment an exception to theappropriation act. The amendmentstates ‘‘out of any money in the Treas-ury of the United States not otherwiseappropriated.’’ It seems to me theamendment seeks to have Congressauthorize and appropriate a certainamount of money which the Congresswould have to reimburse the Treasuryfor if the District itself was not able toreimburse the Treasury out of the rev-enues to be obtained under this bill.

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The Chair isready to rule. It is the opinion of theChair that the language included inthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols],which indicates that the money cannotbecome available until and when ap-propriated, is proper, and thereforeoverrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Thelanguage objected to by Mr. JohnTaber, and subsequently referredto by Mr. O’Malley in his point oforder, was substantially the sameas that in the Nichols amend-ment, but did not include thephrase ‘‘when appropriated.’’ (11)

Special Accounts for SpecifiedPurposes

§ 4.39 Language directing thatthe proceeds of taxes shall be


5070


12. 81 CONG. REC. 5924, 5925, 75thCong. 1st Sess. 13. James M. Mead (N.Y.).

deposited in a special ac-count in the Treasury en-tirely to the credit of the Dis-trict of Columbia and wouldthereafter be appropriatedand used solely and exclu-sively for certain enumer-ated purposes was heldmerely a direction to appro-priate in the future and notin violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (subsequently clause5), as being an appropriationon a legislative bill.On June 17, 1937,(12) the Com-


‘‘All proceeds of the taxes imposedunder this act . . . shall be depositedin a special account in the Treasury ofthe United States entirely to the creditof the District of Columbia, and shallbe appropriated and used solely andexclusively for the following purposes:

‘‘(1) For the construction, reconstruc-tion, improvement, and maintenance ofpublic highways, including the nec-essary administrative expenses in con-nection therewith . . .’’

MR. [ALBERT J.] ENGEL [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point oforder against that part of section 2 onpage 12, line 2, beginning with thewords ‘‘and shall’’, through and includ-ing line 24 on page 12, on the ground

that it is an appropriation and violatesthe rule which requires that appropria-tions shall come from the Committeeon Appropriations.

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) Will the gen-tleman advise the Chair of the lan-guage to which he makes the point oforder.

MR. ENGEL: On page 12, line 2, com-mencing with the words ‘‘and shall beappropriated’’, continuing through theremainder of the section.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Illinois desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi-nois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not be-lieve the point of order will lie. Thissection first does not appropriate anymoney. It is only an affirmative direc-tion for the expenditure of money or anindication of how the money shall beexpended, but it does not undertake,either by language or implication, toappropriate money.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule. The Chair will state that thegentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen]has stated the matter correctly. Thepoint of order is overruled.

‘‘Appropriation’’ Defined as‘‘Payment of Funds From theTreasury’’

§ 4.40 A bill to regulate bar-bers in the District of Colum-bia containing language pro-viding that fees and chargespayable under the act wouldbe paid to the secretary-


5071


14. 83 CONG. REC. 1008, 1009, 75thCong. 3d Sess. 15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)

treasurer of a board to carryout these regulations andproviding compensation ofmembers of the board fromsuch funds was held not tobe an appropriation of fundsfrom the Treasury where itwas stated that expensesunder the bill were notchargeable against theUnited States or the Districtof Columbia.On Jan. 24, 1938,(14) the House

was considering H.R. 7085. At onepoint the Clerk read as follows,and a point of order was raised asindicated below:

Sec. 11. All fees and charges payableunder the provisions of this act shallbe paid to the secretary-treasurer ofthe Board. The Board is hereby author-ized to refund any license fee or tax, orportion thereof, erroneously paid orcollected under this act.

(a) For the examination of an appli-cant for a certificate as a registeredbarber, $5. . . .

Sec. 12. The Commissioners are au-thorized and directed to provide suit-able quarters for examinations andequipment to the Board and for thecompensation of the members of theBoard at the rate of $9 per day . . .Provided, That payments under thissection shall not exceed the amount re-ceived from the fees provided for inthis act; and if at the close of each fis-cal year any funds unexpended in ex-

cess of the sum of $1,000 shall be paidinto the Treasury of the United Statesto the credit of the District of Colum-bia: Provided, That no expense in-curred under this act shall be a chargeagainst the funds of the United Statesor the District of Columbia. . . .

MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the pointof order that sections 11 and 12 pro-vide for an appropriation which theCommittee on the District of Columbia,as a legislative committee, is not au-thorized to do. Section 11 sets up aschedule of fees and section 12 appro-priates such fees to the use of theCommissioners, stating that any sumsunexpended in excess of a thousanddollars shall revert to the Treas-ury. . . .

THE SPEAKER: (15) The Chair is readyto rule on the point of order raised bythe gentleman from Wisconsin.

The gentleman from Wisconsinmakes the point of order against sec-tion 12 of the bill that under the termsof the section there is an appropriationof funds out of the Public Treasury.

If, in the opinion of the Chair, thelanguage of the section sustained thatposition, clearly the point of order ofthe gentleman from Wisconsin wouldbe good. However, the Chair calls at-tention to the fact it is stated in aprecedent which will be found in theCongressional Record, Sixty-seventhCongress, first session, page 3388:

The term ‘‘appropriation’’ in therule means the payment of fundsfrom the Treasury.

As far as the Chair is able to readthe language of section 12, it provides


5072


16. 88 CONG. REC. 851, 852, 77th Cong.2d Sess. 17. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).

only the payment of funds into theTreasury under certain contingencies,and does not provide for the paymentof funds out of the Treasury.

For the reasons stated, the Chairoverrules the point of order made bythe gentleman from Wisconsin.

Unused Appropriations PaidInto Treasury Account

§ 4.41 A provision in a legisla-tive bill providing that sumsalready appropriated andnot used for making paritypayments would be coveredinto the Treasury to offsetthe subsequent appropria-tions made pursuant to theauthority of the bill underconsideration was held notin violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (subsequently clause5), inasmuch as further ac-tion would be required to ap-propriate such sums author-ized.On Jan. 29, 1942,(16) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6350, a bill dealingwith relief for certain agriculturalproducers. The following pro-ceedings took place:

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE [of South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make apoint of order against paragraph (b),on the ground that it violates clause 4of rule XXI.

Paragraph (b) reads as follows:

The Congress further determinesthat substantial amounts of thesums which have heretofore been ap-propriated for making parity pay-ments will not be needed for makingsuch payments; and it hereby directsthat so much of the money appro-priated in the Department of Agri-culture Appropriation Act, 1942, forthe purpose of making parity pay-ments as is not used for such pur-pose shall be covered into the Treas-ury to offset the appropriations madepursuant to the authority of thisact. . . .

My contention is that paragraph (b)diverts an appropriation already madeto a different purpose, therefore is aviolation of the rule. If there should beany doubt in the mind of the Chair, Ishould like to be heard further on thepoint of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (17) Does the gen-tleman from South Carolina [Mr.Fulmer] desire to be heard on the pointof order?

MR. [HAMPTON P.] FULMER: Mr.Chairman, I do not care to comment onthe point of order except to state I donot believe that the point of order isgermane; therefore, it should not besustained. . . .


The Chair has examined this para-graph very carefully. The Chair callsattention to the fact that the para-graph provides that the sum of money,whatever sum it may be, appropriatedfor the purpose of making parity pay-ments and not used for such purposeshall be covered into the Treasury tooffset the appropriations made pursu-ant to the authority of this act.


5073


18. 92 CONG. REC. 5388–95, 79th Cong.2d Sess

The paragraph contemplates thatthere will be further action by the Con-gress before any appropriation is madeavailable. Therefore, the Chair over-rules the point of order.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr.Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willstate it.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Is theholding of the Chair in the languagethe Chair just used to the effect thatfurther action is necessary, that underthe legislative history of this bill itwould not be possible for the pro-ponents of this legislation to come be-fore the Committee on Appropriationsand maintain that the hands of theCommittee on Appropriations had al-ready been tied by the action on thisbill?

THE CHAIRMAN: Before there couldbe any activity under the provisions ofthis bill, there must be appropriate ac-tion by the Congress making moneyavailable for the purposes therein setforth.

Membership in InternationalOrganization

§ 4.42 Language in a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee providing ‘‘that thePresident is hereby author-ized to accept membershipfor the United States in theUnited Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Or-ganization, the Constitutionof which was approved inLondon on November 16,

1945, by the United NationsConference for the establish-ment of an Educational, Sci-entific, and Cultural Organi-zation, and deposited in theArchives of the Governmentof the United Kingdom’’ washeld not to involve an appro-priation in violation of RuleXXI clause 4 (subsequentlyclause 5) merely because theconstitution of the organiza-tion provided that ‘‘the gen-eral conference shall ap-prove and give final effect tothe budget and to the appor-tionment of financial respon-sibility among the statesmembers of the organization. . . .’’ since a subsequent ap-propriation was authorizedby the bill.On May 21, 1946,(18) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering House Joint Resolution 305,relating to United States partici-pation in the United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization. The following pro-ceedings took place as the jointresolution was considered foramendment:

Resolved, etc., That the President ishereby authorized to accept member-ship for the United States in theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific,


5074


19. William M. Colmer (Miss.)

20. Sec. 4 stated in part:There is hereby authorized to be

appropriated annually to the Depart-ment of State, out of any money inthe Treasury not otherwise appro-priated, such sums as may be nec-essary for the payment by theUnited States of its share of the ex-penses of the Organization as appor-tioned by the General Conference ofthe Organization in accordance witharticle IX of the constitution of theOrganization, and such additionalsums as may be necessary to pay theexpenses of participation by theUnited States in the activities of theOrganization.

and Cultural Organization (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘‘Organization’’), theconstitution of which was approved inLondon on November 16, 1945. . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER (of New York):Mr. Chairman, I make a point of orderagainst section 1 of the bill, beginningin line 3 on page 1, and ending in line2 on page 2. . . .

I make the point of order, Mr. Chair-man, on the ground that it is an appro-priation coming from a committee notauthorized to report appropriations tothe House. That kind of a point oforder can be made at any time duringthe consideration of the bill.

I call the attention of the Chair toarticle IX of the constitution of this Or-ganization which appears in the reportof the committee on page 9.

It says:

The General Conference shall ap-prove and give final effect to thebudget and to the apportionment offinancial responsibility among thestates members of the Organizationsubject to such arrangement withthe United Nations as may be pro-vided in the agreement to be enteredinto pursuant to article X.

Let me call attention to the fact thatthis authorizes the validation of thatarticle. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The Chair is pre-pared to rule. The gentleman fromNew York makes a point of orderagainst section 1 of the resolution onthe ground that it appropriates moneyand comes from a committee not au-thorized to make appropriations.

No appropriation is made in section1 of the bill.

Section 4 of the joint resolutionwould authorize an appropriation at a

later date to be appropriated by theappropriate committee.(20)


MR. [FRANK A.] MATHEWS [Jr., ofNew Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder.


MR. MATHEWS: The point of order isas follows: As I understand, upon theadoption of this resolution the UnitedStates of America authorizes the Presi-dent to make it, the United States, amember of this Organization whoseconstitution is set forth in the report ofthe committee.

Under article IX of that constitutionheaded ‘‘Budget’’ the following appears:

Sec. 1. The budget shall be admin-istered by the Organization.

2. The General Conference shallapprove and give final effect to thebudget and to the apportionment offinancial responsibility among thestates members of theOrganization—


5075


21. 95 CONG. REC. 8451, 81st Cong. 1stSess.

22. H.R. 4009.1. 95 CONG. REC. 8480, 81st Cong. 1st

Sess.

And so forth. I contend, Mr. Chair-man, that that in effect practically del-egates the power of appropriation ofthis body to an organization or a partof an organization which is not com-posed of Members of this body and notacting officially. I contend further,therefore, that we have no right con-stitutionally to so delegate liability forthose appropriations or expenditures.. . .

MR. [KARL E.] MUNDT [of South Da-kota]: May I suggest to the gentlemanfrom New Jersey that the Chair has al-ready ruled on practically an identicalpoint of order.

MR. MATHEWS: That was not thesame point.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre-pared to rule. The Chair, in construinga point of order raised by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. Taber) ona similar proposition, ruled that it wasnot an appropriation and, therefore,the point of order did not lie. TheChair calls the attention of the gen-tleman from New Jersey to the factthat section 4, page 5, is the authoriza-tion section of the joint resolution, andthat money could not be appropriateduntil it was authorized by that section.

The point of order is overruled.

Loans From Public DebtProceeds

§ 4.43 A discussion of the na-ture of an ‘‘appropriation’’took place in the Housewhen language in a housingbill authorizing the Sec-retary of the Treasury to useproceeds of public-debt

issues for the purpose ofmaking loans was held not tobe an appropriation and notin violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (subsequently clause5).On June 27, 1949,(21) the House

resolved itself into the Committeeof the Whole to consider the Hous-ing Act of 1949.(22) During thecommittee’s consideration, the fol-lowing language was read: (1)

(e) To obtain funds for loans underthis title, the Administrator, on andafter July 1, 1949, may, with the ap-proval of the President, issue and haveoutstanding at any one time notes andobligations for purchase by the Sec-retary of the Treasury in an amountnot to exceed $25,000,000. . . .

(f) Notes or other obligations issuedby the Administrator under this titleshall be in such forms and denomina-tions, have such maturities, and besubject to such terms and conditions asmay be prescribed by the Adminis-trator, with the approval of the Sec-retary of the Treasury. Such notes orother obligations shall bear interest ata rate determined by the Secretary ofthe Treasury, taking into considerationthe current average rate on out-standing marketable obligations of theUnited States as of the last day of themonth preceding the issuance of suchnotes or other obligations. The Sec-


5076


2. Id. at pp. 8536–38.

retary of the Treasury is authorizedand directed to purchase any notes andother obligations of the Administratorissued under this title and for suchpurpose is authorized to use as a pub-lic debt transaction the proceeds fromthe sale of any securities issued underthe Second Liberty Bond Act, asamended, and the purposes for whichsecurities may be issued under suchact, as amended, are extended to in-clude any purchases of such notes andother obligations. The Secretary of theTreasury may at any time sell any ofthe notes or other obligations acquiredby him under this section. All redemp-tions, purchases, and sales by the Sec-retary of the Treasury of such notes orother obligations shall be treated aspublic debt transactions of the UnitedStates.

On the next day, Members dis-cussed the effect of such lan-guage: (2)

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE [of South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, the point of orderI make is that subparagraphs (e) and(f) of section 102 in title I constitutethe appropriation of funds from theFederal Treasury, and that the Com-mittee on Banking and Currency iswithout jurisdiction to report a bill car-rying appropriations under clause 4,rule 21, which says that no bill or jointresolution carrying appropriationsshall be reported by any committee nothaving jurisdiction to report appropria-tions.

This is no casual point of order madeas a tactical maneuver in considerationof the bill. I make this point of orderbecause this proposes to expand and

develop a device or mechanism for get-ting funds out of the Federal Treasuryin an unprecedented degree.

The Constitution has said that nomoney shall be drawn from the Treas-ury but in consequence of appropria-tions made by law. It must follow thatthe mechanism which gets the moneyout of the Treasury is an appropria-tion.

I invite the attention of the Chair-man to the fact that subparagraph (e)states:

To obtain funds for loans underthis title, the Administrator mayissue and have outstanding at anyone time notes and obligations forpurchase by the Secretary of theTreasury in an amount not to exceed$25,000,000, which limit on suchoutstanding amount shall be in-creased by $225,000,000 on July 1,1950, and by further amounts of$250,000,000 on July 1 in each of theyears 1951, 1952, and 1953,respectively—

Within the total authorization of$1,000,000,000.

Further that subparagraph (f) pro-vides that—

The Secretary of the Treasury isauthorized and directed—

And I call particular attention to theuse of the words ‘‘and directed’’—topurchase any notes and other obliga-tions of the Administrator issuedunder this title and for such purpose isauthorized to use as a public debttransaction the proceeds from the saleof any securities issued under the Sec-ond Liberty Bond Act, as amended—

And so forth. The way in which thisparticular language extends this deviceof giving the Secretary authority tosubscribe for notes by some authority


5077


is this: It includes the words ‘‘and di-rected.’’

In other words, the Secretary of theTreasury has no alternative when theAdministrator presents to him some ofthese securities for purchase but topurchase them. The Secretary of theTreasury is not limited to purchasingthem by proceeds from the sale ofbonds or securities. He is directed topurchase these notes and obligationsissued by the Administrator. Thatmeans he might use funds obtainedfrom taxes, that he might use fundsobtained through the assignment ofmiscellaneous receipts to the Treasury,that he might use funds obtainedthrough the proceeds of bonds. . . .

Mr. Chairman, this is not, as I saidearlier, a casual point of order; we arehere dealing with the fundamentalpower of the Congress to control appro-priations. No such device has ever be-fore, so far as I can find out, been pre-sented to the Congress for gettingmoney in the guise of a legislative billwithout its having been considered bythe Committee on Appropriations. It isa mandatory extraction of funds fromthe Public Treasury, and, con-sequently, constitutes an appropriationand is beyond the authority or the ju-risdiction of the Committee on Bankingand Currency to report in this bill.. . .

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]:Mr. Chairman, the raising of funds bypublic debt transaction has been fre-quently authorized by the Congress:The Export-Import Bank raises fundsby that method; the Bretton WoodsAgreement, in my recollection, is car-ried out by that method; the Britishloan was financed by that method, andthe Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-

poration was also financed by thatmethod. It does not seem to me thatthis is a seasonable objection. This hasbeen the policy of the Congress foryears.

Mr. Chairman, this is not raisingmoney to be appropriated for the pur-poses that ordinary appropriation billscarry. All of this money is to be usedas loans.

The gentleman says that in otheracts the Secretary of the Treasury is‘‘authorized’’ but not ‘‘directed’’. I con-tend that the meaning of ‘‘authorized’’and ‘‘directed’’ in this act is absolutelythe same.

Do you think when you authorize theSecretary of the Treasury to raisefunds to carry out a great public pur-pose it is in his discretion whether heshall raise those funds and that thatshall depend on the discretion of theSecretary of the Treasury? I say ‘‘au-thorized’’ in this sense means ‘‘di-rected.’’ It could not mean anythingelse, otherwise you would be dele-gating to an officer of the Governmententire discretion as to whether or notgreat national acts should be carriedout and the purposes of Congressshould be subserved.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr.Chairman, in most of the acts whichthe gentleman has suggested, points oforder were waived, and I refer toBretton Woods and some of the otherbills. But as to the particular pointhere in issue, the question whether thewords ‘‘and directed’’ have any mean-ing, if they do not have any meaningwhy are they there? The present hous-ing act merely authorizes the Secretaryof the Treasury to purchase. It doesnot say ‘‘and directed.’’ The very inclu-


5078


sion of the words ‘‘and directed’’ is evi-dence of the fact they have a specialmeaning They create a mandatory ex-traction of funds from the PublicTreasury.

MR. SPENCE: Mr. Chairman, I stillcontend unless you would make ouracts a nullity ‘‘authorized’’ and ‘‘di-rected’’ have exactly the same meaningwhen applied to a public officialcharged with carrying out a great na-tional act. I do not think there can beany reasonable construction that wouldhold otherwise. . . .

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas-sachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I agreewith my friend who has raised thepoint of order that this is not a casualone, but, on the contrary, is a very sin-cere one. It presents a new questionfrom a legislative angle to be passedupon in the direct question raised bythe point of order.

The gentleman from South Dakotahas referred to the Constitution. TheConstitution says:

No money shall be drawn from theTreasury but in consequence of ap-propriations made by law.

The word ‘‘appropriations’’ is used.The rule referred to, clause 4, rule

21, says:

No bill or resolution carrying ap-propriations shall be reported by anycommittee not having jurisdiction toreport appropriations.

You will note the word ‘‘appropria-tions’’ is used. Now, let us see what‘‘appropriations’’ means.

I have before me Funk & WagnallsStandard Dictionary and ‘‘appropria-tions’’ is defined as follows: To setapart for a particular use. To take forone’s own use.

The provisions of this bill are nottaking for one’s own use, becausethis is a loan designed purely forloan purposes. It is not a definite ap-propriation. It is giving authority toutilize for loan purposes and themoney comes back into the Treasuryof the United States with interest.

Again, the word ‘‘appropriations’’is defined:

Something, as money,appropriated—

I call particular attention to thosewords ‘‘something, as money,appropriated’’—

or set apart, as by a legislature, fora special use.

I repeat ‘‘something, as money.’’The provision in paragraph (f) that

my friend has raised a point of orderagainst relates entirely to loans. As weread section 102 of title I it starts outwith loans. Throughout the bill, anumber of times, there is reference toloans.

Paragraph (e) says:

To obtain funds for loans underthis 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 isauthorized and directed to purchaseany notes and other obligations ofthe Administrator issued under thistitle and for such purpose is author-ized to use as a public-debt trans-action the proceeds from the sale ofany securities issued under the Sec-ond Liberty Bond Act, as amended,and the purposes for which securitiesmay be issued under such act, asamended, are extended to includeany purchases of such notes andother obligations.


5079


3. Hale Boggs (La.).

It seems to me that that is the meat.Certainly, the language there does notamount to an appropriation. It is en-tirely for loan purposes. . . .

MR. [RALPH E.] CHURCH [of Illinois]:The gentleman has discussed thepoint—the difference between the word‘‘authorized’’ and ‘‘directed.’’ Does notthe gentleman realize that he is ‘‘au-thorized’’ to appear on the floor and‘‘authorized’’ to make statements? Thegentleman is not ‘‘directed’’ to. Now,following further, the Committee onAppropriations of this House is ‘‘au-thorized’’ to do certain things, but thegentleman must realize that the Com-mittee on Appropriations is not ‘‘di-rected’’ to do certain things. There is areal difference, a constitutional dif-ference between the words ‘‘author-ized’’ and ‘‘directed.’’ The gentleman is‘‘authorized’’ to walk down the streetand ‘‘authorized’’ to do many things.But the gentleman would fight for hisright not to be ‘‘directed’’ to do what heis ‘‘authorized’’ to do. The gentleman’sargument is farfetched. This is a seri-ous situation.

MR. MCCORMACK: There is nothingthe gentleman has said that I can dis-agree with except that everything thegentleman has said has no applicationto the matter pending now. The basicquestion here is whether or not this isan appropriation within the meaningof the rules or money that is going tobe utilized for loan purposes and recov-ered back into the General Treasury.So the gentleman’s observations, as Isee it, respecting the gentleman as Ido, have no application at all to thebasic and pertinent question presentedto the Chair by the point of orderraised by the gentleman from SouthDakota. . . .

MR. [JOHN] PHILLIPS of California:The question has to do with the mean-ing of ‘‘authorized and directed.’’ With-in the past 6 weeks I have had a billbefore one of the major committees ofthis House. The county counsel of myhome county raised the question ofwhether the wording should be‘‘authorized‘‘ or ‘‘authorized and di-rected’’ in four different places in thebill. It was taken up with the attorneysfor the Interior Department. The attor-neys recognized the distinction be-tween ‘‘authorized’’ and ‘‘authorizedand directed,’’ and agreed upon the in-clusion in certain instances and not inothers. There is a recognized distinc-tion, Mr Chairman.


The Chair agrees with the gen-tleman from South Dakota that thepoint which has been raised is not acasual point of order. As a matter offact, as far as the Chair has been ableto ascertain, this is the first time apoint of order has been raised on thisissue as violative of clause 4 of ruleXXI.

As the Chair sees the point of order,the issue involved turns on the mean-ing of the word ‘‘appropriation.’’ ‘‘Ap-propriation,’’ in its usual and cus-tomary interpretation, means takingmoney out of the Treasury by appro-priate legislative language for the sup-port of the general functions of Govern-ment. The language before us does notdo that. This language authorizes theSecretary of the Treasury to use pro-ceeds of public-debt issues for the pur-pose of making loans. Under the lan-guage, the Treasury of the United


5080


4. 100 CONG. REC. 9238, 9239, 83dCong. 2d Sess.

5. Clarence J. Brown (Ohio).

States makes advances which will berepaid in full with interest over a pe-riod of years without cost to the tax-payers.

Therefore, the Chair rules that thislanguage does not constitute an appro-priation, and overrules the point oforder. . . .

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Wouldthe Chair hold then that that languagerestricts the Secretary of the Treasuryto using the proceeds of the securitiesissued under the Second Liberty BondAct and prevents him from using theproceeds from miscellaneous receiptsor tax revenues?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does nothave authority to draw that distinc-tion. The Chair is passing on the par-ticular point which has been raised.. . . The Chair can make a distinctionbetween the general funds of theTreasury and money raised for a spe-cific purpose by the issuance of securi-ties. That is the point involved here.

Future Foreign Currency Pro-ceeds From Exports

§ 4.44 To a bill reported by theCommittee on Foreign Af-fairs, an amendment ear-marking a specified amountof the funds authorized bythe bill to be used specifi-cally for the purchase andexport of surplus agricul-tural commodities and pro-viding that future foreigncurrency proceeds therefromwould be used for the pur-poses of the act was held not

to be an appropriation inviolation of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5).

On June 29, 1954,(4) the Committeeof the Whole was considering H.R.9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954.An amendment was offered and a pointof order raised as indicated below:


Amendment offered by Mr. Judd:Page 29, line 15, strike out all on

lines 15 through 23 and insert inlieu thereof the following:

‘‘Sec. 402. Earmarking of funds: Ofthe funds authorized to be madeavailable pursuant to this act, notless than $500 million shall be usedto finance the purchase and export ofsurplus agricultural commodities orproducts thereof produced in theUnited States and foreign currencyproceeds therefrom shall be used forthe purposes of this act pursuant tosection 104 of the Agricultural Tradeand Development Act of 1954.’’



Mr. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I makethe . . . point of order that it involvesan appropriation of funds, and I callattention to the fact that the languagesays that these funds that are realizedfrom the sale of these products can beused for a particular purpose. Thatmakes an appropriation out of it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Minnesota desire to be heard?

MR. [WALTER H.] JUDD [of Min-nesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


5081


6. 109 CONG. REC. 10721, 10722, 88thCong. 1st Sess

This is not an appropriation. Thetotal bill authorizes the appropriationof about $3.4 billion. This section is alimitation or earmarking of funds thatmay be appropriated under the author-ization. It says that of the $3.4 billion,if and when it is appropriated, not lessthan $500 million shall be used for agiven purpose. This is language that isalmost word for word the same as sec-tion 550 of the act last year, except theact last year said not less than $100million and not to exceed $250 millionshould be used for this purpose of pur-chasing surplus agricultural commod-ities to be used as aid instead of dol-lars. . . .


On a careful reading of the amend-ment as modified—and I wish to readthe wording of it—‘‘of the funds au-thorized to be made available pursuantto this act not less than,’’ and soforth—it is the ruling of the Chair thatthis amendment should be interpretedto mean that unless the appropriationis first authorized, the amendment hasno effect whatsoever and therefore theChair overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian’s Note: SeeSec. 4.23, supra, where languageauthorizing new use of existingforeign currency proceeds alreadyavailable for a different purposeunder existing law was ruled outas an appropriation.

Reconstituted Area Redevelop-ment Fund

§ 4.45 Language in an amend-ment to a bill reported by the

Committee on Banking andCurrency repealing the pub-lic-debt financing provisionsof the Area Redevelopment(revolving) Fund, and, in lieuthereof, authorizing appro-priations for a reconstitutedArea Redevelopment Fund,was held not to be an appro-priation within the purviewof Rule XXI clause 4 (subse-quently clause 5) where an-other section of the bill au-thorized subsequent appro-priations for the fund.On June 12, 1963,(6) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 4996, a bill amendingthe Area Redevelopment Act. Atone point the Clerk read as fol-lows, and a point of order wasraised as indicated below:

Sec. 6. (a) Subsection (a) of section 9of the Area Redevelopment Act is re-pealed.

(b) Subsection (b) of section 9 of suchAct is redesignated as subsection (a),and the first sentence of such sub-section as so redesignated is amendedto read as follows: ‘‘There shall be inthe Treasury of the United States anarea redevelopment fund (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘fund’) which shall beavailable to the Secretary for the pur-pose of extending financial assistanceunder sections 6 and 7 and for repay-ment of all obligations and expendi-tures arising therefrom.’’. . .


5082


7. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).8. 109 CONG. REC. 10722, 88th Cong.

1st Sess.


THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The gentlemanfrom Iowa will state it.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language onpage 5, line 18, beginning with thewords ‘‘and the first sentence of suchsubsection as so redesignated isamended to read as follows:’’. . .

Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder that this constitutes, in fact, anappropriation in a legislative bill

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Texas desire to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, this just merely re-states existing law. It just creates afund which already exists, really, andthe fund will be supplemented by theamount appropriated through regularchannels. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wouldlike to inquire of the gentleman wheth-er or not additional appropriations arerequired for this fund?

MR. PATMAN: Yes, sir; they are re-quired.

THE CHAIRMAN: They are required?MR. PATMAN: Yes; section 10 says:

Funds appropriated for the pur-pose of extending financial assist-ance under sections 6 and 7 shall bedeposited in the Area RedevelopmentFund in the Treasury of the UnitedStates.

THE CHAIRMAN: Additional legisla-tion would be necessary to appropriatefunds. The Chair holds this is an au-thorization and overrules the point oforder.

Use of Loan Repayments

§ 4.46 Language in an amend-ment to a bill reported by theCommittee on Banking andCurrency repealing the pub-lic debt financing provisionsof the Area RedevelopmentAct fund, in lieu thereof au-thorizing appropriations fora reconstituted fund, and ap-plying receipts from the re-payments of loans to thecredit of available appropria-tions was held not to be anappropriation within thepurview of Rule XXI clause 4(subsequently clause 5) uponassurances that such receiptscould not be reused withouta subsequent appropriation.On June 12, 1963,(8) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Area RedevelopmentAct amendments (H.R. 4996) apoint of order was raised againstthe following language, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

Sec. 7. Section 11 of the Area Rede-velopment Act is amended—

(1) by striking out ‘‘$4,500,000’’ andinserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$10,000,000’’;and

(2) by inserting before the last sen-tence the following: ‘‘The Secretary, in


5083


9. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).

10. 105 CONG. REC. 12435–37, 86thCong. 1st Sess.

See also § 4.43, supra, for a similarruling under the rules of the House.

his discretion, may require repaymentof the assistance provided under thissection and prescribe the terms andconditions of such repayment. Receiptsfrom such repayments shall be creditedto the appropriation available for as-sistance under this section which iscurrent at the time of repayment.’’. . .



MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the languagefound on page 6 of the bill, line 23,which reads as follows:

Receipts from such repaymentsshall be credited to the appropriationavailable for assistance under thissection which is current at the timeof repayment.

I again make the point of order thatthis constitutes in fact an appropria-tion in a legislative act.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Texas wish to be heard on thepoint of order?

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, this concerns repay-ment and disposal of it after it hasbeen repaid from which it was origi-nally appropriated. I do not believe thegentleman’s point of order is welltaken.

THE CHAIRMAN: May the Chair in-quire whether these funds can be re-used?

MR. PATMAN: I am sure they have tobe reappropriated. The funds receivedcannot be reused, they have to be re-appropriated.

THE CHAIRMAN: Relying upon thatassurance, the Chair overrules the

point of order because additional legis-lation would be necessary.

Senate Ruling on Public DebtTransaction Financing

§ 4.47 The Presiding Officer ofthe Senate ruled that a pro-vision in a bill authorizinguse of proceeds of publicdebt transactions for financ-ing loans to the DevelopmentLoan Fund did not constitutean appropriation in a legisla-tive bill in contravention ofSenate Rule XVI.On July 1, 1959,(10) the fol-

lowing point of order was raised,and the proceedings were as indi-cated below:

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da-kota: Mr. President, I desire to make apoint of order regarding the languagewhich appears on page 16, beginningin line 13, and through line 13 on page17. That part of the bill is section 203;and I make the point of order againstit. . . .

The point of order is that that provi-sion constitutes an appropriation, andthat an appropriation cannot be madein a legislative bill reported by the For-eign Relations Committee. . . .

I invite the attention of the Chair tothe language of the provision itself:

(b) For purposes of the loans pro-vided for in this section, the Sec-


5084


11. Frank E. Moss (Utah).

12. On one occasion, expenses incidentto a special session of Congress, in-cluding mileage for the Vice Presi-dent, Senators, and Representatives,and payments to pages, were pro-vided for by appropriations made ina joint resolution. See § 8.21, infra.

13. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Ch. 6 §§ 10–13 (4thed.).

14. See § 5.1, infra.

retary of the Treasury is authorizedto use the proceeds of the sale of anysecurities issued under the SecondLiberty Bond Act as now in force oras hereafter amended, and the pur-poses for which securities may beissued under the Second LibertyBond Act are hereby extended to in-clude this purpose. The Presidentshall determine the terms and condi-tions of any advances or loans madeto the Fund pursuant to this sec-tion. . . .

The amount of such obligationsalso may not exceed the limitationsspecified in section 203(a) of this Actexcept that, to the extent that assetsof the Fund other than capitalizationprovided pursuant to section 203(a)are available, obligations may be in-curred beyond such limitations. . . .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: (11) TheChair has not had an opportunity tostudy the point of order. After discus-sion with the Parliamentarian, theChair believes it may be necessary toexamine the precedents in connectionwith this matter.

The Chair wonders whether thechairman of the Foreign RelationsCommittee has any comment to makein connection with this matter.

MR. [J. WILLIAM] FULBRIGHT [of Ar-kansas]: Mr. President, I think theprecedents are so clear that the Chairwould not need to study the matter.There have been many precedents. Theform of this provision is precisely thesame as the language used 2 years agowhen the Senate voted to approve thisvery operation of borrowing throughthe public debt transactions. . . .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: In view ofthe precedents of other legislationwhich has passed this body, including

revolving funds created thereunder,even though the point of order was notsquarely raised before, the Chair feelsdisposed to follow the precedents, andoverrules the point of order.

§ 5. Contingent Fund Ex-penditures

Money appropriated for the con-tingent fund of the House is usedfor such miscellaneous purposesas employees salaries or salary in-creases, including those of com-mittee investigative personnel;certain allowances (12) house-keeping actions (13) and the like.Simple House resolutions, whichprovide for expenditures from thecontingent fund, are reported bythe Committee on House Adminis-tration and called up as privi-leged.(14)

On occasion, a resolution notformally reported by the Com-mittee on House Administration,providing for payment from thecontingent fund of salaries of in-


5085


15. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Ch. 25 § 4.4 (4th ed.)

16. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Ch. 25 § 4.5 (4th ed.)


2. H. Res. 416.

vestigative personnel of standingand select committees for a threemonths period (pending adoptionof annual committee funding reso-lution), is called up and agreed toby unanimous consent.(15)

The Committee on House Ad-ministration formerly had author-ity to fix allowances without sub-sequent House approval. Such au-thority, except for cost of livingadjustments, was withdrawn onJuly 1, 1976, by a House resolu-tion thereafter enacted into law.Subsequent House approval ispresently required for Committeeon House Administration ordersfixing allowances beyond the 94thCongress.(16)

f

Privileged Resolution

§ 5.1 A resolution reported bythe Committee on House Ad-ministration providing for anexpenditure from the contin-gent fund is called up asprivileged.On June 16, 1965,(1) a resolu-

tion (2) authorizing each Member

and the Resident Commissioner toemploy a ‘‘summer CongressionalIntern’’ and permitting paymentfrom the contingent fund ofamounts required to carry out theresolution, was reported by theCommittee on House Administra-tion and called up as privileged:

MR. [SAMUEL N.] FRIEDEL [of Mary-land]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on House Administration, Icall up House Resolution 416, withamendments thereto, and ask for itsimmediate consideration.


H. RES. 416

Resolved, That (a) notwithstandingany other provision of law, eachMember of the House of Representa-tives and the Resident Commissionerfrom Puerto Rico are authorized tohire . . . one additional em-ployee. . . . For this purpose eachMember of the House of Representa-tives and the Resident Commissionerfrom Puerto Rico shall have avail-able for payment to such intern agross allowance of $750 . . . payablefrom the contingent fund of theHouse until otherwise provided bylaw.

In response to a parliamentaryinquiry, Speaker John W. McCor-mack, of Massachusetts, indicatedthat such a report, privilegedunder Rule XI, may be called upfor consideration on the same dayreported, and unanimous consentis not required.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Suchreports are now subject to the


5086


3. 116 CONG. REC. 27449–51, 91stCong. 2d Sess.


See also 109 CONG. REC. 11462, 88thCong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1963, for a

resolution authorizing transfer ofsurplus 1961 contingent funds to liq-uidate 1963 contingent fund obliga-tions of the House.

three-day layover requirement ofRule XI clause 2(l)(6).

§ 5.2 A resolution reported bythe Committee on House Ad-ministration, providing forpayment from the contingentfund of additional compensa-tion for certain positions cre-ated by House resolution,was called up as privileged.On Aug. 5, 1970,(3) the following

proceedings took place:MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr.

Speaker, by direction of the Committeeon House Administration, I [call up] aprivileged report (Rept. No. 91–1378)on the resolution (H. Res. 1117) relat-ing to the compensation of two posi-tions created by House Resolution 543,89th Congress, and ask for immediateconsideration of the resolution.

The Clerk read the resolution as fol-lows:

H. RES. 1171

Resolved, That, until otherwiseprovided by law, effective as of Janu-ary 1, 1970, the per annum (gross)rate of compensation (basic com-pensation plus additional compensa-tion authorized by law) of each of thetwo positions referred to in HouseResolution 543, Eighty-ninth Con-gress, shall not exceed the annualrate of basic pay for level IV of theExecutive Schedule of section 5315 of

title 5, United States Code. The con-tingent fund of the House of Rep-resentatives is made available tocarry out the purposes of this resolu-tion.

[The resolution was rejected.]

Surplus Contingent Funds

§ 5.3 The House agreed to aresolution authorizing thetransfer of surplus 1960 con-tingent funds to liquidate1962 contingent fund obliga-tions of the House.On June 21, 1962,(4) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [SAMUEL N.] FRIEDEL [of Mary-

land]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on House Administration, Icall up the resolution (H. Res. 694) au-thorizing the transfer of certain fundswithin the contingent fund of theHouse of Representatives, and ask forits immediate consideration.


Resolved, That such funds as maybe necessary to liquidate the 1962obligations may be transferred, with-in the contingent fund of the Houseof Representatives, from ‘‘Miscella-neous Items, 1960’’, to ‘‘Special andSelect Committees, 1962’’.

The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.


5087


5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rulesand Manual Sec. 726 (1981).

See § 5, supra, for discussion of theprivileged status of resolutions re-ported by the Committee on HouseAdministration that provide for ex-penditures from the contingent fundof the House.

6. Rule XXI clause 6 (subsequentlyclause 7), House Rules and Manuals§ 848 (1981).

7. See 108 CONG. REC. 19237, 87thCong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962 (pro-ceedings relating to H.R. 13175).

8. See Rule XXIII clause 4, HouseRules and Manual § 869 (1981).

9. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules andManual § 802 (1981). Under the rule,the motion to consider general ap-propriation bills and the motion toconsider revenue bills are of equalprivilege.

B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONBILLS TEXT

§ 6. Generally; PrivilegedStatus

The rules (5) give a privilegedstatus to reports on general ap-propriation bills. Under the rules,the Committee on Appropriationsis given ‘‘leave to report at anytime’’ on general appropriationbills. But the privilege is subjectto the requirement under anotherrule (6) that general appropriationbills not be considered in theHouse until printed committeehearings and a committee reportthereon have been available forthe Members for at least threecalendar days (excluding Satur-days, Sundays, and legal holi-days). Of course, the rule requir-ing printed hearings and the com-mittee report to have been avail-able for three days may be waivedby unanimous consent.(7)

The precedence of appropriationbills is also recognized in provi-sions relating to the order of busi-ness in Committee of the Whole.(8)

But the usual practice is to con-sider general appropriation billsunder the rule giving privilegedstatus to a motion that the Houseresolve itself into the Committeeof the Whole for the purpose ofconsidering general appropriationbills.(9) The motion ordinarily des-ignates the particular bill to beconsidered.

It should be emphasized thatthe right of the Committee on Ap-propriations to report at any timeis confined strictly to general ap-propriation bills, and does not in-clude appropriations for specificpurposes or resolutions extendingappropriations. An example ofmeasures not considered ‘‘generalappropriation bills,’’and thereforenot reported or called up as privi-leged, is a joint resolution pro-viding continuing appropriationsfor departments and agencies of


5088


10. See § 8.9, infra.11. See § 7.4, infra; and 111 CONG. REC.

9518, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., May 5,1965.

The Committee on Appropriationsfiled as privileged a joint resolutionmaking supplemental appropriationsto two diverse departments for thebalance of the fiscal year. See Proce-dure in the U.S. House of Represent-atives Ch. 25 § 1.2 (4th ed.).

12. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules andManual § 743 (1981).

13. See § 8.8, infra. Joint resolutionscontinuing appropriations pendingenactment of regular annual appro-priation measures are, by unanimousconsent, generally considered ‘‘in theHouse as in Committee of the

Whole,’’ but are sometimes consid-ered in Committee of the Whole topermit more extensive general de-bate. See 115 CONG. REC. 31867,31886, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28,1969 (H.J. Res. 966).

14. 108 CONG. REC. 1149, 87th Cong. 2dSess., Jan. 30, 1962.

15. Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rulesand Manual § 865 (1981).

government, to provide fundsuntil the regular appropriationbills are enacted.(10) Similarly, ajoint resolution providing an ap-propriation for a single govern-ment agency is not a general ap-propriation bill and is not re-ported as privileged.(11)

Of course, consideration of non-privileged appropriation bills maybe made in order by unanimousconsent. Thus, a joint resolutioncontinuing appropriations for afiscal year may be called up as ifprivileged pursuant to a specialorder entered into by unanimousconsent, even where such jointresolution has been reported pur-suant to the rule (12) relating tothe filing of nonprivileged re-ports.(13) Similarly, by unanimous

consent, the House may make inorder the consideration of a reso-lution providing supplemental ap-propriations for a single govern-ment agency.(14)

All bills that make appropria-tions—in fact all proceedingstouching appropriations ofmoney—require consideration firstin Committee of the Whole, and apoint of order made pursuant tothis rule is good at any time be-fore the consideration of a bill hascommenced.(15)

f

Relative Privilege

§ 6.1 The House having agreedthat consideration of a gen-eral appropriation bill takepriority over all business ex-cept conference reports, itwas held that such agree-ment gave a higher privilegeto the appropriation billthan to consideration of aresolution disapproving reor-ganization plans of the Presi-


5089


16. 96 CONG. REC. 6720–24, 81st Cong.2d Sess.


dent, business in order underthe ‘‘21-day rule,’’ and otherbusinessOn May 9, 1950 (16) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN of Michi-

gan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point oforder that the House is not proceedingin the regular order because under sec-tion 205a of the Reorganization Act,which is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any Mem-ber of the House is privileged, and thisis a highly privileged motion, to makethe motion that the House proceed tothe consideration of House Resolution516.

The gentleman from Michigan beingon his feet to present this highly privi-leged motion, the regular order is thathe be recognized for that purpose thatthe motion be entertained and thequestion put before the House, and mymotion is that the House proceed tothe consideration of House Resolution516.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (17) Thatis the resolution disapproving one ofthe reorganization plans?

MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: That isright, House Resolution 516 dis-approving plan No. 12. . . .

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON (of Texas):Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1960, asshown at page 4835 of the daily Recordof that day, the chairman of the Com-mittee on Appropriations, the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. Cannon)asked and received unanimous consent

that the appropriation bill should havethe right-of-way over other privilegedbusiness under the rules until disposi-tion, with the exception of conferencereports. Therefore, I believe the reg-ular order would be to proceed withthe further consideration of H.R.7786. . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Under the estabished rules of practiceof the House, when a special order likethat is granted, like that which wasgranted at the request of the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. Cannon), ifthose in charge of the bill do notpresent on any occasion a motion to gointo Committee of the Whole, it is inorder for the Speaker to recognizeother Members for other items that arein order on the calendar. That does notdeprive the holder of that special orderof the right, when those items are dis-posed of, to move that the bill be con-sidered further in Committee of theWhole. . . .

MR. [ROBERT F.] RICH [of Pennsyl-vania]: If the 21 resolutions that werepresented to the House by the Presi-dent, a great many of which have beenconsidered by the Committee on Ex-penditures in the Executive Depart-ments—of which the chairman is amember, and which have been acted onby that committee—are not presentedto the House before the twenty-fourthof this month, they become law. Thegeneral appropriation bill does not nec-essarily have to be passed until the30th of June, but it is necessary thatthe 21 orders of the President bebrought before the House so they canbe acted on by the twenty-fourth ofthis month, and it seems to me thatthey ought to take precedence over anyother bill. . . .


5090


MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heardon the point of order?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair will hear the gentleman.

MR. RANKIN: I was going to say thatif this is of the highest constitutionalprivilege it comes ahead of the presentlegislation.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair is prepared to rule.

The gentleman from Michiganmakes a point of order, the substanceof which is that the motion he desiresto make or that someone else shouldmake in relation to the considerationof a disapproving resolution of one ofthe reorganization plans takes prece-dence over the appropriation bill inso-far as recognition by the Chair is con-cerned. The gentleman from Michiganraises a very serious question and theChair feels at this particular time thatit is well that he did so.

The question involved is not a con-stitutional question but one relating tothe rules of the House and to the Leg-islative Reorganization Act of 1949.

. . . The Chair calls attention to thelanguage of paragraph (b) of section201 of title II of the Reorganization Actof 1949 which reads as follows: ‘‘withfull recognition of the constitutionalright of either House to change suchrules so far as relating to procedure insuch House at any time in the samemanner and to the same extent as inthe case of any other rule of suchHouse.’’. . .

On April 5, the gentleman from Mis-souri [Mr. Cannon], chairman of theCommittee on Appropriations, sub-mitted a unanimous-consent request tothe House, which was granted, which

has the force of a rule, and which re-lates to the rules of the House gov-erning the consideration of the omni-bus appropriation bill while it is beforethe House and, of course, incidentallyaffecting other legislation. The consentrequest submitted by the gentlemanfrom Missouri was ‘‘that the generalappropriation bill for the fiscal year1951 have right-of-way over all otherprivileged business under the rulesuntil disposition, with the exception ofconference reports.’’

That request was granted by unani-mous consent. On the next day thegentleman from Missouri [Mr. Can-non], in correcting and interpreting theconsent request granted on April 5,submitted a further unanimous-con-sent request.

The daily Record shows, on page4976, April 6, that the gentleman fromMissouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of thedaily Record of yesterday, the firstcolumn carrying the special ordermade by the House last night readsthat the general appropriation billshall be a special order privilegedabove all other business of the Houseunder the rule until disposition. Theorder made was until final disposi-tion. I ask unanimous consent thatthe Record and Journal be correctedto conform with the proceedings onthe floor of the House yesterday.

The Record further shows that theSpeaker put the request and there wasno objection.

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, a par-liamentary inquiry. . . .

We for the first time this year haveall the appropriations in one bill. Now,if they drag out consideration underthe 5-minute rule beyond the 24th,would that not shut the Congress off


5091


entirely from voting on any of theserecommendations? So we do have aconstitutional right to consider thesepropositions without having themsmothered in this way.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair will state that the House alwayshas a constitutional right and power torefuse to go into the Committee of theWhole on any motion made by anyMember, so that the House is capableof carrying out its will, whatever maybe the will of the majority of theHouse.

Continuing, the Chair will state thatin the opinion of the present occupant,in view of the unanimous-consent re-quest made by the gentleman fromMissouri and granted by the House, ifany member of the AppropriationsCommittee moves that the House re-solve itself into the Committee of theWhole on the State of the Union toconsider the appropriation bill, thatmotion has preference over any otherpreferential motion. It is a matter thatthe House decides when the motion ismade as to what it wants to do and ithas an opportunity when that motionis made to carry out its will.

MR. [ARTHUR L.] MILLER of Ne-braska: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry. . . .

I understood the statement of thegentleman from Missouri on April 6was that the appropriation bill wouldtake precedence over all legislation andspecial orders until entirely disposedof. Does that include conference re-ports?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A con-ference report is in a privileged statusin any event.

MR. TABER: They were specificallyexempted.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Theywere specifically exempted. In relationto the observation made by the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman)that because other business has beenbrought up and that therefore con-stitutes a violation of the unanimous-consent request, the Chair, recognizingthe logic of the argument, disagreeswith it because that action was donethrough the sufference of the Appro-priations Committee and, in the opin-ion of the Chair, does not constitute aviolation in any way; therefore doesnot obviate the meaning and effect ofthe unanimous-consent request here-tofore entered into, and which theChair has referred to.

For the reasons stated, the Chairoverrules the point of order. . . .

MR. [HERMAN P.] EBERHARTER [ofPennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a par-liamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman will state it.

MR. EBERHARTER: I believe I am cor-rect, Mr. Speaker, in stating that sincethe unanimous-consent request of thegentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]was granted, that the House took up ameasure under the new 21-day rule. Iwould like to know, Mr. Speaker,whether or not that was taken up be-cause of its high privilege or whether itwas taken up because of the sufferanceof the chairman of the Committee onAppropriations, the gentleman fromMissouri [Mr. Cannon].

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thepresent occupant of the Chair, ofcourse, is unable to look into the mindof the Speaker who was presiding atthe time. But from the knowledge thatthe Chair has, which, of course, is


5092



rather close, it was because the chair-man of the Committee on Appropria-tions permitted it to be done throughsufferance. In other words, if the chair-man of the Committee on Appropria-tions had insisted on going into theCommittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union, and if the presentoccupant of the chair had been pre-siding, there is nothing else that couldhave been done under the unanimous-consent request, in the Chair’s opinion,but to recognize the motion.

MR. EBERHARTER: A further par-liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .

As I understand the unanimous-con-sent request of the gentleman fromMissouri, it was that the appropriationbill would take preference over anyother matters having a high privilege.My understanding of the new 21-dayrule is that that is a matter of thehighest privilege, and therefore I amwondering whether the same rule ap-plies.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman is correct, but that rule canbe changed just like any other rule ofthe House can be changed. . . .

The unanimous-consent request . . .appears in the Record of April 6, thatthe general appropriation bill shall bea special order privileged above allother business of the House under therule until disposition. The order madewas ‘‘until final disposition.’’

House Determines Question ofConsideration

§ 6.2 An automatic roll call washad on the motion to go intothe Committee of the Wholeto consider an appropriation

bill after a motion to adjournwas rejected.On Feb. 14, 1946,(18) a Member

addressed Speaker pro temporeJohn J. Sparkman, of Alabama, asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [LOUIS T.] LUDLOW [of Indiana]:Mr. Speaker, I move that the Houseresolve itself into the Committee of theWhole House on the State of the Unionfor the further consideration of the bill(H.R. 5452) making appropriations forthe Treasury and Post Office Depart-ments for the fiscal year ending June30, 1947, and for other purposes.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thequestion is on the motion offered bythe gentleman from Indiana.

Te question was taken; and on a di-vision (demanded by Mr. Cochran)there were—ayes 103, no 1.

MR. [JOHN J.] COCHRAN [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the voteon the ground that a quorum is notpresent and make the point of orderthat a quorum is not present.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair will count. (After counting.) Onehundred and seventy-four Memberspresent; not a quorum.

MR. [COMPTON I.] WHITE [of Idaho]:Mr. Speaker, I move that the House donow adjourn.

The question was taken; and ona division (demanded by Mr.White) there were—ayes 31, noes103.

So the motion was rejected.


5093


19. See the discussion at the beginningof § 6, supra; and the precedents inthis section.

20. See Procedure in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Ch. 25 § 2.2 (4th ed.).See also 8 Cannon’s Precedents§ 2282, et seq. In 1981, rule XIclause 4, was amended to allow con-

tinuing appropriation bills to be re-ported as privileged after September15 (H. Res. 5, 97th Cong.). Prece-dents arrising under this new rulewill appear in later volumes.

1. See § 7.4, infra.2. 81 CONG. REC. 6611, 6612, 75th

Cong. 1st Sess.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thequestion is on the motion offered bythe gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Lud-low].

The Doorkeeper will close the doors,the Sergeant-at-Arms will notify ab-sent Members, and the Clerk will callthe roll.

The question was taken; and therewere—yeas 243, nays 16, not voting171.

§ 7. Nonprivileged Appro-priations—‘‘Continuing’’Appropriations

The right of the Committee onAppropriations to report at anytime is confined strictly to generalappropriation bills.(19) This sectiondiscusses the consideration of ap-propriations not falling within thecategory of general appropriationbills. For example, joint resolu-tions continuing appropriationspending enactment of general ap-propriation bills for the ensuingfiscal year are not ‘‘general’’ ap-propriation bills and therefore arenot reported or called up as privi-leged.(20) Similarly, supplemental

appropriations for a single agencyor department of government donot comprise a ‘‘general’’ appro-priation bill, though bills makingsupplemental appropriations fordiverse agencies are consideredgeneral appropriation bills.(1)

Use of Continuing Appropria-tions

§ 7.1 Where appropriations forcertain operations of theFederal Government have re-mained unprovided for at thebeginning of a fiscal year,through the failure of enact-ment of the supply bills cus-tomarily providing for suchoperations, a bill to extendappropriations for a limitedtime period for the same op-erations as those previouslyprovided for, and under thesame conditions, restrictions,and limitations has been con-sidered by unanimous con-sent.On June 30, 1937,(2) the fol-

lowing actions took place in the


5094


3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).

House prior to passage of H.R.7726:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis-souri: Mr. Speaker, I call up . . . H.R.7726 . . . and ask unanimous consentthat the bill may be considered in theHouse 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 ob-ject, as I understand it, the Senate hasadjourned until tomorrow, so that it isabsolutely impossible to have all theappropriation bills passed before the1st of July. I have never known of thiskind of a situation arising before.

THE SPEAKER: (3) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Mis-souri?

There was no objection.The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That for defray-ing during the first half of the monthof July 1937 all expenses of the nec-essary operations of the Federal Gov-ernment, which, on July 1, 1937, re-main unprovided with appropria-tions through the failure of enact-ment on or before such date of thesupply bills customarily providingfor such operations, there are herebyextended for and during such periodall appropriations available for obli-gation for such expenses during thefiscal year ending June 30, 1937, inthe same detail and under the sameconditions, restrictions, and limita-tions as such appropriations wereprovided for on account of such fiscalyear. . . .

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, the fiscal year ends at midnight to-night, and all departments for whichsupply bills have not been enacted by

that time are without authority to op-erate. They can spend no money; theycannot enter into contracts; they can-not employ assistants, rent quarters,buy supplies, or legally transact busi-ness of any character.

All of the supply bills have been en-acted with the exception of two WarDepartment bills and the Interior bill.

It is our hope that they will beready, in the next day or two, but inthe meantime, in order to provide forthe maintenance of the War Depart-ment and the Interior Department, itis necessary to pass a continuing reso-lution.

This is the usual bill, prepared inthe regular form, and has been sub-mitted to, and approved by, the Comp-troller and the Director of the Budget.

Continuing Appropriations NotPrivileged

§ 7.2 A joint resolution pro-viding continuing appropria-tions for departments andagencies of government, toprovide funds until the reg-ular appropriation bills areenacted, is not a ‘‘general ap-propriation bill,’’ and is notreported as privileged.Whereas general appropriation

bills are normally called up asprivileged, consideration of jointresolutions continuing appropria-tions is usually made in order byunanimous consent, since suchresolutions are not reported asprivileged. The following pro-


5095


4. See 113 CONG. REC. 26370, 90thCong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1967. Seealso 8 Cannon’s Precedents §§ 2282et seq.


ceedings (4) are illustrative of themanner in which bills providingfor continuing appropriations fordepartments or agencies of gov-ernment are made in order forconsideration:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on Wednesday,September 27, or any day thereafter,for the House to consider a joint reso-lution making continuing appropria-tions.

THE SPEAKER: (5) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas?

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr.Speaker, reserving the right to object,I wish to address a parliamentary in-quiry to the Chair.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, the par-liamentary inquiry is this: Is a con-tinuing resolution subject to amend-ment when it is brought onto the floorof the House, if the amendment is ger-mane?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair will statethat any germane amendment will bein order. It would have to be a ger-mane amendment.

MR. BOW: I thank the Speaker, andI withdraw my reservation of objection.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas?

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Speaker, further reserving the right toobject, I would assume the Speakercould add to that the statement: ‘‘If thegentleman is recognized for the pur-pose of offering an amendment.’’

Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary in-quiry is that not correct? . . .

THE SPEAKER: The Chair will statethat the question answers itself. Theanswer would be yes, subject to theright of recognition, it is a questionwithin the discretion of the Speak-er. . . .

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, this is thethird continuing resolution to be con-sidered by the House this year.

I would also say in this case, as informer cases, that the continuing reso-lution would be considered in theHouse under the 5-minute rule, and Iassume any relevant amendment couldbe offered. . . .

MR. GROSS: . . . I assume the con-tinuing resolution is for a month or isit for a longer period?

MR. MAHON: It would probably be for1 month. The committee meets nextweek to consider the matter. We arepushing to get our bills through, butthere are three appropriation billswhich we have not been able to report.One of them is military construction;another is foreign assistance; both ofthese are awaiting authorization; an-other is the final supplemental whichwill include the poverty program forwhich authorization legislation has notbeen considered. There is other legisla-tion to be worked on before the supple-mental appropriation bill can be re-ported. . . .

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, in view ofthe fact that the gentleman says the 5-


5096



7. Carl Albert (Okla.).8. 108 CONG. REC. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d

Sess.

minute rule will prevail and that anygermane amendments will be in orderto the continuing resolution, I with-draw my reservation of objection.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. Mahon]?

There was no objection.

Appropriation for Specific Pur-pose

§ 7.3 A joint resolution makingan appropriation to a depart-ment for a specific purpose isnot a ‘‘general’’ appropria-tion bill within the meaningof Rule XI clause 22 [nowclause 4(a)] and is thereforenot privileged for consider-ation when reported by theCommittee on Appropria-tions. For this reason theCommittee on Rules mayprovide for the immediateconsideration of a special billreported from the Committeeon Appropriations.On Aug. 4, 1971,(6) the following

proceedings took place in theHouse:

MR. [B. F.] SISK [of California]: Mr.Speaker, by direction of the Committeeon Rules, I call up [House Resolution577] and ask for its immediate consid-eration.


H. RES. 577

Resolved, That immediately uponthe adoption of this resolution itshall be in order to move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 833) making an appropriationfor the Department of Labor for thefiscal year 1972, and for other pur-poses. . . .

THE SPEAKER: (7) The gentlemanfrom California (Mr. Sisk) is recognizedfor 1 hour.

MR. SISK: . . . Mr. Speaker, HouseResolution 577 provides an open rulewith 1 hour of debate on House JointResolution 833, which implements theemergency assistance Employment Actof 1971.

House Joint Resolution 833, beingfor a single purpose, is not regarded asa general appropriation bill. For thisreason it was necessary to grant a ruleproviding for its consideration.

Supplemental Appropriations

§ 7.4 A joint resolution makinga supplemental appropria-tion for a single departmentof the government is not a‘‘general appropriation bill,’’and not reported as privi-leged, and is thereforebrought up for considerationin a different manner.On Jan. 30, 1962,(8) a joint reso-

lution was made in order by unan-imous consent, as follows:


5097


9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).10. 108 CONG. REC. 1352, 1385, 87th

Cong. 2d Sess, Jan. 31, 1962.

11. Note: Proposals for supplemental ap-propriations, normally requested bya communication from the President(31 USC § 14) are sometimes re-quested by message. The usual prac-tice is for the President to transmitletters requesting such appropria-tions to the Speaker, who refersthem to the Committee on Appro-priations and orders them printed.


MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat a joint resolution providing appro-priations for the Veterans’ Administra-tion may be in order for considerationtomorrow.

THE SPEAKER: (9) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromOklahoma?


On the next day,(10) proceedingswere as indicated below:

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, in accordance with theunanimous-consent agreement of yes-terday, I call up the joint resolution(H.J. Res. 612) making supplementalappropriations for the Veterans’ Ad-ministration for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1962, and for other purposes,and ask unanimous consent that it beconsidered in the House as in Com-mittee of the Whole.

The Clerk read the title of the jointresolution.


The reference of the joint reso-lution to the Union Calendar wascarried in the Record as follows:

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reportsof committees were delivered to theClerk for printing and reference to theproper calendar, as follows:

MR. THOMAS: Committee on Appro-priations. House Joint Resolution 612.Joint resolution making supplemental

appropriations for the Veterans’ Ad-ministration for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1962, and for other purposes;without amendment (Rept. No. 1294).Referred to the Committee of theWhole House on the State of theUnion.(11)

Requests for Supplemental Ap-propriations

§ 7.5 The House has givenunanimous consent to makein order ‘‘tomorrow, or on asubsequent day this week,’’consideration of a joint reso-lution providing supple-mental appropriations forthe Department of Defense,pursuant to a message fromthe President.On May 4, 1965,(12) the fol-

lowing proceedings occurred in theHouse:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order tomorrow, or ona subsequent day this week, to con-sider a House joint resolution making


5098




15. H.R. 4407.

a supplemental appropriation for theDepartment of Defense.

THE SPEAKER: (13) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromTexas?

MR. [MELVIN R.] LAIRD [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving theright to object, it is my understandingthat the message from the President ofthe United States which has been justsubmitted will satisfy the Budget andAccounting Act as far as a budget esti-mate is concerned.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, if the gen-tleman will yield, that is certainly myopinion, and I am sure the gentlemanis correct. This is a request for $700million by the President. It follows oneof the procedures used by the Execu-tive in submitting budget estimatesand I consider this, and I am sure thegentleman does, a budget request fromthe President.

MR. LAIRD: I would like to state tothe gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon]that it was my understanding yester-day that before we considered this wewould have a budget estimate. I whole-heartedly support the principle of fol-lowing the regular procedure in seeingthat these funds are appropriated, andif this satisfies the Budget and Ac-counting Act, I certainly would have noobjection to its being considered eithertomorrow or the next day.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-tion of objection.

Bill Reducing Appropriations

§ 7.6 A bill reported from theCommittee on Appropria-

tions reducing certain appro-priations and contract au-thorizations available for fis-cal 1946 was held not to be ageneral appropriation billand a germane amendmentrescinding appropriationswas permitted.On Oct. 19, 1945,(14) a bill (15) as

described above was under consid-eration. The bill contained a para-graph appropriating money forgrants to states for unemploymentcompensation benefits and relatedexpenses. During consideration ofthe bill, an amendment was of-fered, and a point of order madeagainst the amendment. Duringthe ensuing debate on a point oforder, a question arose as to thenature of the bill. The proceedingswere as follows:

The Clerk read as follows: . . .

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD

There is appropriated, out of anymoney in the Treasury not otherwiseappropriated, for the fiscal year end-ing June 30, 1946, for grants toStates for administration of unem-ployment compensation and employ-ment service facilities operated inconjunction therewith, as authorizedin title III of the Social Security Act,approved August 14, 1935, asamended, $30,000,000, which shallbe in addition to the amounts appro-priated for such purposes in title II


5099


16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).

of the Labor-Federal Security Appro-priation Act, 1946.

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas-sachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. McCor-mack: On page 8, line 10, after theperiod, strike out lines 11 through 20and insert the following:

‘‘On July 1, 1946, any unobligatedbalance of the appropriation made inthe first paragraph under the head-ing ‘Employment Office Facilitiesand Services’ in title VII of theLabor-Federal Appropriation Act,1946, shall be carried to the surplusfund and covered into the Treasury,and after June 30, 1946, appropria-tions shall be made only for grantsto States for administration of unem-ployment compensation and employ-ment service facilities as authorizedin title III of the Social Security Act,approved August 11, 1935, asamended, and in the act of June 6,1933, as amended, known as theWagner-Peyser Act.’’. . .

MR. [EVERETT M.]. DIRKSEN [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the pointof order that the amendment is notgermane, that it is legislative in char-acter.

THE CHAIRMAN: (16) In the opinion ofthe Chair, the amendment is obviouslygermane. It relates to the same subjectas specified in the bill.

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of [South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I make an addi-tional point of order. If I understoodthe amendment correctly, it makes anappropriation. Has this bill not beenregarded as a legislative bill?

THE CHAIRMAN: The paragraphunder consideration makes an appro-priation of $30,000,000.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind, is thesituation: The amendment is a rescis-sion. The paragraph which is made inorder under the rule is an appropria-tion; therefore the amendment is notin order.

THE CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of theChair, the amendment offered is ger-mane to the paragraph which dealswith appropriations for this purpose.The amendment offered also deals withappropriations for the same purpose.In the opinion of the Chair the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromMassachusetts is clearly germane andthe Chair overrules the point oforder. . . .

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Has theChair ruled at any time whether thisis an appropriation bill or a legislativebill?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does nothave to rule upon that question. Thisis a question with reference to rescis-sion of funds and incidentally involvesappropriations, as does this particularparagraph. The Chair, in a bill of thischaracter, which is not a general ap-propriation bill, is simply called uponto pass upon the question of germane-ness. . . .

MR. CASE of South Dakota: I do notquestion the germaneness, but I heardthe bill referred to as a legislative bill,and if it is interpreted as a legislativebill, the amendment making an appro-priation, of course, would not be inorder.

THE CHAIRMAN: This certainly is nota general appropriation bill but a billwith reference to rescission of appro-priations. The only question whichcould occur from a parliamentary


5100


17. Parliamentarian’s Note: A specialrule (see 91 CONG. REC. 9813, 79thCong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945) hadprovided that the above bill be con-sidered for amendment by appropria-tion titles. Appropriation bills are, ofcourse, generally read for amend-ment by paragraphs. See §§ 11.8–11.10, infra.


standpoint would be the question ofgermaneness. . . . The Chair over-ruled the point of order. . . .

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis-sissippi]: As a matter of fact, the rulewaiving points of order would apply toany point of order that an amendmentwas legislation on an appropriationbill.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not atall passing upon that question. . . .

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr.Chairman, since that question hasbeen raised, may we have a ruling onthe question whether or not the rulewaives points of order as againstamendments or merely waives pointsof order against the contents of thebill?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is calledupon to rule only upon the point oforder made and cannot rule upon otherpoints of order not pertinent to thepending amendment. The Chair hasoverruled the point of order.(17)

§ 8. Consideration Made inOrder by Special Rule orUnanimous Consent

Special Orders

§ 8.1 The form of a modifiedclosed rule reported from the

Committee on Rules makingin order consideration of ajoint resolution providingtemporary appropriations,fixing debate, and limitingamendments to those offeredby direction of the Com-mittee on Appropriations.On June 28, 1951,(18) a resolu-

tion was called up as follows:MR. [ADOLPH J.] SABATH [of Illinois]:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolu-tion 287 and ask for its immediate con-sideration.


Resolved, That immediately uponthe adoption of this resolution itshall be in order to move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the joint resolution (H.J Res.277) making temporary appropria-tions for the fiscal year 1952, and forother purposes. That after generaldebate, which shall be confined tothe joint resolution and continue notto exceed 3 hours, to be equally di-vided and controlled by the chairmanand ranking minority member of theCommittee on Appropriations, thejoint resolution shall be read foramendment. No amendment shall bein order to said joint resolution ex-cept amendments offered by the di-rection of the Committee on Appro-priations. At the conclusion of theconsideration of the joint resolutionfor amendment, the Committee shallrise and report the joint resolution tothe House with such amendments asmay have been adopted, and the pre-


5101


1. 95 CONG. REC. 4113, 81st Cong. 1stSess.

2. 95 CONG. REC. 1214, 81st Cong. 1stSess. Under § 139(a) of the Legisla-tive Reorganization Act of 1946, com-mittee reports and hearings were re-quired to be made available threecalendar days before general appro-priation bills were to be considered.See Rule XXI clause 7, House Rulesand Manual § 848 (1981)

vious questions shall be consideredas ordered on the joint resolutionand amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit.

§ 8.2 The form of a resolutionproviding for considerationof a general appropriationbill and waiving points oforder against the bill or anyof the provisions containedtherein, excepting a specificparagraph, is set out below.On Apr. 7, 1949,(1) the following

resolution was read:Resolved, That upon the adoption of

this resolution, notwithstanding anyrule of the House to the contrary, itshall be in order to move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill (H.R. 4046) making ap-propriations to supply deficiencies incertain appropriations for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1949, and forother purposes, and all points of orderagainst the bill or any of the provisionscontained therein are hereby waivedexcepting the provision appearing onpage 19, lines 18 to 21, inclusive, inthe paragraph under the heading‘‘General Provisions.’’ That after gen-eral debate, which shall be confined tothe bill and continue not to exceed 2hours, to be equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee onAppropriations, the bill shall be read

for amendment under the 5-minuterule. At the conclusion of the readingof the bill for amendment, the Com-mittee shall rise and report the sameto the House with such amendments asmay have been adopted, and the pre-vious question shall be considered asordered on the bill and amendmentsthereto to final passage without inter-vening motion except one motion to re-commit.

Deficiency Appropriations

§ 8.3 An illustrative resolution,making in order consider-ation of the first deficiencyappropriation bill of 1949,notwithstanding the require-ment that committee reportsand hearings on appropria-tion bills be made availablethree calendar days beforeconsideration, is set outbelow.On Feb. 15, 1949,(2) a resolution

was called up as follows:MR. [ADOPLH J.] SABATH [of Illinois]:




5102


3. 115 CONG. REC. 17015–17, 91stCong. 1st Sess. See also 109 CONG.REC. 20361, 20362, 88th Cong. 1stSess., Oct. 28, 1963

4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)5. 110 CONG. REC. 23361, 23363,

23364, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.

Resolved, That, notwithstandingany rule of the House to the con-trary, it shall be in order on Tues-day, February 15, 1949, to move thatthe House resolve itself into theCommittee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union for consider-ation of the bill (H.R. 2632) makingappropriations to supply urgent defi-ciencies for the fiscal year 1949, andfor other purposes, and all points oforder against the bill or any of theprovisions contained therein arehereby waived. That after generaldebate which shall be confined to thebill and continue not to exceed threehours, to be equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committeeon Appropriations, the bill shall beread for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of thereading of the bill for amendment,the Committee shall rise and reportthe same to the House with suchamendments as may have beenadopted, and the previous questionshall be considered as ordered on thebill and amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit.

§ 8.4 Pursuant to a specialorder previously agreed to, ajoint resolution continuingappropriations has beencalled up as if privileged andconsidered in the House asin the Committee of theWhole.On June 24, 1969,(3) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place inthe House:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order ofthe House of June 19, 1969, I call upHouse Joint Resolution 790, makingcontinuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 1970 and for other purposes, andask unanimous consent that it be con-sidered in the House as in the Com-mittee of the Whole.

The Clerk read the title of the jointresolution


There was no objection.The Clerk read the joint resolution.

Special Order Rejected

§ 8.5 The House has rejected aresolution providing for con-sideration of a joint resolu-tion continuing appropria-tions.On Oct. 1, 1964,(5) a Member

called up a resolution as follows:MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com-mittee on Rules I call up House Reso-lution 892, and ask for its immediateconsideration.


Resolved, That immediately uponthe adoption of this resolution itshall be in order to move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-


5103


6. Carl Albert (Okla.).7. Note: A prior continuing resolution

had expired, and the chairman of theCommittee on Appropriations hadrequested a special rule from theCommittee on Rules for consider-ation of a resolution to extend thecontinuing resolution.


9. For discussion of special rules andtheir consideration, generally, seeCh. 21, supra.

ation of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 1183), making continuing ap-propriations for the fiscal year 1965,and for other purposes. That aftergeneral debate, which shall be con-fined to the joint resolution and con-tinue not to exceed one hour, to beequally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Appro-priations, the joint resolution shallbe read for amendment. At the con-clusion of the consideration of thejoint resolution for amendment, theCommittee shall rise and report thejoint resolution to the House withsuch amendments as may have beenadopted, and the previous questionshall be considered as ordered on thejoint resolution and amendmentsthereto to final passage without in-tervening motion except one motionto recommit. . . .

MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker,I move the previous question

The previous question was orderedTHE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (6) The

question is on the resolution.MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio:

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand theyeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The question was taken; and there

were—yeas 160, nays 193, not voting78. . . .

So the resolution was rejected.(7)

Debate on Special Orders

§ 8.6 Rejection of the previousquestion on a special rule

was sought for purposes ofopening the special rule toamendment and further de-bate.On Oct. 3, 1967,(8) a simple res-

olution was called up providingfor consideration of a joint resolu-tion continuing certain appropria-tions. It was desired by someMembers to vote down the pre-vious question on the special rule,thereby opening it for amendmentand debate.(9) The following pro-ceedings took place during consid-eration of the special rule:

MR. [WILLIAM H.] COLMER [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction ofthe Committee on Rules, I call upHouse Resolution 938 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.


H. RES. 938

Resolved, That upon the adoptionof this resolution it shall be in orderto move that the House resolve itselfinto the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union forthe consideration of the joint resolu-tion (H.J. Res. 853) making con-tinuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 1968, and for other purposes.After general debate, which shall beconfined to the joint resolution andshall continue not to exceed onehour, to be equally divided and con-


5104




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., June24, 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.

trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committeeon Appropriations, the joint resolu-tion shall be read for amendment. Atthe conclusion of the consideration ofthe joint resolution for amendment,the Committee shall rise and reportthe joint resolution to the Housewith such amendment as may havebeen adopted, and the previous ques-tion shall be considered as orderedon the joint resolution and amend-ments thereto to final passage with-out intervening motion except onemotion to recommit.

THE SPEAKER: (10) The gentlemanfrom Mississippi is recognized.

MR. COLMER: . . . Mr. Speaker, Imove the previous question.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on or-dering the previous question.

MR. [H. ALLEN] SMITH [of Cali-fornia]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demandthe yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were orderedMR. 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 willbe open to amendment and there willbe debate on any amendments to therule. Is that correct?

THE SPEAKER: Of course, the gentle-man’s question answers itself. But theanswer, specifically and directly, is‘‘Yes.’’

MR. GERALD R. FORD: I thank theSpeaker

The question was taken; and therewere—yeas 213, nays 205, not voting14. . . .

So the previous question was or-dered. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The question is on theresolution.

The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Consideration by UnanimousConsent

§ 8.7 Pursuant to unanimousconsent previously obtained,a joint resolution continuingappropriations (or making aspecial supplemental appro-priation) may be called up asif privileged and consideredin the House as in the Com-mittee of the WholeOn Aug. 18, 1964,(11) the fol-


MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unani-mous-consent agreement obtained yes-terday, I call up the joint resolution(H.J. Res. 1160) making continuing ap-propriations for the fiscal year 1965,and for other purposes, and ask unani-mous consent that it be considered inthe House as in the Committee of theWhole.


5105


12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).13. 115 CONG. REC. 7378, 7383, 91st

Cong. 1st Sess.14. See 111 CONG. REC. 14846–50, 89th

Cong. 1st Sess.


The Clerk read the joint resolution,as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and Houseof Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assem-bled, That clause (c) of section 102 ofthe joint resolution of June 29, 1964(Public Law 88–325), is herebyamended by striking out ‘‘August 31,1964’’ and inserting in lieu thereof‘‘September 30, 1964’’.


There was no objection.MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move to

strike out the last word.

On Mar. 25, 1969,(13) the fol-lowing proceedings occurred in theHouse with respect to a joint reso-lution making a supplemental ap-propriation:

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, pursuantto the unanimous-consent agreementon yesterday, I call up House JointResolution 584, making a supple-mental appropriation for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1969, and for otherpurposes, and ask unanimous consentthat the joint resolution be consideredin the House as in the Committee ofthe Whole.



There was no objection.The Clerk read the joint resolution,

as follows:

H.J. RES. 584

Resolved by the Senate and Houseof Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assem-bled, That the following sum is ap-propriated out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated,to supply a supplemental appropria-tion for the fiscal year ending June30, 1969, and for other purposes;namely:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

For partial restoration of capitalimpairment of the Commodity CreditCorporation for costs heretofore in-curred, $1,000,000,000.

§ 8.8 Parliamentarian’s Note: Ajoint resolution continuingappropriations for a fiscalyear may be called up as ifprivileged pursuant to a pre-vious order entered into byunanimous consent, althoughit had been reported pursu-ant to Rule XIII clause 2 asnonprivileged by filing in thehopper.Procedures like those described

above took place on June 28,1965,(14) with respect to a jointresolution making continuing ap-propriations for fiscal 1966:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [OF TEXAS]:Mr. Speaker, I call up House Joint


5106





Resolution 553 making continuing ap-propriations for the fiscal year 1966,and for other purposes, and I askunanimous consent that it be consid-ered in the House as in the Committeeof the Whole House on the State of theUnion.

The Clerk read the House joint reso-lution as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and Houseof Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assem-bled, That the following sums is ap-propriated out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated,and out of applicable corporate orother revenues, receipts, and funds,for the several departments, agen-cies, corporations, and other organi-zational units of the Government forthe fiscal year 1966, namely: . . .


There was no objection. . . .MR. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [of North

Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move tostrike out the last word. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The question is on thejoint resolution.

The joint resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Consideration on SpecifiedDay

§ 8.9 A joint resolution pro-viding continuing appropria-tions for departments andagencies of government, toprovide funds until the reg-

ular appropriation bills areenacted, is not a ‘‘general ap-propriation bill,’’ and notcalled up as privileged, but aunanimous-consent requestmay be granted that it be inorder for the House to con-sider such a resolution on aspecified day.On Sept. 21, 1967,(16) Mr.

George H. Mahon, of Texas, madethe following unanimous-consentrequest, which was granted:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-sent that it may be in order onWednesday, September 27, or any daythereafter, for the House to consider ajoint resolution making continuing ap-propriations.

§ 8.10 Unanimous consent ofthe House has been obtainedon one day to make in orderon the following day consid-eration of a joint resolutionproviding for continuing ap-propriations.On July 25, 1962,(1) the fol-

lowing unanimous-consent requestwas made and agreed to:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that it may be in order tomor-row to take up for consideration aHouse joint resolution to provide con-


5107


2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).3. 113 CONG. REC. 22678, 90th Cong.

1st Sess.4. Carl Albert (Okla.).


6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).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).


tinuing appropriations for the month ofAugust.



§ 8.11 Consideration of a billmaking appropriations for asingle agency of governmentfor the fiscal year was, byunanimous consent, made inorder on a designated day, orany day thereafter.On Aug. 15, 1967,(3) the fol-

lowing exchange took place:

MR. [JOSEPH L.] EVINS [of Ten-nessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that it may be in order onTuesday next or any day thereafter forthe House to consider the NationalAeronautics and Space Administrationappropriation bill for 1968.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (4) Isthere objection to the request of thegentleman from Tennessee?


§ 8.12 A unanimous-consent re-quest has been granted mak-ing in order, on a specifiedday or on any day subse-quent thereto, considerationof a joint resolution con-tinuing appropriations.

On Aug. 21, 1967,(5) the fol-lowing proceedings took place:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it be in order on Thursday, Au-gust 24, or any subsequent day, to con-sider a joint resolution making con-tinuing appropriations for the month ofSeptember.



§ 8.13 Consideration of a sup-plemental appropriation bill,providing funds for a singlegovernment agency, wasmade in order on a des-ignated day by unanimousconsent of the House.On Mar. 24, 1969,(7) a unani-

mous-consent request was madeas follows:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on Tuesday,March 25, for the House to consider aHouse joint resolution making appro-priations for the Commodity CreditCorporation.

THE SPEAKER: (8) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas? . . .


5108



10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).11. Note: The House had, on Oct. 7,

agreed to take up this bill on Oct.15.

12. 118 CONG. REC. 21150, 92d Cong. 2dSess. See also 94 CONG. REC 2844,80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1948(agriculture appropriations bill).

13. Carl Albert (Okla.).

There was no objection

Special Order Superseded

§ 8.14 Consideration of a sup-plemental appropriation billwas made in order, by unani-mous consent, on a day cer-tain, even though the Househad earlier agreed to a spe-cial order establishing a dif-ferent date for taking up thebill.On Oct. 11, 1965,(9) the fol-

lowing exchange took place:MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on Thursday,October 14, to consider the supple-mental appropriation bill for 1966.


There was no objection.(11)

Reports Not Available forThree Days

§ 8.15 General debate on twogeneral appropriation billswas made in order on a daycertain during the followingweek by unanimous consent,although reports on those

bills would not be availablefor the three days requiredby the rule.On June 15, 1972,(12) the fol-


MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order in the House onTuesday next— clause 6 of rule XXI tothe contrary notwithstanding—to havegeneral debate only on the bill makingappropriations for public works forwater and power development, theAtomic Energy Commission, and cer-tain other agencies for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1973, and to have gen-eral debate only on the bill making ap-propriations for the Treasury Depart-ment, the Postal Service, the ExecutiveOffice of the President, and certainindependent agencies, for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1973.



Consideration Within SameWeek

§ 8.16 The House has givenunanimous consent makingin order ‘‘on any day laterthis week’’ consideration of ajoint resolution continuingappropriations.


5109



15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).16. 108 CONG. REC. 11410, 87th Cong.

2d Sess.

1. Carl Albert (Okla.).2. 109 CONG. REC. 11236, 88th Cong.

1st Sess. See also 115 CONG REC.16630, 16631, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.,June 19, 1969.


On Aug. 24, 1965,(14) a unani-mous-consent request was madeand agreed to as follows:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on any daylater this week to consider a Housejoint resolution making continuing ap-propriations for the month of Sep-tember.

THE SPEAKER: (15) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromTexas? . . .


§ 8.17 The unanimous consentof the House has been ob-tained to make it in order tocall up at any time duringthe week a joint resolutionproviding continuing appro-priations for departmentsand agencies of governmentwhere the regular appropria-tion bills had not beenpassed for the fiscal year.On June 22, 1962,(16) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-

souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that it may be in order anytime next week to call up a joint reso-lution to provide continuing appropria-tions for the various Government de-partments and agencies for the fiscalyear beginning July 1.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) Isthere objection to the request of thegentleman from Missouri? . . .


During Following Week

§ 8.18 The House has given itsconsent to make in orderconsideration during the fol-lowing week of a joint resolu-tion providing for continuingappropriationsOn June 20, 1963,(2) the fol-

lowing exchange took place:MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-

souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that it may be in order duringthe coming week to consider a jointresolution providing continuing appro-priations.


MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Speaker, reserving the right to object,what is the nature of the continuingresolution?

MR. CANNON: I will say to the distin-guished gentleman from Iowa it is thestereotyped continuing resolution suchas has been presented, I am sorry tosay, every year for a number of years,due to our failure to get all of the ap-propriation bills through before the


5110



5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).6. 108 CONG. REC. 23206, 23207, 87th

Cong. 2d Sess.

end of the fiscal year. It follows in gen-eral the language of every previouscontinuing resolution.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Mis-souri?


Consideration During CurrentMonth

§ 8.19 Consideration of a jointresolution providing con-tinuing appropriations wasmade in order, by unanimousconsent, on any day duringthe current monthOn June 20, 1967,(4) the fol-


MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on Monday,June 26, or any succeeding day inJune, to consider a joint resolutionmaking continuing appropriations.



At Any Time

§ 8.20 By unanimous consent, aHouse joint resolution con-tinuing certain appropria-tions for a department of the

government has been madein order for consideration atany time.On Oct. 11, 1962,(6) a Member

addressed Speaker John W.McCormack, of Massachusetts, asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction ofthe Committee on Appropriations Isubmit a report (Rept. No. 2551) on thejoint resolution (H.J. Res. 903) makingcontinuing appropriations for the De-partment of Agriculture and relatedagencies for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1963, and for other purposesand ask unanimous consent that itmay be taken up at any time

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will reportthe joint resolution.


Resolved by the Senate and Houseof Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assem-bled, That there is appropriated outof any money in the Treasury nototherwise appropriated, and out ofapplicable corporate and other reve-nues, receipts, and funds, suchamounts as may be necessary forcontinuing projects or activitieswhich were conducted in the fiscalyear 1962 by the Department of Ag-riculture. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The joint resolution isreferred to the Union Calendar and or-dered to be printed.

Is there objection to the request ofthe gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.Whitten] that it be in order to considerthe joint resolution at any time? . . .


5111



8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).9. 115 CONG. REC. 13246, 13251,

13252, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.


Immediate ConsiderationWhen Introduced

§ 8.21 A joint resolution pro-viding appropriations formileage for the Vice Presi-dent, Senators, Representa-tives, and for other expensesincident to a special sessionof Congress, was given imme-diate consideration.On Sept. 25, 1939,(7) a Member

introduced a resolution as follows,and proceedings were as indicatedbelow:

MR. [EDWARD T.] TAYLOR [of Colo-rado]: Mr. Speaker, I send to the deska joint resolution and ask unanimousconsent for its immediate consider-ation.


HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 384

Resolved, etc., That the followingsums are hereby appropriated, out ofany money in the Treasury not oth-erwise appropriated, for the paymentof expenses incident to the secondsession of the Seventy-sixth Con-gress, namely:

For mileage of the President of theSenate and of Senators, $51,000.

For mileage of Representatives,the Delegate from Hawaii, and theResident Commissioner from PuertoRico, and for expenses of the Dele-gate from Alaska, $171,000.

For the payment of 21 pages forthe Senate and 48 pages for the

House of Representatives, at $4 perday each, for the period commencingSeptember 21, 1939, and endingwith the last day of the month inwhich the Seventy-sixth Congressadjourns sine die at the second ses-sion thereof, so much as may be nec-essary for each the Senate andHouse of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: (8) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Col-orado?


§ 9. Waiver of Points ofOrder—by Resolution

Waiver Agreed to After GeneralDebate

§ 9.1 A resolution waivingpoints of order against a cer-tain provision in a supple-mental appropriation billwas considered and agreedto by the House after generaldebate on the bill had beenconcluded and reading foramendment had begun in theCommittee of the Whole.On May 21, 1969,(9) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mis-

sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction ofthe Committee on Rules, I call upHouse Resolution 414 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.


5112


1. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).2. 95 CONG. REC. 4113, 81st Cong. 1st

Sess.


H. RES. 414

Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 11400) mak-ing supplemental appropriations forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1969,and for other purposes, all points oforder against title IV of said bill arehereby waived.

MR. COLMER: . . . The language thatthe rule waives the point of orderagainst is found in title IV of the bill.Title IV of the bill places a ceilingupon the amount of the expendituresthat the Chief Executive can makewithin the fiscal year. Now, thatamount is, roughly, $192 billion. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) Thequestion is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

MR. [WILLIAM F.] RYAN [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the voteon the ground that a quorum is notpresent and make the point of orderthat a quorum is not present. . . .


MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I move that the Houseresolve itself into the Committee of theWhole House on the State of the Unionfor the further consideration of the bill(H.R. 11400) making supplemental ap-propriations for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1969, and for other purposes.


into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union forthe further consideration of the billH.R. 11400, with Mr. [Chet] Holifield[of California] in the chair.

THE CHAIRMAN: When the Com-mittee rose on yesterday, the Clerkhad read through line 7 on page 2 ofthe bill.

Points of Order Against AllProvisions But One

§ 9.2 The form of a resolutionwaiving all points of orderagainst consideration of anappropriation bill, waivingpoints of order against thebill or any of the provisionscontained therein exceptinga specific paragraph is setout below.On Apr. 7, 1949,(2) the Clerk

read the following resolution:Resolved, That upon the adoption

of this resolution, notwithstandingany rule of the House to the con-trary, it shall be in order to movethat the House resolve itself into theCommittee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union for the consid-eration of the bill (H.R. 4046) mak-ing appropriations to supply defi-ciencies in certain appropriations forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1949,and for other purposes, and allpoints of order against the bill orany of the provisions containedtherein are hereby waived exceptingthe provision appearing on page 19,lines 18 to 21, inclusive, in the para-graph under the heading ‘‘GeneralProvisions.’’ That after general de-


5113




bate, which shall be confined to thebill and continue not to exceed 2hours, to be equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committeeon Appropriations, the bill shall beread for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of thereading of the bill for amendment,the Committee shall rise and reportthe same to the House with suchamendments as may have beenadopted, and the previous questionshall be considered as ordered on thebill and amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit.

Certain Legislative LanguageMade in Order

§ 9.3 The form of a resolutionwaiving points of orderagainst the independent of-fices appropriation bill, andmaking in order a legislativeamendment described in gen-eral terms in the text of theresolution is set out below.On June 17, 1947,(3) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [FOREST A.] HARNESS [of Indi-

ana]: Mr. Speaker, I call up HouseResolution 248 and ask for its imme-diate consideration.


Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 3839) makingappropriations for the Executive Of-fice and sundry independent execu-tive bureaus, boards, commissions,

and offices, for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1948, and for other pur-poses, all points of order against thebill or any provisions containedtherein are hereby waived; and itshall also be in order to considerwithout the intervention of any pointof order any amendment to said billprohibiting the use of the funds ap-propriated in such bill or any fundsheretofore made available, includingcontract authorizations, for the pur-chase of any particular site or for theerection of any particular hospital.

Waiver of Three-day Avail-ability Requirement

§ 9.4 The House has considereda resolution on the same dayreported making in orderconsideration of an appro-priation bill, notwith-standing the fact that the billand report have not beenavailable for three calendardays as required by Rule XXIclause 6 (subsequently clause7) and waiving all points oforder against the bill.On Sept. 19, 1968,(4) a Member

addressed Speaker John W.McCormack, of Massachusetts, asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [WILLIAM M.] Colmer [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction ofthe Committee on Rules, I call upHouse Resolution 1308 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.


5114



H. RES. 1308

Resolved, That upon the adoptionof this resolution, notwithstandingany rule of the House to the con-trary, it shall be in order to movethat the House resolve itself into theCommittee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union for the consid-eration of the bill (H.R. 19908) mak-ing appropriations for Foreign As-sistance and related agencies for thefiscal year ending June 30, 1969, andfor other purposes, and all points oforder against said bill are herebywaived.

THE SPEAKER: The question is, willthe House now consider House Resolu-tion 1308?

The question was taken.MR. [PETER H. B.] FRELINGHUYSEN

[of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum isnot present.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors,the Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members, and the Clerk will callthe roll.


So (two-thirds having voted in favorthereof), the House agreed to considerHouse Resolution 1308. . . .

MR. COLMER: Mr. Speaker, theHouse has just voted to consider theresolution which provides for consider-ation, in turn, of the foreign aid appro-priation bill.

Frankly, I do not subscribe to thisprocedure generally. I do subscribe to

this procedure in this particular in-stance.

This matter was presented to thecommittee only this morning The con-ference report on the authorization billwas adopted only a few hours ago bythe House. But it is anticipated thatthe other body will approve it and thatit will go to the White House for thePresident’s signature. . . .

MR. [H. ALLEN] SMITH [of Cali-fornia]: . . . [B]y way of a simple re-view of the matter, the last vote wasfor two-thirds to consider this par-ticular resolution, House Resolution1308. Otherwise it would have had tohave laid over until tomorrow or nextweek.

Mr. Speaker, this procedure is as thechairman of the Committee on Rulessaid, unorthodox and unusual, and in-sofar as I am concerned I doubt thatthere will be any other type of piece oflegislation that I would agree to thisparticular procedure being workedupon a bill.

After all, the bill is here and the con-ference report has been adopted. Fur-ther, if we are ever going to adjournwe will have to proceed in this par-ticular manner even though it is a lit-tle unusual.

The matter we have under consider-ation right now is House Resolution1308 that waives points of order on theforeign assistance bill; namely, H.R.19908. If this rule is adopted by a ma-jority vote then we can proceed to itsconsideration with 2 hours of debate,proceed to the consideration of the For-eign Assistance Act for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1969, with the timeequally divided.

Waiver of Points of OrderAgainst Bill or Provisions

§ 9.5 The form of a resolutionwaiving all points of order


5115




7. 94 CONG. REC. 7603, 80th Cong. 2dSess. See also 83 Cong. Rec 6777,75th Cong. 3d Sess., May 12, 1938.

against a general appropria-tion bill or any provisionscontained therein is set outbelow.On June 26, 1945,(5) a resolu-

tion was called up, as follows:MR. [JOE B.] BATES [of Kentucky]:



Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 3579) makingappropriations to supply deficienciesin certain appropriations for the fis-cal year ending June 30, 1945, andfor prior fiscal years, to provide sup-plemental appropriations for the fis-cal years ending June 30, 1945, andJune 30, 1946, to provide appropria-tions for the fiscal year ending June30, 1946, and for other purposes allpoints of order against the bill orany provisions contained therein arehereby waived.

Specific Paragraph of Supple-mental Appropriation BillProtected

§ 9.6 The form of a resolutionwaiving points of orderagainst a specific paragraphof a supplemental appropria-tion bill (language makingcertain funds that wereavailable for constructionalso available for purchase offurniture for the new Ray-

burn Office Building) is setout below.On Apr. 9, 1963,(6) a Member

called up a resolution, as follows:MR. [JAMES J.] DELANEY [of New

York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on Rules, I call up HouseResolution 311 and ask for its imme-diate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution as fol-lows:

Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 5517) makingsupplemental appropriations for thefiscal year ending June 30, 1963, andfor other purposes, all points of orderagainst the provisions contained inlines 5 through 10, page 22, arehereby waived.

Points of Order Against Com-mittee Amendments

§ 9.7 The form of a resolutionwaiving points of orderagainst a supplemental ap-propriation bill or any of theprovisions contained therein,and waiving points of orderagainst any amendment of-fered by direction of theCommittee on Appropria-tions is set out below.On June 9, 1948,(7) the fol-

lowing resolution was called up:MR. [LEO E.] ALLEN [of Illinois]: Mr.

Speaker, I call up House Resolution


5116



9. 113 CONG. REC. 35164, 35165, 90thCong. 1st Sess. See also the unani-mous-consent requests in § 8, supra.


651 and ask for its immediate consid-eration.


Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 6829) makingsupplemental appropriations for theExecutive Office and sundry inde-pendent executive bureaus, boards,commissions, and offices, for the fis-cal year ending June 30, 1949, andfor other purposes, all points of orderagainst the bill or any provisionscontained therein are hereby waived,and it shall be in order to considerwithout the intervention of any pointof order any amendment offered bydirection of the Committee on Appro-priations.

Waiver Against One Title ofBill

§ 9.8 The form of a resolutionwaiving points of orderagainst part of a military es-tablishment appropriationbill is set out below.On June 4, 1947,(8) a resolution

was called up, as follows:MR. [ROBERT F.] RICH [of Pennsyl-

vania]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on Rules, I call up HouseResolution 230 and ask for its imme-diate consideration.


Resolved, That during the consid-eration of the bill (H.R 3678) makingappropriations for the Military Es-tablishment for the fiscal year end-ing June 30, 1948, and for other pur-

poses, all points of order against titleII of said bill or any provisions con-tained therein are hereby waived.

§ 10. General AppropriationBills Considered by Unani-mous Consent

Generally

§ 10.1 Consideration of a sup-plemental appropriation bill,without the intervention ofany point of order againstthe provisions of the bill, wasmade in order on the fol-lowing Tuesday or any daythereafter, by unanimousconsent.On Dec. 6, 1967,(9) the following

proceedings took place:MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat it may be in order on Tuesdaynext or any subsequent day next weekto consider a bill making supplementalappropriations for fiscal year 1968 andthat all points of order against the billor any provisions contained therein beconsidered as waived.

THE SPEAKER: (10) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromTexas? . . .

MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]:I am glad that point has just beenclarified. As I understand it, the rea-son for waiving points of order is be-


5117




cause the authorization bill for the Of-fice of Economic Opportunity will nothave become law through the signa-ture of the President at the time speci-fied? In other words, that is the onlyreason that the gentleman from Texas[Mr. Mahon] asks to waive all points oforder?

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, if the gen-tleman from Ohio will yield further,the gentleman from Michigan is cor-rect. This is the only reason for the re-quest. There is nothing else that I canenvisage in the appropriation billwhere a point of order might obtain.

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr.Speaker, I withdraw my reservation ofobjection.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. Mahon].


Three-day Availability Re-quirement

§ 10.2 Consideration of a sup-plemental appropriation billwas made in order on the fol-lowing Tuesday or any daythereafter, by unanimousconsent, despite the fact thatthe bill and report would notbe available for three cal-endar days as required byRule XXI clause 6 (nowclause 7).On Feb. 15, 1968,(11) a Member

addressed Speaker John W.

McCormack, of Massachusetts, asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consentthat the Committee on Appropriationsmay have until midnight Monday, Feb-ruary 19, to file a privileged report onthe urgent supplemental appropriationbill for the fiscal year 1968.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas? . . .

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to revise and ex-tend my remarks during the colloquyjust held to make it in order for theHouse to consider the urgent supple-mental appropriations bill for 1968 onTuesday, February 20, or any day sub-sequent thereto. . . .



§ 10.3 By unanimous consent,the rule [Rule XXI clause 6(now clause 7)] prohibitingconsideration of general ap-propriation bills until print-ed committee hearings andthe committee report havebeen available for three dayswas waived.On Sept. 12, 1962,(12) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-

isiana]: Mr. Speaker, I take this time


5118


13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).14. 93 CONG. REC. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st

Sess.

in order to announce that it is our in-tention to report the foreign aid appro-priation bill for 1963 to the House onTuesday, September 18. I thereforenow ask unanimous consent that the 3-day rule be waived and that the bill beconsidered in the House on Thursday,September 20.

THE SPEAKER: (13) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromLouisiana?


§ 11. Consideration andDebate; Amendments

Motion to Close Debate

§ 11.1 A motion to fix the timeof general debate on an ap-propriation bill is not inorder prior to resolving intothe Committee of the Whole;but after there has been de-bate in the Committee of theWhole and the Committeerises, the motion is in orderin the House.On Feb. 18, 1947,(14) a Member

addressed Speaker Joseph W.Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, asfollows and proceedings ensued asindicated below:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, I move that the Houseresolve itself into the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Unionfor the consideration of the bill (H.R.1968) making appropriations to supplyurgent deficiencies in certain appro-priations for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1947, and for other purposes;and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker,I ask unanimous consent that generaldebate be limited to 1 hour, to beequally divided and controlled by thegentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]and myself.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from NewYork?

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the rightto object, is this the bill that containsthe cuts of appropriations for OPA?

MR. TABER: Yes.MR. MARCANTONIO: Then I object,

Mr. Speaker.MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, a par-

liamentary 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, andthen a motion would be in order toclose debate; but otherwise a motionwould not be in order at this time toclose?

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman fromNew York states the situation accu-rately. The House must first go intoCommittee and have general debate,and then rise and fix the time of de-bate by vote.

Consideration of SenateAmendments

§ 11.2 The House has consid-ered Senate amendments to a


5119


1. 91 CONG. REC. 7474, 79th Cong. 1stSess. See also 91 CONG. REC. 7226,7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5,1945. For further discussion see Ch.32, House-Senate Relations, infra.

general appropriation bill inCommittee of the Wholeunder the five-minute rule.On July 12, 1945,(1) a Member

addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn,of Texas, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of Union for the consideration ofthe bill (H.R. 3368) making appropria-tions for war agencies for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1946, and forother purposes, with Senate amend-ments. Pending that motion, Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent todispense with general debate.


MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob-ject, that is satisfactory to me. Thatwould not mean, of course, that therecould be no debate on amendments?

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Amend-ments will be considered under the 5-minute rule.


There was no objection.THE SPEAKER: The question is on the

motion of the gentleman from Mis-souri.


into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union forthe consideration of the bill (H.R.3368) making appropriations for waragencies for the fiscal year endingJune 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: Thisprocedure is different from consid-eration in the House as in Com-mittee of the Whole, where mo-tions under Rule XVI clause 4 arein order.

Terms of Debate

§ 11.3 Before consideration ofthe general appropriationbill, 1951, containing all theappropriations for the var-ious agencies of the govern-ment, it was agreed by unan-imous consent that generaldebate run without limit tobe equally divided betweenthe Chairman and rankingminority member of the Com-mittee on Appropriations;and that following the read-ing of the first chapter of thebill not to exceed two hoursgeneral debate be had beforethe reading of each subse-quent chapter, one-half to becontrolled by the chairmanand one-half by the ranking


5120




minority member of the sub-committee in charge of thechapter.On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) a Member

addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn,of Texas, as follows, and the pro-ceedings were as indicated below:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill (H.R. 7786) making ap-propriations for the support of the Gov-ernment for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1951, and for other purposes;and pending that I ask unanimous con-sent that time for general debate beequally divided, one-half to be con-trolled by the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. Taber] and one-half by my-self; that debate be confined to the bill;and that following the reading of thefirst chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2hours general debate be had before thereading of each subsequent chapter,one-half to be controlled by the chair-man and one-half by the ranking mi-nority member of the subcommittee incharge of the chapter. . . .

MR. [BEN F.] JENSEN [of Iowa]: Ofcourse, Mr. Speaker, I will not object,except to say that I trust and am surethe majority of the Members of theHouse hope that the chairman of thefull committee, the gentleman fromMissouri [Mr. Cannon] will not makepoints of order against Members on theground that they are speaking out oforder when so much is involved in this

bill. I think we should have the great-est leeway to discuss these things.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair wouldthink that this appropriation bill actu-ally being 11 bills in one, and coveringeverything in the Government, a Mem-ber speaking on the bill would have arather wide range.

MR. JENSEN: I thank the Speaker. Iwas hoping the Speaker would say justthat.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentlman from Mis-souri?


§ 11.4 During the consider-ation of the general appro-priation bill, 1951, terms ofconsideration were agreedupon, including: that a chap-ter then under considerationbe considered as read andopen to points of order andamendment; and that a cer-tain Member be authorizedto offer a blanket amend-ment to a part of the chapter.On Apr. 27, 1950,(3) the fol-

lowing unanimous-consent re-quests were made:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that—

The chapter on agricultural appro-priations be considered as read andopen to points of order and amend-ment; that the gentleman from Min-


5121


4. 108 CONG. REC. 10481, 87th Cong.2d Sess. See also § 8, supra.

5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).6. 110 CONG. REC. 6096, 88th Cong. 2d

Sess.7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

nesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen] haveconsent to offer a blanket amendmentrelating to administrative expenses;

That when the House adjourns onFriday it adjourn to meet on Mondaynext;

That no debate be in order on Fri-day, Monday, and Tuesday except gen-eral debate;

That general debate on the civilfunctions appropriations bill be con-fined to Tuesday;

That when the House adjourns onTuesday next all general debate beconcluded on the entire bill.

There was no objection to therequest.

House as in Committee of theWhole

§ 11.5 On numerous occasionsthe House has by unanimousconsent provided for the con-sideration of a nongeneralappropriation bill in theHouse as in the Committee ofthe Whole.On June 14, 1962,(4) the fol-

lowing request was made in theHouse:

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, in accordance with theunanimous-consent agreement of yes-terday, I ask for the immediate consid-eration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 745), making supplemental appro-priations for the fiscal year 1962; and

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,that it be considered in the House asin Committee of the Whole.


THE SPEAKER: (5) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas? . . .


§ 11.6 Unanimous consent wasgranted that a joint resolu-tion providing supplementalappropriations for the De-partment of Labor be consid-ered in the House as in Com-mittee of the Whole.On Mar. 24, 1964,(6) the fol-


MR. [JOHN E.] FOGARTY [of Rhode Is-land]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance withthe unamimous consent granted yes-terday, I call up House Joint Resolu-tion 962, making a supplemental ap-propriation for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1964, for the Department ofLabor, and for other purposes, and askunanimous consent that the joint reso-lution be considered in the House as inCommittee of the Whole.

The Clerk read the title of the jointresolution

THE SPEAKER: (7) Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromRhode Island?



5122



9. Id. at pp. 5954–60.10. Id. at p. 5960.11. 86 CONG. REC. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d

Sess. For discussion of amendmentsgenerally, see Ch. 27, infra.


Resolved by the Senate and Houseof Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assem-bled, That the following sum is ap-propriated, out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated,for the fiscal year ending June 30,1964, namely:

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Employment Security

Unemployment Compensation forFederal Employees and ex-Service-men

For an additional amount for ‘‘Un-employment compensation for Fed-eral employees and ex-servicemen’’,$42,000,000.

Suspension of the Rules

§ 11.7 The two Houses havingbeen unable to agree on allprovisions of the 1943 agri-culture appropriation bill,the House adopted a motionto suspend the rules andpass a new bill containingmatters in the original billnot in controversy.On July 2, 1942,(8) a Member

addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn,of Texas, as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor-gia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend

the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349,which I send to the Clerk’s desk.


A bill making appropriations forthe Department of Agriculture forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1943,and for other purposes.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second de-manded?

MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

MR. TARVER: Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that a second beconsidered as ordered.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromGeorgia [Mr. Tarver]?


After some discussion,(9) therules were suspended and the billwas passed.(10)

Amendments—Reading Bill

§ 11.8 General revenue and ap-propriation bills are consid-ered by paragraph foramendment and all otherbills are considered by sec-tions, including bills makingappropriations for specificpurposes.On May 21, 1940,(11) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering House Joint Resolution 544,


5123


12. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).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).

14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).

a relief appropriation bill. The fol-lowing proceedings took place:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in-quiry.


MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, this billcomes from the Appropriations Com-mittee. Ordinarily bills coming fromthe Appropriations Committee are readby paragraph. Bills coming from othercommittees are read by sections. Iwant to ask the Chairman, so that allMembers may know as we approachthe reading of the bill, how this billwill be read, so that they may knowwhere to offer amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state,in response to the parliamentary in-quiry presented by the gentleman fromNew York [Mr. Taber], that it is theunderstanding of the Chair that, underthe rule, general revenue measuresand appropriation bills are consideredby paragraph and that all other meas-ures are considered by sections. Con-sequently, the pending bill will be con-sidered by sections and amendmentsoffered by sections rather than byparagraphs.

§ 11.9 Appropriation bills areread by paragraph andamendments are in orderonly to the paragraph justread, not to the entire sub-ject matter under a headingin an appropriation bill.On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Com-


ering H.R. 7922, an independentoffices appropriation bill. Pro-ceedings took place as indicatedbelow:

MR. [ROBERT] LUCE [of Massachu-setts]: A parliamentary inquiry.


MR. LUCE: May I ask where theproper place would be to insert anamendment before the next part of thebill headed by capitals?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was un-able to hear all of the inquiry by thegentleman from Massachusetts.

MR. LUCE: May I ask how far the billhas been read?

THE CHAIRMAN: Down through thebottom of page 50. The only paragraphunder the heading ‘‘United StatesHousing Authority’’ that would now besubject to amendment would be thelast four lines on page 50.

MR. LUCE: Mr. Chairman, if I recol-lect the practice of the House, it hasalways been to include everythingunder a heading for amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: It has been the prac-tice of the House from time immemo-rial to read appropriation bills by para-graphs

§ 11.10 The rule of germane-ness applies to amendmentsto appropriation bills; and anamendment proposing a spe-cific appropriation must be


5124


15. 83 CONG. REC. 1307–09, 75th Cong.3d Sess. For discussion of amend-ments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.

16. William J. Driver (Ark.).

offered when the paragraphsdealing with that subject arebeing consideredOn Jan. 31, 1938,(15) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 8181, a District of Co-lumbia appropriation bill. Anamendment was read and a pointof order raised as follows:

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

For two commissioners, people’scounsel, and for other personal serv-ices, $76,000, of which amount $1,620shall be available for the employmentof a secretary to the people’s counsel,and not to exceed $5,000 may be usedfor the employment of expert servicesby contract or otherwise and withoutreference to the Classification Act of1923, as amended.

MR. [VINCENT L.] PALMISANO [ofMaryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order against the language onpage 7, line 3, after ‘‘$76,000’’, begin-ning with the words ‘‘of which’’ andending with the word ‘‘amended.’’. . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (16) In the opinion ofthe Chair, very clearly this is an at-tempt to impose legislation on an ap-propriation bill, and the point of orderis therefore sustained. . . .


For general advertising, author-ized and required by law, and for taxand school notices and notices ofchanges in regulations, $9,000: Pro-vided, That this appropriation shall

not be available for the payment ofadvertising in newspapers publishedoutside of the District of Columbia,notwithstanding the requirement forsuch advertising provided by existinglaw. . . .

Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phil-lips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On page 11,line 13, after the period, insert twonew paragraphs as follows:

‘‘For the employment of a secretaryto the People’s Counsel before the pub-lic utilities commission, $1,620.

‘‘For the employment of expert aid tothe People’s Counsel, $5,000.’’. . .

MR. PALMISANO: Mr. Chairman, Imade a point of order against the lan-guage on page 7, line 13, after the fig-ures ‘‘$76,000’’ to the end of the para-graph, which point of order was sus-tained on the ground that it was legis-lation in an appropriation bill. Theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Connecticut would restore thelanguage that was stricken out on thepoint of order; not only that, but wehave passed that particular sectionand the amendment comes too late.. . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromMaryland bases his point of order ontwo grounds. . . .

The second ground raised by thegentleman from Maryland, that theamendment comes too late, and thepoint of order raised by the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma, that the amendmentis not germane to the paragraph of-fered, the Chair will be forced to sus-tain.

When Paragraph Is ConsideredPassed

§ 11.11 In reading a generalappropriation bill under the


5125


17. 88 CONG. REC. 606, 607, 77th Cong.2d Sess. 18. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).

five-minute rule, a section orparagraph is considered ashaving been passed for anamendment when an amend-ment in the form of a newsection or paragraph hasbeen agreed to. On appeal,the Chair’s ruling that theadoption of an amendmentadding a new paragraph pre-cludes further amendmentsto the prior paragraph of thebill was sustained.On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6448, a supplementalappropriation bill for national de-fense. The Clerk read as follows,and proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

Tennessee Valley Authority Fund:For an additional amount for the Ten-nessee Valley Authority fund, fiscalyear 1942, for (1) the construction of ahydroelectric project on the FrenchBroad River near Dandridge, Tenn., (2)the purchase or building of trans-mission facilities needed to connectthis project to the existing trans-mission system of the Authority, and(3) the acquisition of land necessary forand the relocation of highways in con-nection with the accomplishment of theabove project; $30,000,000, to be avail-able for the administrative objects ofexpenditure and subject to the condi-tions specified under this heading inthe Independent Offices AppropriationAct, 1942.

Mr. Lambertson rose.MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis-

souri: Mr. Chairman, I offer the fol-lowing amendment, which I send tothe desk.


Amendment offered by Mr. Can-non of Missouri: Page 4, after line 9,insert:

‘‘DEPARTMENT OF STATE

‘‘Transportation Foreign Service:For an additional amount for Trans-portation, Foreign Service, fiscalyear 1942, including the objects spec-ified under this head in the Depart-ment of State Appropriation Act,1942, $800,000.’’

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, the purpose of this amendment isto make provision for a deficiencywhich was not foreseen, and which hasoccurred as the result of the declara-tion of war. We have in all parts of Eu-rope and Asia diplomatic and consularrepresentatives and attaches who mustbe brought home, together with theirfamilies and clerks and office staffs.They have to be shifted as a result ofa change in the status brought aboutby the declaration of war. In the origi-nal appropriation there was somethingin excess of $700,000 in this fund—anamount which would have sufficedunder normal conditions, but under re-cent developments there have beensuch heavy expenditures that onlyabout $17,000 remains, which is insuf-ficient to carry the Service beyond the1st of the month. I offer this amend-ment to make provision for the unex-pected deficiency.

THE CHAIRMAN: (18) The question ison agreeing to the amendment offeredby the gentleman from Missouri.


5126


The amendment was agreed to.MR. [WILLIAM P.] LAMBERTSON [of

Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have anamendment at the desk.


Amendment offered by Mr.Lambertson: Page 3, line 22, strikeout lines 22, page 3, to and includingline 9 on page 4.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, I make the point of order thatthe amendment comes too late. Wehave passed that paragraph. We haveadopted an amendment since the para-graph was read and it is no longer sub-ject to amendment.

MR. LAMBERTSON: Mr. Chairman, Iwas on my feet standing alone beforethe gentleman from Missouri rose. TheChair recognized the gentleman fromMissouri, but I had the floor ahead ofhim.

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da-kota: Mr. Chairman, it is my impres-sion that the gentleman from Kansaswas on his feet, and, seeing that thechairman of the subcommittee rose, hedeferred to him to offer an amendmentfirst.

THE CHAIRMAN: The chairman of thecommittee was recognized by theChair. The Chair asks the gentlemanfrom Missouri if he insists upon hispoint of order

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, I regret that I must insist on thepoint of order.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on thepoint of order?

THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.MR. TABER: The gentleman from

Kansas was on his feet asking for rec-ognition at the time and on top of that

the amendment was offered by thegentleman from Missouri, but thatwould not preclude this amendmentfrom being offered. This is an amend-ment to strike out the previous para-graph. The amendment that the gen-tleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon],added was an amendment adding anadditional paragraph.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, the gentleman did not addressthe Chair at all. He at no time ad-dressed the Chair until after the Clerkhad concluded the reading of the newparagraph and the committee hadadopted it.

MR. LAMBERTSON: I beg your pardon;I did. I did stand and I did address theChair. I was standing before he everstarted to get up.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wasaware of the fact that the gentlemanfrom Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] was onhis feet, and the Chair would like tooverrule the point of order, but feelsthat technically the point of order iswell taken, and it being insisted uponby the chairman of the Committee onAppropriations, the Chair is con-strained to sustain the point of order.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I appealfrom the decision of the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN: The question is,Shall the decision of the Chair standas the judgment of the Committee?

The question was taken; and on a di-vision [demanded by Mr. Taber] therewere ayes 75 and noes 62.

MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I demandtellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairappointed Mr. Cannon of Missouri andMr. Taber to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided, andthe tellers reported there were ayes126 and noes 89.


5127



20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)

So the decision of the Chair was sus-tained.

§ 11.12 If an amendment af-fects, in part, a paragraph ofan appropriation bill not yetread by the Clerk, but nopoint of order is madeagainst the amendment, it isconsidered, but furtheramendments to interveningportions of text that have notbeen read are not precluded.On Apr. 3, 1957,(19) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6287, the Departmentsof Labor, Health, Education, andWelfare, and related agencies ap-propriation bill. At one point theClerk read as follows, and the pro-ceedings were as indicated below:

MR. [THOMAS M.] PELLY [of Wash-ington]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen-tary inquiry.


MR. PELLY: I did not understandthat the Clerk had read beyond line17. May I inquire if this amendmentincludes the figure on line 20?

THE CHAIRMAN: The amendmentthat the gentleman from Louisiana of-fered was addressed to the languagebeginning on line 5 but does touch ona sum included in the next paragraphbeginning on line 18.

MR. PELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have anamendment at the desk which would

apply to line 17. If this amendmentwere acted on, would that prevent myamendment from being offered at theend of the paragraph which begins online 5 and ends on line 17?

THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment ofthe gentleman applies to that portionbetween line 15 and line 17?

MR. PELLY: That is correct.THE CHAIRMAN: It would be in order,

because the Clerk has not read thenext 3 lines, 18, 19, and 20.

MR. [JOHN E.] FOGARTY [of Rhode Is-land]: May I be heard, Mr. Chairman?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.MR. FOGARTY: It was my under-

standing that the amendment offeredby the gentleman from Louisiana wentdown to and included the language atthe end of line 20 on page 25.

THE CHAIRMAN: The amendmentdoes go down that far, but the Clerkhas not read those last three lines.

MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I makethe point of order that further amend-ments cannot be offered to the lan-guage before line 20 on page 25, be-cause the amendment offered by thegentleman from Louisiana [Mr.Hebert] takes in 3 places in the billand goes down to and including theparagraph ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’where his amendment offers to cut theamount in line 20.

THE CHAIRMAN: The statement thegentleman makes is correct, but thefact remains no point of order wasmade when the amendment was read.

MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, thepoint I was trying to make is thatthere were no objections raised whenthe amendment was offered and con-sidered down through line 20.

THE CHAIRMAN: The portion of thegentleman’s amendment having to do


5128


1. 116 CONG. REC. 11648, 91st Cong. 2dSess. See also 118 CONG REC.

21118–22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June15, 1972 (proceedings relating toH.R. 15417).


with those three lines, lines 18, 19,and 20, can have no effect until thoselines are read and then considered.

MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, a fur-ther parliamentary inquiry.


MR. FOGARTY: Is the gentleman’samendment in order when he has, inone amendment, sought to cut threeplaces in the bill, from lines 5 to 20?

THE CHAIRMAN: No point of orderwas raised against it.

MR. FOGARTY: I thought that wouldbe a concession that those lines hadbeen read, the lines down to and in-cluding line 20.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is no concessionuntil such time as that portion of thebill is read

MR. PELLY: Mr. Chairman, reservingthe right to object, if no objection weremade, would that preclude the consid-eration of my amendment which beginson line 17, following the action on theamendment of the gentleman fromLouisiana [Mr. Hebert]?

THE CHAIRMAN: No.

Unanimous Consent To OfferAmendment

§ 11.13 An amendment to aparagraph of an appropria-tion bill which has beenpassed during the reading ofthe bill may be offered onlyby unanimous consent.On Apr. 14, 1970,(1) during con-

sideration in the Committee of the

Whole of the education appropria-tion bill (H.R 19616) a point oforder was raised against anamendment, as follows:

MR. [MARVIN L.] ESCH [of Michigan]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Esch:Strike out lines 17 and 18 on page 3and insert in lieu thereof the fol-lowing ‘‘titles I, III, IV (except partF), part E of title V and title VI ofthe Higher Education Act of 1965, asamended, title I, including section’’.

And, on line 2 of page 4, strike out‘‘$899,880,000’’ and insert in lieuthereof ‘‘$992,100,000’’

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsyl-vania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointof order against the amendment onprecisely the same grounds. The Clerkhas now read past page 4, line 17,‘‘Community Education.’’

The gentleman was not on his feet.He did not address the Chair. Theamendment is clearly out of order.

MR. ESCH: Mr. Chairman, I was onmy feet, and as soon as the Clerk read‘‘higher education’’ I said, ‘‘Mr. Chair-man.’’

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely object tothe fact that I am not given recogni-tion. I was on my feet, having recog-nized the experience of the previousMember.

As soon as the Clerk read ‘‘highereducation,’’ I said ‘‘Mr. Chairman’’twice.

THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The Chair wouldlike to protect the gentleman in his


5129




rights. If the gentleman did addressthe Chair, the Chair did not hear thegentleman at that point. The gen-tleman may make a unanimous-con-sent request that his amendment beconsidered although the Clerk hadpassed it at the time he was recognizedby the Chair, and, if there is no objec-tion, the amendment can be consideredunder those circumstances. Does thegentleman make such a request?

MR. ESCH: Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that my amend-ment be considered.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromMichigan?

MR. FLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I mustprotect the bill. I am pained, but Imust object.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is con-strained to uphold the point of order ofthe gentleman from Pennsylvania. TheChair wants to be fair, but the gentle-men in the Chamber that wish to offertheir amendments must be on theirfeet.

Amendment Affecting PreviousLine in Paragraph

§ 11.14 The pending paragraphof an appropriation billbeing read under the five-minute rule is open toamendment at any point;thus, a senior member of thecommittee reporting the billmay be recognized to offeran amendment, even thoughan amendment proposed byanother Member affects a

line occurring earlier in theparagraph.On July 23, 1970,(3) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the Departments ofLabor and Health, Education, andWelfare appropriation bill (H.R.18515) the following proceedingstook place:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, I have an amendmentat the desk.

THE CHAIRMAN: (4) The Clerk will re-port the amendment.

MR. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen-tary inquiry.


MR. JONAS: May I respectfully re-mind the Chair that I was recognized,and that the Chair allowed a point oforder to intervene only, and I had beenrecognized. The Chair ruled that sincea point of order had been made, theChair would dispose of the point oforder first.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair respect-fully states that the point of order didintervene following the gentleman’srecognition. The Chair intends to rec-ognize members of the committee inthe order of their seniority. The Chair,therefore, recognized the gentlemanfrom Texas. The Chair will later recog-nize the gentleman from North Caro-lina.

MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]:Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in-quiry.


5130


5. 116 CONG. REC. 25634, 25635, 91stCong. 2d Sess. 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).


MR. MICHEL: Did the Clerk readthrough the section concluding withline 3, page 39?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is the under-standing of the Chair that he did.

MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, a furtherparliamentary inquiry.


MR. JONAS: I respectfully ask theChair to rule that my amendment doesprecede the amendment that will be of-fered by the gentleman from Texas. Myamendment goes to line 5, page 38,and my information is that the amend-ment to be offered by the gentlemanfrom Texas comes at a later point inthe paragraph.

THE CHAIRMAN: A whole paragraphis open to amendment at the sametime. Therefore, the line does not de-termine the order of the amendment.

Language Previously Stricken

§ 11.15 A point of order havingbeen sustained against anentire paragraph in an ap-propriation bill, it is in orderto offer an amendment atthat point in the bill to inserta new paragraph containingthe stricken language except-ing those provisions whichwere held in violation of therules.On July 23, 1970,(5) during con-

sideration in the Committee of the

Whole of a general appropriationbill (H.R 18515), a point of orderwas raised against the followingamendment, and proceedings en-sued as indicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. [RobertH.] Michel [of Illinois]: on page 38, line1, insert the following:

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

For expenses necessary to carryout the provisions of the EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law88–452, approved August 20, 1964),as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus re-imbursements: Provided, That thisappropriation shall be available fortransfers to the economic oppor-tunity loan fund for loans under titleIII, and amounts so transferred shallremain available until expended:Provided further, That this appro-priation shall be available for thepurchase and hire of passengermotor vehicles, and for construction,alteration, and repair of buildingsand other facilities, as authorized bysection 602 of the Economic Oppor-tunity Act of 1964: Provided further,That this appropriation shall not beavailable for contracts under titles I,II, V, VI, and VIII extending formore than twenty-four months. . . .

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a pointof order against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: (6) The gentlemanwill state the point of order.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the pointof order against the amendment is thatall of the language to which theamendment addresses itself on page 38of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been strick-en.


5131


7. 100 CONG. REC. 8191, 8192, 83dCong. 2d Sess. 8. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).

Mr. Chairman, there is no way thatwe can amend something that is notbefore the House.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. Michel) has offered a sepa-rate amendment to insert a new para-graph, and the amendment is in order.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.Michel) is recognized for 5 minutes insupport of his amendment.

Changing Figures in Bill

§ 11.16 To a bill making appro-priations for the District ofColumbia that were to bechargeable against revenuesof the District for the ensu-ing fiscal year, an amend-ment increasing the amountof the appropriation for cer-tain items included in thebill was held to be in order.On June 14, 1954,(7) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the District of Columbiaappropriations bill (H.R. 9517),which made appropriations for thegovernment of the District of Co-lumbia and other activitieschargeable in whole or in partagainst the revenues of said Dis-trict for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1955, a point of orderwas raised against an amend-ment, and proceedings ensued asindicated below:

MR. [DEWITT S.] HYDE [of Maryland]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:On page 22, line 20, strike out

‘‘$1,124,365’’ and insert in lieu there-of ‘‘$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 orderagainst the amendment on the groundthat it is legislation upon an appro-priation bill. There is no authority oflaw for the District of Columbia toenter into a new activity of this kind,and a new business venture. Therefore,the subcommittee saw fit to eliminatethat from the bill, and I make a pointof order against it.

THE CHAIRMAN: (8) Permit the Chairto make this statement. The amend-ment, which is before the Committeeand which the Chair now has beforehim, simply increases the amount ofmoney in the bill. Does the gentlemanfrom Indiana make a point of orderagainst increasing the amount ofmoney in the bill?

MR. WILSON of Indiana: Mr. Chair-man, I was under the impression thatit was for the purpose of starting theDistrict of Columbia in the parkingbusiness. If I may reserve my point oforder until the gentleman explainswhat the purpose of his amendment is,of course I will be in a better positionto speak against it. . . .

Mr. Chairman, I still insist on thepoint of order on the ground that theappropriation is not authorized by law.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is of theopinion that if the money is unauthor-ized it is ineffective. The Chair is also


5132



10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).11. 105 CONG. REC. 10057, 86th Cong.

1st Sess.

of the opinion that the money can beused only for the items included in thebill and as authorized by law.


Parliamentarian’s Note: If aceiling had been specified on totalauthorized expenditures, anamendment which had the effectof exceeding that total would nothave been permitted. Theamounts added to the appropria-tion here did not cause a specificauthorized total to be exceeded,and the Chair took the view thatthe increase in the appropriationwould apply only to items in-cluded in the bill and already au-thorized.

§ 11.17 Where the House hasadopted an amendmentchanging a figure in an ap-propriation bill, it is not inorder to further amend suchfigure.On Mar. 11, 1942,(9) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6736. The followingproceedings took place:

MR. [JOHN J.] COCHRAN [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Coch-ran: On page 7, line 5, after theword ‘‘law’’, strike out ‘‘$144,973,700’’and insert ‘‘$128,273,700.’’

(The amendment was adopted.)MR. [JAMES] DOMENGEAUX [of Lou-

isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the fol-lowing amendment, which I send tothe desk.


Page 7, line 5, strike out‘‘$144,973,700’’ and insert in lieuthereof ‘‘$145,933,700.’’

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder against the amendment on theground that there has been a changealready in this figure and anotherchange cannot be considered.

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The gentleman iscorrect. The figure cannot now beamended.

§ 11.18 Where a figure in anappropriation bill has beenagreed to (and hence cannotbe altered by an amendmentproposing a further changein amount), an amendmentinserted following the figureagreed upon and providingfunds ‘‘in addition thereto’’ isin order if authorized.On June 5, 1959,(11) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7509, a bill making ap-propriations for the civil functionsadministered by the Departmentof the Army. The Clerk read asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

Amendment offered by Mr. (Fred)Wampler [of Indiana]: On page 21, line


5133


12. Hale Boggs (La.).13. 115 CONG. REC. 21217, 21218, 91st

Cong. 1st Sess. 14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

7, after the amount shown add the fol-lowing: ‘‘And in addition $52,000 forthe following projects: Sugar Creek,West Terre Haute, Clinton, andConover Levee.’’



MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I makethe point of order that the languagehas been once amended.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromNew York must have misunderstoodthe reading of the amendment, becauseit follows the amount and does notalter the amount.

The gentleman from Indiana is rec-ognized for 5 minutes in support of hisamendment.

Amendment in Nature of Sub-stitute

§ 11.19 Where an appropria-tion bill is being read byparagraphs, a subsitute forseveral paragraphs of the billmay be offered to the firstparagraph modified by theamendment only if notice isgiven that, if the amendmentis agreed to, motions will bemade subsequently to strikeout the remaining para-graphs affected thereby.On July 29, 1969,(13) the Com-


ering H.R. 13111, a Departmentsof Labor and Health, Education,and Welfare appropriation bill.The proceedings were as follows:


Amendment offered by Mr. [RobertH.] Michel [of Illinois]: On page 25strike out line 9 and all that followson page 25 and insert in lieu thereofthe following:

‘‘For carrying out titles II, III, V,VII, and section 807 of the Elemen-tary and Secondary Education Act of1965, as amended, section 402 of theElementary and Secondary Edu-cation Admendments of 1967, andtitle III-A and V-A of the NationalDefense Education Act of 1958,$254,163,000. . . . ’’

MR. [JAMES G.] O’HARA [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point oforder against the amendment

THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The gentlemanwill state his point of order

MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, I makea point of order against the amend-ment on the ground that the para-graph which it amends has not yetbeen read. . . .

Mr. Chairman, when the amendmentwas offered, the Clerk had finishedreading the paragraph which begins online 9, page 25, and concludes on line24, page 25.

At that point amendments to thatparagraph were in order. But theamendment of the gentleman from Illi-nois does not change so much as acomma in that paragraph; it repeats itabsolutely verbatim. It is not anamendment to that paragraph. It isonly in subsequent paragraphs thatany amendment is made.


5134


I would make the point of order, Mr.Chairman, that the gentleman from Il-linois will have to wait until that para-graph is read before he can offer anamendment to it.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hearthe gentleman from Illinois on thepoint of order.

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Chairman, I sub-mit that really all I am doing is addingto the first paragraph; therefore, it isvery much in order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has con-sidered the arguments both for andagainst the point of order. The Chairsees no inconsistency in the gentle-man’s amendment repeating the para-graph on page 26 which the Clerk hadnot yet read. It is a different para-graph, but the Chair feels that the fol-lowing paragraph can be consolidatedwith an amendment to the total para-graph. . . .

MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, underthe rules of the House, when a bill isto be read by paragraph and a Memberwishes to amend a paragraph that hasbeen read and several succeeding para-graphs he is permitted to offer anamendment at the time the first ofthose paragraphs is read that he wantsto amend and then at the same timegive notice that if his amendment,which goes beyond the first paragraphand into several others, is adopted hewill move to strike the succeedingparagraphs.

In the first place, the gentlemanfrom Illinois gave no such notice, butlet us not dwell on that. Let us dwellon the danger of upholding the amend-ment he is offering.

The gentleman from Illinois, I amsure, will agree that he makes no

change whatsoever in the paragraphjust read; absolutely no change.

If the Chair is going to hold that onecan offer an amendment at any placeone wants in the bill in order to get aprovision that comes a page later, ortwo pages later, or 10 pages later—andthat is what he has done; he has of-fered an amendment here that changesnothing but gets at something on thenext page—and if we are going to saythat the precedents of this House sayone can offer an amendment any placeand repeat some language until it getsto the thing he wants to amend, we areheading for legislative chaos, Mr.Chairman.

I believe this is a very serious prob-lem, and I most earnestly ask theChair to carefully consider his ruling,because otherwise it might be possibleto offer an amendment to repeat thelanguage for the next 25 pages until itgets to the things one seeks to change.I believe it is terribly important thatthis amendment be considered out oforder, Mr. Chairman. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre-pared to rule. The Chair is presentedwith a most difficult ruling at thistime. He has resorted to a precedent in‘‘Hinds’ Precedent,’’ volume V, page404, paragraph 5795, which reads asfollows:

When it is proposed to offer a sin-gle substitute for several paragraphsof a bill which is being considered byparagraphs, the substitute may bemoved to the first paragraph withnotice that if it be agreed to, motionswill be made to strike out the re-maining paragraphs.

The Chair notes that the gentlemanfrom Illinois did not give such notice.The amendment goes beyond the para-


5135


15. H.R. 15417.16. 118 CONG. REC. 21106, 92d Cong. 2d

Sess.

17. Id. at p. 21118.18. Id. at p. 21119.19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).

graph which has been read and in ef-fect modifies a paragraph which hasnot yet been read.

The Chairman, therefore, sustainsthe point of order.

The amendment in the form inwhich it is offered is not in order.

§ 11.20 Where an amendmentin the nature of a substitutefor several paragraphs of anappropriation bill has beenagreed to and notice hasbeen given that motionswould be made to strike outensuing paragraphs of thebill as read, the paragraphsare subject to perfectingamendments while such mo-tions to strike are pending.On June 15, 1972, during con-

sideration of the Departments ofLabor and Health, Education, andWelfare appropriation bill (15) Mr.William D. Hathaway, of Maine,offered an amendment in the na-ture of a substitute, as follows: (16)

MR. HATHAWAY: Mr. Chairman, Ihave an amendment to the paragraphof the bill just read which is a singlesubstitute for several paragraphs ofthe bill dealing with the Office of Edu-cation, and I hereby give notice that ifthe amendment is agreed to I willmake motions to strike out the remain-ing paragraphs beginning with line 14on page 19 and extending through andincluding line 17 on page 21.


Amendment offered by Mr. Hatha-way: On page 19, strike out lines 6through 13 and substitute in lieuthereof: . . .

The amendment was agreedto.(17)

Subsequently,(18) the followingproceedings occurred:

MR. HATHAWAY: Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the paragraph begin-ning on line 16, page 20, and extendingdown through line 8 on page 21.

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Without objec-tion, the motion is agreed to.

MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Min-nesota]: Mr. Chairman reserving theright to object, I would like to make aparliamentary inquiry.

. . . I have an amendment at thedesk which would, on page 21, line 1,strike out the words after ‘‘1974’’ downthrough the word ‘‘Act’’ on line 3. Is itpossible to offer that amendment nowthat the Hathaway amendment hasbeen 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 theword ‘‘Act’’ on line 3.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was ofthe impression that the amendment of-fered by the gentleman from Mainehad been agreed to, striking out the


5136



paragraph to which the amendment isoffered. . . .

MR. QUIE: In my copy of the Hatha-way amendment it was not strickenout. If that is correct, the Hathawayamendment would put a period after‘‘1974’’ on line 1 and strike out therest. It was my understanding theHathaway amendment put a periodafter the word ‘‘Act’’ on line 3 andstruck out the proviso, which is therest of line 3 down through line 8.

It then appeared that theChairman had not heard Mr.Quie’s reservation of objection.The following exchange occurred:

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wouldhave to rule that the gentleman rosetoo late. The motion had been offeredby Mr. Hathaway, and there was noobjection and it was acceded to.

MR. QUIE: Mr. Chairman, the Chairasked if there was any objection, and Ireserved the right to object, which Iam still reserving, and on that I askedmy parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair muststate that the Chair did not hear thegentleman say he was reserving theright to object on the Hathaway mo-tion. . . .

The Chair will recognize the gen-tleman on the basis of his statementwhich the Chair did not hear.

The Clerk will report the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromMinnesota.

Further objection was made tothe Quie amendment, however: (20)

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsyl-vania]: Mr. Chairman, my point oforder is that the committee has justagreed to this.

THE CHAIRMAN: The committee hasagreed to what?

MR. FLOOD: The position taken bymy friend, the gentleman from Min-nesota (Mr. Quie). I have here, for in-stance, that we voted not to exceed $18million for research and training,under part C of said 1963 act. Now Ihad the clear impression, I am sorry tosay, that the committee just agreed tothis. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will statethat the first amendment offered byMr. Hathaway on page 19, was to theparagraph beginning on line 7 andthat amendment was a substituteamendment, and was agreed to.

Now we still have to read each oneof the paragraphs of the bill duplicatedor modified by the Hathaway amend-ment, and a perfecting amendment tothose paragraphs is in order eventhough a motion to strike out is firstoffered.

MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, a pointof order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willstate his point of order.

MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, mypoint of order is if a motion to strikehas been made, is it not then out oforder to try to amend the paragraphthat the motion to strike applies to?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair wouldhave to rule that a perfecting amend-ment is in order although a motion tostrike is pending. Therefore the Chairrules that the amendment offered bythe gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.Quie) is in order on the basis that it is


5137



2. Note: The Committee on Appropria-tions furnished printed forms con-taining all 18 amendments to the billadopted in the Committee of theWhole, with further pertinent infor-mation. Fourteen rollcalls occurredin one day with respect to suchamendments.


a perfecting amendment to the para-graph to which the motion to strike ispending.

Separate Votes in House onAmendments

§ 11.21 Separate votes havebeen demanded on amend-ments adopted in the Com-mittee of the Whole.On Apr. 4, 1957,(1) H.R. 6287,

the Departments of Labor andHealth, Education, and Welfareappropriation bill was being con-sidered in the House after amend-ments had been adopted in theCommittee of the Whole. SpeakerSam Rayburn, of Texas, stated: (2)

The unfinished business is the fur-ther consideration of the bill H.R.6287, which the Clerk will report bytitle.

[The Clerk read the title of the bill.]Separate votes having been de-

manded on all amendments adopted inthe Committee of the Whole, the Clerkwill report the first amendment onwhich a separate vote was demanded.

Recommittal of Bill With In-structions

§ 11.22 A motion that the Com-mittee of the Whole rise andreport a bill back to theHouse with the recommenda-tion that the enacting clausebe stricken and that the billbe recommitted to the Com-mittee on Appropriationswith instructions was heldnot to be in order in theCommittee of the Whole.On Apr. 3, 1957,(3) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6287, the Departmentsof Labor and Health, Education,and Welfare appropriation bill.The Clerk read a motion as fol-lows, and proceedings ensued asindicated below.

Mr. Hoffman moves that the Com-mittee do now rise, report the bill backto the House with the recommendationthat the enacting clause be strickenand that the bill be recommitted to theCommittee on Appropriations with in-structions that it be reported back tothe House within 5 days with amend-ments which will indicate the placesand amounts in the budget where thecommittee believes, in view of thestatements made in the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion, that substantial reductions maybest be made and will meet the viewsof the House with the least curtailment


5138


4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

5. 91 CONG. REC. 5832, 5833, 79thCong. 1st Sess. See also 97 CONG.REC. 6533, 6534, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.,June 13, 1951.

6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

of efficient administration by the De-partments affected.

MR. [JOHN E.] FOGARTY [of Rhode Is-land]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a pointof order on the motion. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: (4) Does the gen-tleman from Rhode Island care to beheard on the point of order? The Chairis ready to rule.

MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, as Iremember the reading of the motion,there is a matter of wording containedtherein that is not permissible underthe rules governing procedure in theCommittee of the Whole, but would beallowed under the rules of procedure inthe House.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentlemanfrom Michigan desire to be heard?

MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi-gan]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want topoint out that there is a precedent forthe motion and the rules cite a prece-dent where that motion has been heldto be proper in the Committee

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not fa-miliar with that precedent, but therules of the House provide that certainlanguage contained in the motionmade by the gentleman from Michigancould be entertained in the Committeeof the Whole, but the balance of themotion would only be appropriate inthe House. For that reason, the Chairsustains the point of order

Parliamentarian’s Note: Whilethe motion that the Committeerise and report the bill back to theHouse with the recommendationthat the bill be recommitted maybe in order when the bill is being

considered under the generalrules of the House (see 4 Hinds’Precedents §§ 4761, 4762; 8 Can-non’s Precedents § 2329), it is notin order in the form presentedabove (where inconsistent motionsare joined) nor is it in order whena bill is being considered under aspecial rule (see 96 CONG. REC.12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug.10, 1950).

§ 11.23 On occasion a generalappropriation bill has beenrecommitted with instruc-tions to report back forth-with with an amendment; thebill has then been so re-ported, the amendmentagreed to, the bill again or-dered engrossed and read athird time, and the billpassed, in that order.On June 8, 1945,(5) during con-

sideration in the House of H.R.3368, a war agencies appropria-tion bill, the following proceedingsoccurred:

THE SPEAKER: (6) The question is onthe engrossment and third reading ofthe bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossedand read a third time, and was readthe third time.


5139



MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recom-mit.

THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman op-posed 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 thebill to the Committee on Appropria-tions with instructions to report thesame back forthwith with an amend-ment reducing the Office of War In-formation by $17,000,000, to apply tothe estimates for activities in Europeand the United States.

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis-souri: Mr. Speaker, I move the pre-vious question on the motion to recom-mit

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 di-vided, and there were—ayes 120, noes108.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, I demand the yeas and nays.



MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, pursuant to the instructions of theHouse, I now report back to the Housethe bill H.R. 3368, the war agenciesappropriation bill, with the amend-ment incorporated in the motion to re-commit, and with the recommendationthat the amendment be agreed to andthe bill as amended do pass.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will reportthe amendment.


[Amendment reducing the Office ofWar Information by $17,000,000, toapply to the estimates for activitiesin Europe and the United States.]

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, 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 thebill.


THE SPEAKER: The question is on thepassage of the bill.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, I demand the yeas and nays.



So the bill was passed.

§ 11.24 A deficiency appropria-tion bill has been recommit-ted with instructions to re-port back forthwith with anamendment.On Apr. 1, 1948,(7) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6055. The Clerk readas follows, and proceedings en-sued as indicated below:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri) moves to recommit the bill to


5140


8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).

9. 113 CONG. REC. 19273-75, 90thCong. 1st Sess.


the Committee on Appropriations withinstructions to report the bill backforthwith with an amendment as fol-lows:

On page 10, line 7, strike out‘‘$300,000,000’’ and insert in lieu there-of ‘‘$400,000,000.’’

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-tion 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


MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, in accord-ance with the instructions of theHouse, I report the bill back with anamendment which is at the desk.

THE SPEAKER: (8) The Clerk will readthe amendment.


Page 10, line 7, strike out‘‘$300,000,000’’ and insert in lieuthereof ‘‘$400,000,000.’’

THE SPEAKER: The question is on theamendment.


Reduction of Total Appropria-tion

§ 11.25 The House has agreedto a motion to recommit anappropriation bill with in-structions to the Committeeon Appropriations to reportback forthwith with an

amendment reducing thetotal appropriation to a fig-ure not to exceed 95 percentof the budget estimates.On July 18, 1967,(9) during con-

sideration in the House of H.R.11456, a Department of Transpor-tation appropriation bill, the fol-lowing proceedings occurred:

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]

moves to recommit the bill to the Com-mittee on Appropriations with instruc-tions to that committee to report itback forthwith with the followingamendment: On page 18, immediatelyfollowing line 15, insert a new sectionas follows:

‘‘Sec. 702. Money appropriated inthis Act shall be available for ex-penditure in the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1968, only to the extentthat expenditure thereof shall not re-sult in total aggregate net expendi-tures of all agencies provided forherein beyond 95 per centum of thetotal aggregate net expenditures es-timated therefor in the budget for1968 (H. Doc 15).’’

THE SPEAKER: (10) Without objection,the previous question is ordered on themotion to recommit

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 theyeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.


5141




So the motion to recommit wasagreed to. . . .

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massa-chusetts]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant tothe instructions of the House, in themotion to recommit, I report back thebill H.R. 11456 with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will reportthe amendment.


On page 18, immediately followingline 15, insert a new section as fol-lows:

‘‘Sec. 702. Money appropriated inthis Act shall be available for ex-penditure in the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1968, only to the extentthat expenditure thereof shall not re-sult in total aggregate net expendi-tures of all agencies provided forherein beyond 95 percent of the totalaggregate net expenditures esti-mated therefor in the budget for1968 (H. Doc 15).’’

THE SPEAKER: The question is on theamendment.


§ 11.26 A motion to recommitan appropriation bill with in-structions to the committeeto reduce the amount of theappropriation by $50 millionis in order; but the com-mittee, if the motion isadopted, may not report thebill back to the House withan amendment proposing achange in the amendmentsadopted by the House.

On May 15, 1939,(11) the Housewas considering H.R 6260, a WarDepartment civil functions appro-priation bill. The Clerk read asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

MR. [D. LANE] POWERS [of New Jer-sey] moves to recommit the bill to theCommittee on Appropriations with in-structions to report the same backforthwith with amendments reducingthe total amount of the bill$50,000,000

MR. [ROSS A.] COLLINS [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make thepoint of order that the motion to re-commit undertakes to do indirectlywhat cannot be done directly.

The amount carried in this bill, withthese amendments, totals$305,000,000. Part of it is for the Pan-ama Canal, part for cemeterial ex-pense, part for the Signal Corps andAlaskan Communications Commission,part for rivers and harbors, part forflood control, and part for the UnitedStates Soldiers’ Home. Of the amountof $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is forrivers and harbors and flood control,leaving only $28,000,000 for all ofthese other governmental activities. Areduction of $50,000,000 would takeaway a large part of the money carriedin the two amendments voted in theHouse last Wednesday. A motion to re-commit to do this cannot be done. Thismotion to recommit attempts to do in-directly what cannot be done directly.It proposes a second vote on the samepropositions that were voted on last


5142





Wednesday, therefore is subject to apoint of order.

THE SPEAKER: (12) The Chair maystate, in connection with the point oforder made by the gentleman fromMississippi, that the Chair under-stands the purpose of the motion to re-commit, one motion to recommit al-ways being in order after the thirdreading, is to give to those Membersopposed to the bill an opportunity tohave an expression of opinion by theHouse upon their proposition. It is truethat under the precedents it is not inorder by way of a motion to recommitto propose an amendment to anamendment previously adopted by theHouse, but the motion now pendingdoes not specifically propose to instructthe Committee on Appropriations to dothat. The Chair is inclined to the opin-ion that the motion to recommit in theform here presented is not subject to apoint of order.

The Chair overrules the point oforder. . . .

MR. [DEWEY] SHORT [of Missouri]:Mr. Speaker, the motion is simply toreduce the bill $50,000,000.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair under-stands the rule to be that the Housecan adopt a motion to recommit withinstructions to reduce the amount ofthe appropriation by $50,000,000, butthe committee, if this motion should beadopted, could not report the bill backto the House with an amendment pro-posing a change in the amendmentsadopted by the House.

Prohibition on Use of Appro-priations

§ 11.27 The House has agreedto a recommittal motion

which sought a prohibitionon the use of funds in a sup-plemental appropriation bill(providing funds for the De-partment of Agriculture) tofinance the export of agricul-tural commodities to theUnited Arab Republic.On Jan. 26, 1965,(13) the House

was considering House Joint Reso-lution 234. The Clerk read a mo-tion to recommit and proceedingsensued as indicated below:

MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]moves to recommit House Joint Reso-lution 234 to the Committee on Appro-priations with instructions to reportthe same back to the House forthwithwith the following amendment: Onpage 2, line 13, strike the period at theend of the sentence and insert the fol-lowing: ‘‘: Provided, That no part ofthis appropriation shall be used duringthe fiscal year 1965 to finance the ex-port of any agricultural commodity tothe United Arab Republic under theprovisions of title I of such Act.’’

The previous question was ordered.THE SPEAKER: (14) The question is on

the motion to recommit.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




5143


15. 112 CONG. REC. 8972, 8973, 89thCong. 2d Sess. 16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

The result of the vote was an-nounced as above recorded.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instruc-tions of the House, I report back to theHouse, House Joint Resolution 234,with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will reportthe amendment. . . .

The question is on the amendment.The amendment was agreed to.THE SPEAKER: The question is on the

engrossment and third reading of thejoint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered tobe engrossed and read a third time,and was read the third time.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on thepassage of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was passed.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

§ 11.28 The House adopted anamendment, reported pursu-ant to a recommittal motion,to prohibit the use of appro-priations in the bill to ad-minister any program for thesale of agricultural commod-ities to nations that sell sup-plies to North Vietnam.On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) during con-

sideration in the House of H.R.14596, a Department of Agri-culture appropriation bill, the fol-lowing proceedings occurred:


MR. [PAUL] FINDLEY [of Illinois]moves that the bill be recommittedto the Committee on Appropriationswith instructions to report it backforthwith with the following amend-ment: On page 36, on line 6 strikethe period, insert a colon and the fol-lowing:

‘‘Provided, That no funds appro-priated by this Act shall be used toformulate or administer programsfor the sale of agricultural commod-ities pursuant to title I or IV of Pub-lic Law 480, Eighty-third Congress,as amended, to any nation whichsells or furnishes or which permitsships or aircraft under its registry totransport to North Vietnam anyequipment, materials, or commod-ities, so long as North Vietnam isgoverned by a Communist regime.’’

The previous question was ordered.THE SPEAKER: (16) The question is on

the motion to recommit.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 voting44. . . .


MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to theinstructions of the House in the motionto recommit, I report back the bill H.R.14596 with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will reportthe amendment. . . .

The question is on the amendment.The amendment was agreed to.THE SPEAKER: The question is on the

engrossment and third reading of thebill.



5144


17. H. JOUR. 746, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.18. 86 CONG. REC. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d

Sess.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on thepassage of the bill.

Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on that Idemand the yeas and nays.


were—yeas 366, nays 23, not voting43.

Enrollment of AppropriationBills

§ 11.29 Set out below is theform of a concurrent resolu-tion providing that in the en-rollment of general appro-priation bills enacted duringthe remainder of a sessionthe Clerk of the House maycorrect chapter, title, andsection numbers.On July 4, 1952,(17) Mr. George

H. Mahon, of Texas, by unani-mous consent, submitted the fol-lowing concurrent resolution (H.Con. Res. 239]:

Resolved by the House of Representa-tives (the Senate concurring), That inthe enrollment of general appropria-tion bills enacted during the remainderof the second session of the Eighty-sec-ond Congress the Clerk of the Housemay correct chapter, title, and sectionnumbers.

The concurrent resolution wasconsidered and agreed to. A mo-tion to reconsider the vote where-by the concurrent resolution was

agreed to was, by unanimous con-sent, laid on the table.

§ 12. Points of Order; Timeli-nessParliamentarian’s Note: The

Committee of the Whole has noauthority to delete by points oforder portions of a bill referred toit by the House absent reservationof that authority in the House atthe time the bill is first referred tothe Calendar of the Committee ofthe Whole House on the state ofthe Union (the Union Calendar).Absent reserved authority to de-lete provisions in violation ofclauses 2 and 6 of Rule XXI, theCommittee of the Whole canmerely recommend amendmentsto be acted upon by the House tochange general appropriation billscommitted thereto.f

Reservation of Points of Order

§ 12.1 Points of order are ordi-narily reserved against gen-eral appropriation bills priorto referral of the bills to theCommittee of the Whole, i.e.,when placed upon the UnionCalendar, and may be re-served thereafter only byunanimous consent.On Feb. 26, 1940,(18) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:


5145





MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM of Vir-ginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill (H.R 8341) making ap-propriations to supply deficiencies incertain appropriations for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1940, to providesupplemental appropriations for suchfiscal year, and for other purposes; andpending that motion, I ask unanimousconsent that general debate shall con-tinue for 21⁄2 hours, to be confined tothe bill and the time to be equally di-vided between myself and the gen-tleman from New York [Mr. Taber].

THE SPEAKER: (19) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromVirginia (Mr. Woodrum)?

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob-ject, has this bill been reported?

MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Yes; ithas been reported.

MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I desire toreserve all points of order against thebill.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, thegentleman from New York reserves allpoints of order against the bill.


Parliamentarian’s Note: Unani-mous consent was requested sincethe bill had been referred to theCommittee of the Whole by theSpeaker when reported. That isthe proper time to reserve pointsof order in the House against ageneral appropriation bill. Oncethe bill is referred to the Union

Calendar, it is then too late ab-sent unanimous consent.

§ 12.2 The committee chairmanobtained unanimous consentthat the committee haveuntil midnight to file a re-port on an appropriation bill,and a Member thereafter ob-tained unanimous consent toreserve all points of order onthe bill.On Nov. 26, 1945,(20) the fol-

lowing unanimous-consent requestwas made:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that the Committee on Appro-priations may have until midnight to-night to file a report on the first defi-ciency appropriation bill.


There was no objection. . . .MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michi-

gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in-quiry.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willstate it.

MR. MICHENER: I have been on thefloor all morning, but I have been ad-vised that earlier in the day unani-mous consent was given to the chair-man of the Committee on Appropria-tions to have until midnight to file areport on the deficiency appropriationbill. I did not hear that request.


5146



3. Hale Boggs (La.).4. 95 CONG. REC. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st

Sess.

THE SPEAKER: The request was madeand the consent was granted.

MR. MICHENER: The gentleman fromNew York [Mr. Taber], the rankingmember of the Committee on Appro-priations, was in the committee room,as I am advised, at the time. Had hebeen present and known about it, hewould have asked permission to re-serve all points of order on the bill.

I now ask unanimous consent to re-serve all points of order on the bill.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromMichigan?


Precedence Over Pro FormaAmendment

§ 12.3 A point of order againsta paragraph in a general ap-propriation bill takes prece-dence over any amendment(including a pro formaamendment) to that para-graph.On June 4, 1970,(2) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of the foreign assistanceappropriation bill (H.R. 17867) thefollowing proceedings took place:

Sec. 117. None of the funds appro-priated or made available in this Actfor carrying out the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961, as amended, shall beavailable for assistance to the UnitedArab Republic, unless the Presidentdetermines that such availability is es-

sential to the national interest of theUnited States.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, I move to strike thelast word.

MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Chairman, I was on myfeet to make a point of order as to sec-tion 117 that was just read.

THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The gentlemanfrom Wisconsin has a point of order onsection 117?

MR. ZABLOCKI: That is correct, Mr.Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hearthe gentleman from Wisconsin on hispoint of order.

MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Chairman, I willgladly defer to the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. Mahon) if I do not lose myopportunity to make my point of orderin so doing.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will statethat the point of order takes prece-dence.

Priority in Recognition

§ 12.4 Members of the com-mittee reporting a bill havepriority of recognition inmaking points of orderagainst proposed amend-ments to bills.On Mar. 30, 1949,(4) the Com-

mittee on the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 3838, an Interior De-partment appropriation bill. The


5147


5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).6. 116 CONG. REC. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d

Sess. 7. J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).

Clerk read as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

Amendment offered by Mr. [FrancisH.] Case of South Dakota: On page 47,line 7, strike out the period, insert acolon and the following: ‘‘Provided fur-ther, That no part of these funds shallbe used to build, operate, or administertransmission lines to carry power de-veloped at Fort Randall Dam acrossthe boundaries of the State of SouthDakota in which the power is pro-duced, unless the power so producedshall exceed the requests for power inthat State.’’

MR. [HENRY M.] JACKSON [of Wash-ington]: Mr. Chairman, a point oforder.

MR. [CARL T.] CURTIS [of Nebraska]:Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The Chair recog-nizes the gentleman from Washington,a member of the committee, to state apoint of order.

Point of Order Against TwoParagraphs

§ 12.5 Because a general ap-propriation bill is read foramendment by paragraphs, apoint of order against twoconsecutive paragraphs com-prising a section in the billcan be made only by unani-mous consent.On June 4, 1970,(6) the Com-


ering H.R. 17867, a foreign assist-ance appropriation bill. A Memberstated as follows, and proceedingsensued as indicated below:

MR. [DONALD M.] FRASER [of Min-nesota]: Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, when the Clerk readsthe next section, I propose to raise apoint of order against both clauses (a)and (b), and I rise at this time to in-quire if I can make the point of orderagainst both clauses and have it con-sidered at the same time.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The Chair willstate to the gentleman from Minnesotathat that can be done only by unani-mous consent.

Is there objection to the request ofthe gentleman from Minnesota?

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou-isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Assertion That Bill Is Not‘‘General’’ Appropriation Bill.

§ 12.6 In response to a point oforder based on Rule XXIclause 2, it was asserted thatthe bill under considerationwas not a ‘‘general’’ appro-priation bill and thereforenot subject to the rule; butthe Chair ruled that such as-sertion should have beenmade when the bill was firsttaken up as a privileged gen-eral appropriation bill andwas not timely made after


5148



9. H.R. 6791, supplemental military es-tablishment appropriation of 1940.

10. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).11. 103 CONG. REC. 5034–36, 85th Cong.

1st Sess.

the stage of amendment wasreached.On June 21, 1939,(8) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering an appropriations bill.(9) Apoint of order was raised againstthe following amendment:

Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.]Collins [of Mississippi]: Page 10, line11, after the word ‘‘thereof’’, insert‘‘Provided further, That of the amountsherein appropriated and authorized tobe obligated for the procurement of2,290 airplanes, obligations shall notbe incurred for the procurement ofmore than 1,007 airplanes unless anduntil the President shall determinethat the interests of national defenserequire the procurement of any portionor all of the number in excess of1,007.’’

A point of order having beenraised, the following exchangetook place:

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of [South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, there are twopoints on which this is in order. In thefirst place, it proposes retrenchment;and, if so, comes under the HolmanRule. In the second place, the bill be-fore us is not a general appropriationbill. The rule under which the point oforder is made is rule XXI, section 2,and that rule specifically says:

No appropriation shall be reportedin any general appropriation

bill. . . . For any expenditure notpreviously authorized by law. . . .Nor shall any provision in any suchbill or amendment thereto changingexisting law be in order—

And so forth. The limitations applyonly to recognized general appropria-tion bills. In Cannon’s Procedure,which I have in my hand, on page 20,this point is specifically treated, andon page 20 the statement is flatlymade:

The rule applies to general appro-priation bills only.

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The Chair isready to rule. The argument just made,if containing merit, should have beenmade earlier, when the bill was takenup. It has been reported as a generalappropriation bill and so considered,and was reported under the rules as ageneral appropriation bill.

Point of Order That Para-graph Has Been Passed

§ 12.7 A point of order that aparagraph has been passedand is therefore not subjectto amendment will not liewhere a Member was on hisfeet seeking recognition tooffer an amendment, whilethe Clerk continued to read.On Apr. 3, 1957,(11) The Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 6287, the Departmentsof Labor and Health, Education,


5149


12. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

and Welfare appropriation bill.The following proceedings tookplace:

THE CHAIRMAN: (12) For what purposedoes the gentleman from North Caro-lina rise?

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of NorthCarolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment which is at the Clerk’sdesk.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will re-port the amendment.

MR. [HAMER H.] BUDGE [of Idaho]:Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: For what purposedoes the gentleman from Idaho rise?

MR. BUDGE: Mr. Chairman, I havean amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman fromNorth Carolina has just been recog-nized to offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley:On page 32, after line 21, insert thefollowing paragraph: ‘‘Grants toStates for training public-welfarepersonnel: For grants to States forincreasing the number of adequatelytrained public-welfare personnelavailable for work in thepublicassistance programs as author-ized by section 705 of the Social Se-curity Act, as amended, $2,500,000.’’

MR. [ALBERT P.] MORANO [of Con-necticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make apoint of order. I believe that sectionwas passed, but I will reserve the pointof order.

MR. COOLEY: It was not passed. Myamendment was at the Clerk’s desk,but the Clerk was reading so rapidlythat he passed that section inadvert-ently. . . .

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]:Mr. CHAIRMAN, I make a point of orderagainst the amendment on the groundthat it is not in order at this point inthe bill, the Clerk having read down toline 2 on page 33; and, furthermore,that it is not authorized by law.

MR. COOLEY: May I be heard on thepoint of order, Mr. Chairman?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hearthe gentleman.

MR. COOLEY: Do I understand thegentleman to base his point of orderupon the ground that this amount wasnot authorized by law?

MR. TABER: Upon the ground thatthe amendment is not in order at thepoint where the Clerk had finishedreading.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is readyto rule on that point. The gentlemanfrom North Carolina was on his feetwhile the Clerk was reading. TheClerk continued to read before the gen-tleman had a chance to offer hisamendment.

The gentleman was entitled to rec-ognition.


After Reading of Paragraph

§ 12.8 The time for makingpoints or order against itemsin an appropriation bill isafter the House has resolveditself into the Committee ofthe Whole and after the para-graph containing such itemshas been read for amend-ment.


5150





16. Hale Boggs (La.).

On July 5, 1945,(13) the fol-lowing proceedings took place inthe House:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that theHouse resolve itself into the Com-mittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill (H.R. 3649), makingappropriations for war agencies for thefiscal year ending June 30, 1946, andfor other purposes; and pending thatmotion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to dispense with general de-bate in the Committee of the Whole.

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry.

THE SPEAKER: (14) The gentleman willstate it.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, if,as in this case, the bill contains manyitems that are subject to a point oforder, is it not in order to make a pointof order against sending this bill to theCommittee of the Whole?

THE SPEAKER: Under the rules of theHouse, it is not.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Then the proce-dure to make the point of order is tomake it as the bill is being read foramendment?

THE SPEAKER: As the paragraphs inthe bill are reached.

§ 12.9 The proper time to raisea point of order against lan-guage in a paragraph of ageneral appropriation bill is

after the paragraph has beenread but before debate startsthereon. (Note: The Chair,however, will not permit thereading of an amendment topreclude a point of ordermade by a Member who hasshown due diligence andwho sought recognition atthe proper time.)On May 24, 1960,(15) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a general appropriationbill, the following proceedings oc-curred:


CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

For the prosecution of river andharbor, flood control, shore protec-tion, and related projects authorizedby law. . . .

MR. [FRED] WAMPLER [of Indiana]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Wam-pler: On page 4, line 16, strike theamount ‘‘$662,622,300’’ and insert inlieu thereof the amount‘‘$662,807,300’’.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.


MR. GROSS: I have a point of orderagainst the language to be found onthis page. Will the discussion of this


5151






amendment abrogate my right to makea point of order?

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman iscorrect, it would. If the gentleman hasa point of order, it would have to beurged at this point.

MR. GROSS: The gentleman is tryingto obtain recognition from the Chair tomake a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-nizes the gentleman to make the pointof order.

§ 12.10 A point of order againstlanguage in a paragraph ofan appropriation bill comestoo late after the paragraphhas been read and amend-ments thereto have been con-sidered.On May 25, 1959,(17) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a general appropriationbill (H.R. 7176) the following pro-ceedings took place:

MR. [CHARLES A.] VANIK [of Ohio]:Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.


MR. VANIK: I make a point of orderto the language on page 9, lines 5 and6 ‘‘from the Baltic countries.’’

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair must ad-vise the gentleman that the point oforder comes too late. That section hasbeen read and amendments to the sec-tion have been considered. The point oforder is overruled.

The Clerk will read.

§ 12.11 A point of order againstlanguage in a paragraph ofan appropriation bill comestoo late after the paragraphhas been read and an amend-ment thereto has beenagreed to.On June 13, 1961,(19) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7577, a bill making ap-propriations for the executive of-fice and the Department of Com-merce. The Clerk read as follows,and proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

For necessary expenses, not other-wise provided for, of the Small Busi-ness Administration, including hire ofpassenger motor vehicles,$6,750,000. . . .

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


Amendment offered by Mr. Pat-man: On page 28, lines 11 and 12,after ‘‘exceed’’, strike out‘‘$17,524,000’’ and insert‘‘$18,447,000’’.

MR. [GEORGE W.] ANDREWS [of Ala-bama]: Mr. Chairman, the committeeaccepts the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: (20) The question ison the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Texas.



5152



2. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).

The Clerk read as follows: . . .

For necessary expenses of the Sub-versive Activities Control Board, in-cluding services as authorized bysection 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.


MR. GROSS: Is a point of order to thelanguage on page 29 in order?

THE CHAIRMAN: If it is to languagepreceding line 5 on page 29 it is not inorder.

MR. GROSS: It does precede line 5 onpage 29. The Clerk did not read thelanguage on page 29, lines 1 to 5.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk has readand an amendment has been adoptedto the paragraph starting on page 28,line 8 and ending on page 29, line 5.

MR. GROSS. Then a point of order tothe language on page 29, line 5, is notin order?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad-vise the gentleman it comes too late atthis time.

Bill Considered as Read

§ 12.12 Where the remainder ofa general appropriation billhas been considered as readand open to amendment atany point by unanimous con-sent, points of order againstany provision in that portionof the bill must be madeprior to debate or amend-ment to the remainder of thebill.

On June 26, 1972,(1) during con-sideration in the Committee of theWhole of a general appropriationbill (H.R. 15586) the followingproceedings took place:

THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The Clerk willread.

The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.MR. [JOSEPH L.] EVINS of Tennessee:

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that the remainder of the bill beconsidered as read in full and open toamendment at any point.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Ten-nessee?

MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]:Mr. Chairman, reserving the right toobject, would that foreclose the makingof a point of order against a point thathas 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 in-quiry.

Mr. Chairman, is it not necessarythat the point of order be made now?

Having dispensed with the readingof the bill, the point of order has to bemade now?

THE CHAIRMAN: If the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman fromTennessee is approved, the gentlemanfrom Iowa is correct, the point of ordershould be made at that time.

Points of Order AgainstAmendments

§ 12.13 Points of order againstproposed amendments must


5153



4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).5. 92 CONG. REC. 2365, 79th Cong. 2d

Sess.

be made immediately afterthe amendment is read; aftera Member has been granted15 minutes to address theCommittee of the Whole onhis amendment, it is too lateto make a point of orderagainst it.On Apr. 17, 1943,(3) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 2481, an AgricultureDepartment appropriation bill.The Clerk read as follows, andproceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

Amendment offered by Mr. [Clar-ence] Cannon of Missouri: On page 65,line 6, after the colon, insert: ‘‘Providedfurther, That no part of said appropria-tion or any other appropriation carriedin this bill shall be used for incentivepayments or subsidies or for any ex-pense for or incident to the payment ofincentive payments or any other formof subsidy payments.’’

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair-man, I ask unanimous consent tospeak for 15 minutes.

THE CHAIRMAN: (4) Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMissouri?

There was no objection.THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is

recognized for 15 minutes.MR. [USHER L.] BURDICK (of North

Dakota): Mr. Chairman, I reserve apoint of order on the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of ordercomes too late.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York):The regular order, Mr Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of ordercomes too late. The gentleman hasbeen recognized and has been grantedpermission to proceed for 15 minutes.The gentleman from Missouri is recog-nized.

Appropriations in LegislativeBills

§ 12.14 While Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5) provides thatpoints of order against ap-propriations in legislativebills may be raised at anytime, the practice of theHouse is that such points oforder should be raised whenthe bill is read for amend-ment.On Mar. 18, 1946,(5) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 5407, a bill grantingcertain powers to the FederalWorks Administration. The fol-lowing proceedings took place:

Accordingly the House resolved itselfinto the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union forthe consideration of the bill H.R. 5407,with Mr. [Fadjo] Cravens [of Arkansas]in the chair.

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da-kota: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make


5154


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).

a point of order against portions of thebill in paragraphs (a), (b), and whatwas originally (c), proposed now to bemade (b) by a committee amendment,on the ground that they constitute ap-propriations. Under the rule forbiddingthe reporting of appropriations by acommittee without jurisdiction, I makea point of order against the consider-ation of the language on page 2, begin-ning in line 4, reading:

And the unobligated balances ofappropriations heretofore made forthe construction of projects outsidethe District of Columbia.

Also on page 2, beginning in line 23,the last sentence of that paragraphwhich reads:

Funds for this purpose are herebymade available from the unobligatedbalances of appropriations heretoforemade for the construction of build-ings outside the District of Colum-bia.

Under the rule, a point of orderwould lie against consideration of thoseportions of the bill, and I make such apoint of order at this time.

MR. [FRITZ G.] LANHAM [of Texas]:Mr. Chairman, the appropriations re-ferred to by the gentleman from SouthDakota (Mr. Case) have already beenmade, and this money has been appro-priated.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair believesthat the proper time to raise suchpoints of order is not at the presenttime, but when the bill is read underthe 5-minute rule for amendment.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Ofcourse, I know that is frequently done,but I think the rule authorizes thepoint of order to be made at any timeduring consideration of the bill. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is in-formed that under the previous prac-tice of the House, such points of ordershould be raised when the bill is readfor amendment.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: I have noobjection to presenting them later, butI do not want to lose my right topresent them by failure to raise themat this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willnot lose any of his rights.

§ 12.15 Points of order againstappropriations in legislativebills may be raised at anytime, even though debate hastaken place on the merits ofthe proposition.On June 17, 1937,(6) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering H.R. 7472, a District of Co-lumbia tax bill. The Clerk read asfollows, and proceedings ensuedas indicated below:

The Commissioners of the District ofColumbia are hereby authorized andempowered, in their discretion, to fix,prescribe, and collect fees for the park-ing of automobiles. . . .

The Commissioners of the District ofColumbia are further authorized andempowered, in their discretion, to pur-chase, rent, and install such mechan-ical parking meters or devices as theCommissioners may deem necessary or


5155


7. James M. Mead (N.Y.).


9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

advisable to insure the collection ofsuch fees. . . .

MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis-consin]: I make the point of order thatthis section appropriates money out offees to be collected, and therefore it isappropriation on a legislative bill. Line24 provides that the purchase price ofthese machines shall be paid from thefees collected and the remainder of thefee shall be paid into the Treasury.

MR. [JACK] NICHOLS [of Oklahoma]:Mr. Chairman, I make the point oforder that the point of order comes toolate. The section has been debated andamendments have been offered, and anamendment to strike out the sectionhas been offered.

MR. O’MALLEY: I was attempting toget recognition from the very begin-ning.

THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The Chair isready to rule. The last sentence of sec-tion 4, rule 21, provides as follows:

A question of order on an appro-priation in any such bill, joint resolu-tion, or amendment thereto may beraised at any time.

It is the opinion of the Chair thatthe point of order is properly raised atthis time and that this is purely an ap-propriation, and, therefore, that lan-guage, as indicated in the gentleman’spoint of order, is ruled out of order.


§ 12.16 A point of order underRule XXI clause 4 (nowclause 5) against an appro-priation in a bill reported bya legislative committee) ‘‘may

be raised at any time’’; and inresponse to an inquiry theChair advised a Member thatif the offending. Languagewas not stricken by amend-ment it could still be reachedby a point of order.On May 18, 1966,(8) during con-

sideration in the Committee of theWhole of an amendment to H.R.14544, the Participation Sales Actof 1966, proceedings occurred asfollows:

Committee amendment: On page 3,line 3 strike out ‘‘Notwithstanding anyother provision of law,’’ and insert:‘‘Subject to the limitations provided inparagraph (4) of this subsection.’’

The committee amendment wasagreed to Mr. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [ofNorth Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a par-liamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The gentlemanwill state the parliamentary inquiry.

MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, I have apoint of order against the language tobe amended by the committee amend-ment. I would not insist on the point oforder if I knew the committee amend-ment would be adopted.

Should the committee amendment berejected, I inquire of the Chair if I thenmight be able to lodge my point oforder against the language stricken bythe amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will stateto the gentleman from North Carolina


5156


10. 103 CONG. REC. 8318, 8319, 85thCong. 1st Sess. 11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).

that the Chair will undertake to pro-tect the gentleman’s right to raisepoints of order under clause 4 of ruleXXI at any time during the consider-ation of this section of the bill whetherthe committee amendments are adopt-ed or rejected.

§ 12.17 A point of order havingbeen raised in the Committeeof the Whole against a bill re-ported by a legislative com-mittee, on the ground that itproposed an appropriationcontrary to Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5), the Com-mittee rose pending decisionby the Chair on the point oforder.

On June 4, 1957,(10) the Committeeof the Whole was considering H.R.6974, a bill to extend the AgriculturalDevelopment and Assistance Act of1954. The following proceedings tookplace:

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of NewYork]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a pointof order against the entire bill, H.R.6974, on the ground that it is a billfrom a committee not having authorityto report an appropriation. . . .

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of NorthCarolina]: . . . I am a little bit appre-hensive that the point of order may besustained if the Chair is called upon torule on it. But, I think it would be veryunfortunate for us to delay final actionon the bill, and in the circumstanceswe have no other alternative otherthan to move that the Committee do

now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, Imake that motion.

THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The Chair is pre-pared to rule on the point of order, butthe motion offered by the gentlemanfrom North Carolina that the Com-mittee do now rise is in order, and theChair will put the question.

The question is on the motion offeredby 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 ofthe Committee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union, reported thatthat Committee, having had under con-sideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to ex-tend the Agricultural Trade Develop-ment and Assistance Act of 1954, andfor other purposes, had come to no res-olution thereon.

Parliamentarian’s Note: In thiscase the language of the bill wasin fact in violation of Rule XXIclause 4 (now clause 5), and theMember in charge of the billmoved that the Committee rise soapplication could be made to theCommittee on Rules for a resolu-tion waiving points of orderagainst the bill. See House Reso-lution 274. However, a point oforder under this rule applies onlyto offensive language in the bill,and not against consideration ofthe entire bill (see 7 Cannon’sPrecedents § 2142; 121 CONG.REC. 12049, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.,


5157



13. George H. Mahon (Tex.).

14. Parliamentarian’s Note: The result-ing change in the Senate bill wastreated as an amendment of the Sen-ate bill and so engrossed and mes-saged to the Senate, though notvoted upon as a separate amend-ment.

15. See Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations,infra; Ch. 33, House-Senate Con-ferences, infra. See also Ch. 13, Pow-ers and Prerogatives of the House,supra.

Apr. 28, 1975). If the entire lan-guage of the bill were ruled out inCommittee of the Whole, the en-acting clause would still exist andan amendment would still be inorder if germane to the title of thebill and not containing an appro-priation.

Point of Order Against SenateBill

§ 12.18 Where language in vio-lation of Rule XXI clause 4(now clause 5) is strickenfrom a Senate bill in Com-mittee of the Whole by apoint of order, the Chairmanreports that fact to theHouse.On July 31, 1957,(12) the Com-

mittee of the Whole was consid-ering S. 1865, a bill providing fordevelopment and modernization ofthe national system of navigationand traffic control facilities. Atone point, proceedings were as fol-lows:

THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The time of thegentleman from Michigan has expired.

All time has expired.The Committee will rise.Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair,Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Com-mittee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union, stated that thatCommittee having had under consider-ation the bill (S. 1856) to provide forthe development and modernization ofthe national system of navigation andtraffic-control facilities to serve presentand future needs of civil and militaryaviation, and for other purposes, pur-suant to House Resolution 361, he re-ported the same back to the House.

The Chairman also reported that thelanguage in the bill on page 7, line 12,reading as follows: ‘‘and unexpendedbalances of appropriations, allocations,and other funds available or’’ wasstricken out on a point of order.(14)

§ 13. House-Senate Rela-tions

The general subject of relationsbetween the House and Senate,and that of House-Senate con-ferences, are discussed in otherchapters.(15) This section discussesa few issues that arise specificallywith respect to appropriations.

Under the Constitution, it is ex-clusively the prerogative of the


5158


16. See House Rules and Manual § 102(1981).

See also Constitution of the UnitedStates of America: Analysis and In-terpretation, S. Doc. No. 92–82, 92dCong. 2d Sess. pp. 125, 126 (1972).

17. See Ch. 13 § 13–20, supra.18. See Ch. 13 § 13, supra.19. Cannon’s Procedure (1959) p. 20.20. 4 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 3566–68.1. 8 Cannon’s Precedents § 2285.

2. See Ch. 13 § 20.3, supra.3. See Ch. 13 § 20.1, supra.4. See Ch. 26, infra, for general discus-

sion of Rule XXI clause 2.5. See § 4, supra, for general discussion

of appropriations on legislative bills.6. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and

Manual § 846 (1981).7. See § 13.16, infra.8. See 7 Cannon’s Precedents § 1572.

Rule XXI clause 5 does apply to anamendment in the House to a Senate

House to originate revenue bills.Article I, section 7, clause 1, pro-vides that,

All Bills for raising Revenue shalloriginate in the House of Representa-tives; but the Senate may propose orconcur with Amendments as on otherBills.(16)

The scope of this prerogative isdiscussed in detail elsewhere.(17)

(Because questions relating to theprerogative of the House to origi-nate revenue legislation involveinterpretation of the Constitutionrather than House rules, they aredecided by the House rather thanthe Chair.) (18)

The House has traditionallytaken the view that this preroga-tive encompasses the sole powerto originate at least the generalappropriation bills. Mr. ClarenceCannon, of Missouri, has ob-served: (19)

Under immemorial custom the gen-eral appropriation bills, providing for anumber of subjects (20) as distinguishedfrom special bills appropriating for sin-gle, specific purposes,(1) originate in

the House of Representatives andthere has been no deviation from thatpractice since the establishment of theConstitution.

Following the view expressed byMr. Cannon, the House has re-turned Senate-passed general ap-propriation bills.(2)

The Senate has not always ac-cepted the view that the Househas the exclusive right to origi-nate appropriation measures.(3)

Issues sometimes arise with re-spect to the implications of Houserules barring, in specified cir-cumstances, unauthorized appro-priations and legislation on gen-eral appropriation bills,(4) and ap-propriations on legislative bills.(5)

Points of order under the Houserule prohibiting appropriations onlegislative bills (6) have been suc-cessfully directed against items ofappropriation in Senate bills, forexample,(7) but not against a Sen-ate amendment to an appropria-tion bill.(8) Procedural remedies


5159


amendment to a House legislativebill. See Procedure in the U.S. Houseof Representatives Ch. 25 § 3.29 (4thed.).

9. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules andManual § 829 (1981).

10. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules andManual § 834 (1981), prohibits unau-thorized appropriations and legisla-tion on general appropriation bills.For further discussion of unauthor-

ized appropriations and legislationon general appropriation bills, gen-erally, and Senate amendments thatviolate the rule, see Ch. 26, infra.

11. See § 13.8, 13.9, infra.12. See § 13.9, infra.

against the inclusion of appropria-tions in Senate bills also includepossible points of order under sec-tion 401 of the CongressionalBudget Act (if the Senate provi-sion can be construed as newspending authority not subject toamounts specified in advance inappropriations acts where budgetauthority has not been provided inadvance; section 401 is not appli-cable where money has alreadybeen appropriated and is in a re-volving fund).

The House may also return Sen-ate bills which contain appropria-tions to the Senate by assertingthe constitutional prerogative ofthe 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:No amendment of the Senate to a

general appropriation bill which wouldbe in violation of the provisions ofclause 2 of Rule XXI, if said amend-ment had originated in the House,(10)

nor any amendment of the Senate pro-viding for an appropriation upon anybill other than a general appropriationbill, shall be agreed to by the man-agers on the part of the House unlessspecific authority to agree to suchamendment shall be first given by theHouse by a separate vote on everysuch amendment.

Under this rule, where a Houselegislative measure has been com-mitted to conference, and the con-ferees agree to a Senate amend-ment appropriating funds, theconference report thereon may beruled out.(11) In the 96th Con-gress, a point of order that Houseconferees had violated clause 2 ofRule XX by agreeing to a provi-sion in a Senate amendment to aHouse legislative bill, directingthe use of funds already appro-priated for a new purpose, wasconceded, and the conference re-port was ruled out of order.(12) Buta point of order against an appro-priation in a conference report ona legislative bill will only lieunder the rule if that provisionwas originally contained in a Sen-ate amendment and if House con-ferees were without specific au-thority to agree to that amend-


5160


13. See § 13.12, infra.14. See § 13.11, infra.15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives Ch. 25 § 3.30 and Ch.33 § 15.13. (4th ed.).

16. 81 CONG. REC. 6304–06, 75th Cong.1st Sess.

For further discussion of the pow-ers of the two Houses with respect torevenue and appropriation measures,see Ch. 13, supra. See also Chs. 32and 33, infra, for discussion ofHouse-Senate relations, conferences,and related matters. And see § 13.2,infra.


ment, and will not lie against aprovision permitted by the Houseto remain in its bill.(13) Moreover,since the rule applies only to Sen-ate amendments which are sent toconference, it does not apply toappropriations contained in Sen-ate legislative bills.(14)

Where an appropriation for acertain purpose has been enactedinto law, a provision in a legisla-tive bill authorizing the use, with-out a subsequent appropriation, ofthose funds for a new purposeconstitutes an appropriation pro-hibited by clause 5 of Rule XXI,and if in a Senate amendment in-cluded in a conference report vio-lates clause 2 of Rule XX (prohib-iting House conferees from agree-ing to such a provision absent au-thority from the House).(15)

f

Prerogatives of House and Sen-ate

§ 13.1 A discussion took placein the House with regard tothe prerogatives of theHouse in initiating the formsof general appropriationbills, during debate on a mo-

tion that the House instructits managers of a conferencecommittee not to agree to aSenate amendment to a WarDepartment appropriationbill.On June 24, 1937,(16) during

consideration of the War Depart-ment appropriation bill of 1938,the following proceedings tookplace:

MR. [J. BUELL] SNYDER of Pennsyl-vania: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to take from the Speaker’stable the bill H.R. 6692, with Senateamendments thereto, disagree to theSenate amendments, and agree to theconference asked by the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: (17) Is there objection?. . .

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis-souri: Mr. Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on Appropriations, I submita motion, which I send to the desk.


Mr. Cannon of Missouri movesthat the managers on the part of theHouse at the conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses onthe amendments of the Senate to the


5161


bill H.R. 6692, the Military Appro-priation Act, 1938, be instructed notto agree to the Senate amendmentsto such bill numbered 47 to 77, in-clusive, and 80, and not to agree tothe amendment of the Senateamending the title of such bill.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, the Constitution confers upon theHouse and the Senate respectively cer-tain exclusive prerogatives. Amongthose reserved to the House by theConstitution is the right to originaterevenue bills, and from the beginningof the Government the House has as-serted and successfully maintainedthat the right to originate revenue billsalso involves the right to initiate gen-eral appropriation bills. That has beenthe uniform practice, and in keepingwith that doctrine the House has for-mulated the general appropriation billssince the establishment of the Govern-ment. Of course, the right to originategeneral appropriation bills necessarilyincludes the right to determine theform and the manner in which theyshall be presented, and from the begin-ning the number and scope of the var-ious annual supply bills have been de-termined by the House with the acqui-escence of the Senate. Only on one ortwo rare occasions has this right of theHouse been questioned, and in eachsuch instance the Senate has promptlydisavowed any intention of infringingon the constitutional prerogatives ofthe House and yielded without conten-tion.

The last instance was in the secondsession of the Sixty-second Congressand was the occasion for an exhaustivestudy of the subject by Hon. JohnSharp Williams, formerly minorityleader of the House and at the time a

member of the Senate, which was pub-lished as a Senate document andwhich so conclusively confirmed thecontention of the House that its rightto originate the general supply billsand determine their form had not sincebeen challenged until the receipt justnow of a message from the Senate in-forming the House that the Senate hasassumed the right to combine the twoWar Department appropriation bills byattaching the nonmilitary bill to themilitary bill as an amendment. . . .

The motion offered proposes [thatHouse conferees be instructed] to de-cline to agree to the amendment bywhich the two bills have been mergedor to any perfecting amendment whichmay have been made to the text of thenonmilitary bill. Under such instruc-tion, House conferees will be at libertyto consider and agree in full on thefinal text of the War Department ap-propriation bill providing for militaryactivities and the Senate may thenmessage over as a separate bill thenonmilitary bill, as amended by theSenate, and the House will appointconferees to meet with Senate con-ferees on the disagreeing votes of thetwo Houses on the bill as originated bythe House of Representatives.

The motion was agreed to.

§ 13.2 The Senate receded fromits amendments which pro-posed to attach a non-military appropriation bill toa military activities appro-priation bill and in so doingdiscussed the role of the Sen-ate in amending general ap-propriation bills of theHouse.


5162


18. CONG. REC. 6652–54, 75th Cong. 1stSess. For further discussion of thepowers of the two Houses with re-spect to revenue and appropriationmeasures, see Ch. 13, supra. Seealso Chs. 32 and 33, infra, for discus-sion of House-Senate relations, con-ferences, and related matters.

On July 1, 1937,(18) the fol-lowing proceedings took place inthe Senate during consideration ofa conference report on H.R. 6692(appropriations for the militaryestablishment):

MR. [ROYAL S.] COPELAND [of NewYork]: Mr. President, I am about tomove the adoption of the report, butbefore doing so I think an explanationshould be made to the Senate. I amsure that the matter which I shallpresent will be of interest to every Sen-ator, because it has to do with therights of the Senate regarding appro-priation bills.

During the 15 years of my member-ship in the Senate, and for a long timeprior thereto, it has been the custom toembody all appropriations for the Mili-tary Establishment in one bill. Thisyear the House . . . undertook to . . .separate the appropriations and em-body them in two bills, one devoted tothe strictly military activities . . . anda second to the nonmilitary activitiesof the Government. . . .

The Senate Committee on Appro-priations decided to blend the bills andto present them to the Senate as theyhave been presented through manyyears. Explanation was made to theSenate, and the Senate, by unanimousvote, decided to accept and act uponthe bill in the usual form.

After discussing the response ofthe House, and noting the exist-ence of divergent views of the re-spective prerogatives of theHouses relating to appropriationbills and their form, the Senatorstated:

Of course, we do not concede . . .that the Constitution confers upon theHouse any such right to initiate gen-eral appropriation bills. . . .

Mr. President, I am instructed bythe Committee on Appropriations tosay that we challenge the contentionthat it is the exclusive right of theHouse to determine the form and num-ber of appropriation bills.

The Senator, however, noted theexistence of special circumstancesin the present case, and indicatedhe would therefore move that theconference report be agreed to.The conference report was accord-ingly agreed to. The following pro-ceedings then took place:

MR. COPELAND: I now move that theSenate agree to the amendments of theHouse to the amendments of the Sen-ate numbered 24, 26, and 79.

The motion was agreed to.MR. COPELAND: I now move that the

Senate recede from its amendmentsstill in disagreement, and its amend-ment 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 Sen-ator from New York to tell the Senatethe status of the military appropria-tions, and the status of the nonmilitaryappropriations. In what condition doesthis action leave them?


5163




MR. COPELAND: Mr. President, title Iof the Senate bill, which is the militarypart, has now been agreed to by bothHouses, and on my motion, just made,we receded from the amendmentswhich covered the nonmilitary appro-priations.

I now wish to present to the Senatefor immediate action House bill 7493,as amended by the Senate committeeand by the Senate to cover the non-military item, so that the House willbe in the position of having two bills,as it desires.

MR. ROBINSON: In other words, thatputs the Senate in the position of com-pletely yielding to the House?

MR. COPELAND: Yes.

Reference of Bill to Committeeon Appropriations

§ 13.3 The Speaker announcesto the House that he has re-ferred a general appropria-tion bill with Senate amend-ments thereto to the Com-mittee on AppropriationsOn July 2, 1945,(19) Speaker

Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated asfollows:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair desires toannounce that he has referred the billH.R. 3368, the war agencies bill, withSenate amendments thereto, to theCommittee on Appropriations.

Parliamentarian’s Note: Whilethe Speaker has this discretionaryauthority to refer Senate amend-

ments to any bill under RuleXXIV clause 2, it is seldom exer-cised.

Conferees for Separate Chap-ters of Bill

§ 13.4 The Speaker has ap-pointed a series of confereesfor separate chapters of anappropriation bill.On July 27, 1955,(1) a Member

addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn,of Texas, as follows, and pro-ceedings ensued as indicatedbelow:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to take from the Speaker’stable the bill (H.R. 7278) making sup-plemental appropriations for the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1956, and forother purposes, with Senate amend-ments thereto, disagree to the Senateamendments, and agree to the con-ference asked by the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Mis-souri? [After a pause.] The Chair hearsnone and appoints the following con-ferees: Messrs. Cannon and Taber; andon chapter I, Messrs. Whitten, Mar-shall, and H. Carl Anderson; on chap-ter II, Messrs. Preston, Thomas, andBow; on chapter III, Messrs. Mahon,Sheppard, Sikes, Wigglesworth,Scrivner, and Ford; on chapter IV,Messrs. Passman, Gary, andWigglesworth.


5164



§ 13.5 In appointing confereeson the general appropriationbill, 1951, the Speaker ap-pointed a set of conferees foreach chapter of the bill, andfour Members to sit in theconference on all chapters.On Aug. 7, 1950,(2) a Member

addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn,of Texas, and the following pro-ceedings ensued:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to take from the Speaker’sdesk the bill H.R. 7786, an act makingappropriations for the support of theGovernment for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1951, and for other purposes,with Senate amendments thereto, dis-agree to the Senate amendments, andask for a conference with the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Mis-souri? [After a pause.] The Chair hearsnone and appoints the following con-ferees.

Managers on the part of the House:Messrs. Cannon, Rabaut, Norrell,

Taber, and on Chap. I, Messrs. Batesof 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, Ste-fan, and Clevenger. . . .

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da-kota: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in-quiry.


MR. CASE of South Dakota: Will thechairman take a minute to explain howthe conferees will operate under thisarrangement?

Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to address theHouse for 1 minute.


There was no objection.MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker, we ex-

pect to go to conference tomorrowmorning at 10 o’clock. The bill will betaken up by chapters seriatim. As achapter is reached the entire sub-committee which wrote that particularchapter, and which therefore is morefamiliar with it than anyone else onthe committee, along with the othermanagers on the part of the House,will take up the chapter with the Sen-ate conferees.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Thismeans, then, that the four Memberswho were first named will sit throughthe entire conference.

MR. CANNON: They are the rankingmembers on the central subcommitteewhich reported the bill to the Houseand will sit with the respective sub-committees throughout the conference.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: And theMembers who are assigned to a par-ticular chapter will receive notificationas their particular chapter is ap-proached?

MR. CANNON: When a chapter istaken up, the conferees on the nextsucceeding chapter will be notified. Wehope to proceed with as little delay aspossible, subject always to the ap-proval of the managers on the part ofthe Senate.


5165



4. 80 CONG. REC. 7790–92, 74th Cong.2d Sess.

Agreement as to Selection ofConference Chairman

§ 13.6 An agreement was madebetween the House and theSenate Committees on Ap-propriations with respect toselecting a conference chair-man.On July 19, 1962,(3) Mr. Clar-

ence Cannon, of Missouri, statedas follows:

Mr. Speaker, each branch of Con-gress in conference has group auton-omy. The selection of the conferencechairman is procedural for orderlyfunctioning of the conference. Realizingthis, the question of the selection ofthe conference chairman for thepresent session of Congress shall beleft to the decision of the two sub-committee chairmen.

It is agreed by the joint committeeon behalf of the full Committees on Ap-propriations of the Senate and Houseof Representatives that for this sessiononly the subcommittee chairmen ofeach body shall decide who shall act aschairman of the conference. It is fur-ther agreed that the chairmen of theSenate and House Committees on Ap-propriations appoint representatives ofeach committee to serve as a joint com-mittee to study all the issues involvedand to report in January 1963 theirrecommendations.

Appropriations on LegislativeBills—Duty of Conferees

§ 13.7 Conferees of the Housemay not in conference agree

to a Senate amendment pro-viding for an appropriationupon any other than a gen-eral appropriation bill with-out first having secured spe-cific authority from theHouse to do so.On May 22, 1936,(4) a Member

addressed Speaker Joseph W.Byrns, of Tennessee, as follows,and proceedings ensued as indi-cated below:

MR. [JAMES M.] MEAD [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, I call up the conferencereport on the bill (H.R. 9496) to protectthe United States against loss in thedelivery through the mails of checks inpayment of benefits provided for bylaws administered by the Veterans’ Ad-ministration, and I ask unanimousconsent that the statement may beread 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 oforder on the conference report that itincludes an appropriation which is con-trary to the rules of the House and theSenate. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman fromNew York [Mr. Mead], chairman of theCommittee on the Post Office and PostRoads, presents a conference reportsigned by the conferees on the part ofthe Senate and the House. The gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan]makes the point of order that the con-ference report is out of order becausethe conferees on the part of the House


5166


in conference agreed to an amendmentof the Senate providing an appropria-tion contrary to the rules of the House.

Senate amendment no. 1 containsthe following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury isauthorized to advance, from time totime, to the Postmaster General,from the appropriation contained inthe Supplemental Appropriation Act,fiscal year 1936, approved February11, 1936, for ‘‘administrative ex-penses, adjusted-compensation pay-ment act, 1936, Treasury Depart-ment, 1936 and 1937’’, such sums asare certified by the Postmaster Gen-eral to be required for the expensesof the Post Office Department in con-nection with the handling of thebonds issued hereunder. Suchbonds—

This amendment also contains thefollowing language:

The Secretary of the Treasuryshall reimburse the Postmaster Gen-eral, from the aforesaid appropria-tion contained in said supplementalappropriation act, for such postageand registry fees as may be requiredin connection with such transmittal.

Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of theHouse of Representatives, reads as fol-lows:

No amendment of the Senate to ageneral appropriation bill whichwould be in violation of the provi-sions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if saidamendment had originated in theHouse, nor any amendment of theSenate providing for an appropria-tion upon any bill other than a gen-eral appropriation bill, shall beagreed to by the managers on thepart of the House unless specific au-thority to agree to such amendmentshall be first given by the House bya separate vote on every suchamendment.

It is clear to the Chair that the man-agers on the part of the House inagreeing in conference to Senateamendment no. 1 violated the provi-sions of rule XX, inasmuch as theamendment provides an appropriation.

The Chair therefore sustains thepoint of order.

The Clerk will report the firstamendment in disagreement.

MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry.


MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, if the con-ference report is out of order, how canwe consider it?

THE SPEAKER: The amendments arebefore the House and must be disposedof.

MR. SNELL: I supposed that thewhole report went out.

THE SPEAKER: The report goes out,but that leaves the amendments beforethe House, and some action must betaken on them. It is for the House tosay what action it will take. . . .

MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan](interrupting the reading of the Senateamendment): Mr. Speaker, a point oforder.


MR. MAPES: Mr. Speaker,supplementing what the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. Snell] has said, anattempt was made to get this bill be-fore the House by calling up the con-ference report and the conference re-port was held out of order. No furtheraction to get the bill before the Househas been taken. There has been no re-quest to bring it up in any other way


5167



except through the conference report,and the Speaker, very properly I think,has ruled that the conference report isout of order.

THE SPEAKER: The conference reportwas called up by the gentleman fromNew York [Mr. Mead]. The conferencereport has been held to be out of order,which leaves the Senate amendmentsbefore the House for consideration. TheHouse must take some action on them.

MR. MAPES: How do the amend-ments get before the House for consid-eration?

THE SPEAKER: They are called up bythe gentleman from New York [Mr.Mead].

MR. MAPES: No attempt has beenmade by the gentleman from New York[Mr. Mead], as I understand, to callthem up.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair, in answerto the gentleman from Michigan, readsfrom section 3257 of Cannon’s Prece-dents:

When a conference report is ruledout of order the bill and amendmentsare again before the House as whenfirst presented, and motions relatingto amendments and conference areagain in order.

The Chair thinks that completely an-swers the gentleman from Michigan.

MR. MAPES: That seems to cover thematter.

MR. [FREDERICK R.] LEHLBACH [ofNew Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a par-liamentary inquiry.


MR. LEHLBACH: Are amendments puton a House bill by the Senate privi-leged?

THE SPEAKER: After the stage of dis-agreement has been reached they are.

For this reason it is necessary that theHouse take some action upon theamendments at this time.

§ 13.8 Where House confereesagreed to a Senate amend-ment providing that ‘‘bene-fits shall be paid from thecivil service retirement anddisability fund’’, such anagreement constituted a vio-lation of Rule XX clause 2,and was ruled out on a pointof order.On Oct. 4, 1962,(5) a Member

addressed Speaker pro temporeCarl Albert, of Oklahoma, andproceedings ensued as follows:

MR. [THOMAS J.] MURRAY [of Ten-nessee]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the con-ference report on the bill (H.R. 7927) toadjust postal rates, and for other pur-poses, and ask unanimous consent thatthe statement of the managers on thepart of the House be read in lieu of thereport.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Tennessee?

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Speaker, reserving the right to objectand I do so in order to make a par-liamentary inquiry, I desire to make apoint of order against considerations ofthe conference report. . . .

Mr. Speaker, I desire to make apoint of order against consideration ofthe conference report, and I ask to berecognized at the proper time to makethat point of order.


5168



THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Whenthe Clerk reports the title of the bill,the gentleman may be recognized.

The Clerk will report the title of thebill.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The

gentleman from Iowa makes a point oforder. The gentleman will state thepoint of order.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make thepoint of order against the conferencereport on the ground that it violatesclause 2 of rule XX of the House rules.

Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part asfollows:

Nor any amendment of the Senateproviding for an appropriation uponany bill other than a general appro-priation bill shall be agreed to by themanagers on the part of the Houseunless specific authority to agree tosuch amendment shall first be givenby the House by a separate vote onevery such amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passedwith the amendment of the Senate pro-vides in section 1104, page 110, the fol-lowing:

Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding anyother provision of law the benefitsmade payable under the Civil Serv-ice Retirement Act by reason of theenactment of this part shall be paidfrom the civil service retirement anddisability fund.

The words ‘‘shall be paid from thecivil service retirement and dis-ability fund’’ constitute an appropria-tion within the meaning of clause 2of rule XX. . . .

Inasmuch as the House, when itsent the bill to conference, did notgive specific authority to agree tosuch amendment I, therefore, submitthat it is not in order for such lan-guage to be included in the con-ference report. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Doesthe gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.Murray] desire to be heard on thepoint 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 lan-guage contained on page 110, section1104, line 12, ‘‘shall be paid from thecivil service retirement and disabilityfund’’ is in violation of clause 2, ruleXX.


§ 13.9 A point of order thatHouse conferees had violatedclause 2, Rule XX by agreeingto a provision in a Senateamendment to a House legis-lative bill, directing the useof funds already appro-priated for a new purpose,was conceded and the con-ference report was ruled outof order.On Nov. 29, 1979,(6) a con-

ference report on H.R. 2676 (EPAresearch authorization for appro-priations, fiscal year 1980) author-izing appropriations for environ-mental research and developmentwas called up for consideration.Included in the conference reportwas a provision originally con-tained in a Senate amendment,directing that funds appropriated


5169


7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).8. 125 CONG. REC. 34114, 96th Cong.

1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1979.

pursuant to the authorization beobligated and expended on a cer-tain project not specifically fundedby the appropriation law.

The Chair, noting that the ap-propriation bill for the activityconcerned had already been en-acted for the year in question,ruled that the provision at thattime constituted an appropriationon a legislative bill and could not,under clause 2 of Rule XX, beagreed to by House conferees. Theproceedings were as follows:

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massa-chusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a pointof order against the conference report.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) Thegentleman from Massachusetts willstate the point of order.

MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, clause 5of rule XXI prohibits committees with-out proper jurisdiction from reportingmeasures carrying appropriations. In-terpretation of the rule has held thatlanguage reappropriating, makingavailable, or diverting an appropriationalready made for one purpose to an-other is not in order. This has beensustained numerous times, but it isvery clearly stated in a ruling on Au-gust 11, 1921, and is a precedent thatis nearly identical to the issue that isbefore us now.

In the paragraph authorizing appro-priations for the health and ecologicaleffects activity of the water quality re-search and development programHouse conferees on H.R. 2676 agreedto retain in the bill the following provi-sion added by the Senate:

Provided, That of the funds appro-priated pursuant to this paragraph$900,000 shall be obligated and ex-pended on the Cold Climate Re-search program through the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency’s Cor-vallis Environmental Research Lab-oratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

The 1980 Environmental ProtectionAgency budget request did not includeany funding for cold climate research.The 1980 appropriation of EPA’s re-search and development programs alsodid not include any funding for cold cli-mate research.

The proviso amounts to a diversionof funds previously appropriated andviolates clause 5, rule XXI.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point oforder be sustained.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Doesthe gentleman from Florida (Mr.Fuqua) wish to speak on the point oforder?

MR. [DON] FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, Iconcede the point of order.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thepoint of order is conceded and sus-tained.

In this instance, the conferencereport containing the Senateamendment having been ruled outof order because containing an ap-propriation, the manager of theconference report moved to recedeand concur in the Senate amend-ment with an amendment merelyencouraging, but not mandating,the use of funds already appro-priated for a new purpose.(8)


5170



10. Inclusion of such matter violatesRule XXVIII clause 3.

§ 13.10 The rule restricting theauthority of conferees inagreeing to appropriationlanguage in Senate amend-ments does not apply to lan-guage in Senate bills.On Jan. 25, 1972,(9) a con-

ference report on S. 2819 (the for-eign military assistance author-ization) was under considerationwhich contained an additionalprovision beyond the scope of thedifferences committed to con-ference.(10) The Speaker, Carl Al-bert, of Oklahoma, in overruling apoint of order against the report,noted that the House had adopteda resolution waiving points oforder against the inclusion of suchadditional matter, and thatclauses 2 and 3 of Rule XX (re-stricting the authority of Houseconferees from agreeing to appro-priation or nongermane language,respectively, in Senate amend-ments) are not applicable where aSenate bill and House amend-ments are committed to con-ference. The proceedings were asindicated below:

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr.Speaker, I desire to make a point oforder against the consideration of theconference report. . . .

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of orderon the grounds that certain provisionsof the bill are not germane and exceedthe authority of the conference. I pointspecifically, Mr. Speaker, to the lan-guage to be found on page 13 of the re-port, section 658:

Sec. 658. Limitation on Use ofFunds.—

(a) Except as otherwise provided inthis section, none of the funds appro-priated to carry out the provisions ofthis Act or the Foreign MilitarySales Act shall be obligated or ex-pended until the Comptroller Gen-eral of the United States certifies tothe Congress that all funds pre-viously appropriated and thereafterimpounded during the fiscal year1971 for programs and activities ad-ministered by or under the directionof the Department of Agriculture,the Department of Housing andUrban Development, and the Depart-ment of Health, Education and Wel-fare have been released for obliga-tion and expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that this lan-guage goes far beyond the scope of thelegislation, far beyond any intent ofthe Congress It is neither germane nordoes it come within the scope of thelegislation. . . .

MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Penn-sylvania]: . . . The rule is broad andcovers the objections made by the gen-tleman from Iowa. Last November theHouse sent to conference two foreignaid bills, one economic and one mili-tary, which passed the Senate. At thattime the House struck out all after theenacting clauses of both bills and in-serted in lieu thereof the complete textof H.R. 9910, which had passed theHouse last August.

All the provisions of both the Houseand Senate bills that were in disagree-


5171




ment were considered in conference.The House having adopted a rule tosend these two Senate bills (to con-ference) the amendments to which thegentleman from Iowa has objectedautomatically became House amend-ments and the provisions from theSenate bill are no longer subject to apoint of order.


The gentleman from Iowa has raiseda point of order against the conferencereport on the ground that the Houseconferees have exceeded their author-ity by including in the conference re-port provisions not germane or not ineither the Senate bill or the Houseamendment and agreed to an appro-priation in violation of clause 2, ruleXX. That rule provides in relevantpart:

No amendment of the Senate . . .providing for an appropriation uponany bill other than a general appro-priation bill, shall be agreed to bythe managers on the part of theHouse.

The Chair would point out that itwas a Senate bill which was sent toconference, with a House amendmentthereto. The rule is restricted in its ap-plication to Senate amendments, andthus is not applicable in the presentsituation.

The Chair also points out that theresolution under which this conferencereport is being considered specificallywaives points of order under clause 3,rule XXVIII.

The action of the conferees in addingthe language in section 658 of the con-ference report is protected by thiswaiver of points of order.

For these reasons the Chair over-rules the point of order.

§ 13.11 Clause 2 of Rule XXwhich precludes House con-ferees from agreeing to Sen-ate amendments providingfor appropriations in a con-ference report absent spe-cific authority applies onlyto Senate amendments whichare sent to conference andnot to appropriations con-tained in Senate legislativebills.On June 30, 1976,(11) the Speak-

er (12) overruled a point of orderagainst a conference report con-taining a provision permitting anew use of funds in an existing re-volving fund, even though suchprovision constituted an appro-priation on a legislative bill, sincethe provision had been containedin the Senate bill and since clause2 of Rule XX is not applicablewhere a Senate bill and Houseamendments are committed toconference. The proceedings wereas follows:

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the con-ference report on the Senate bill (S.3295) to extend the authorization forannual contributions under the U.S.Housing Act of 1937, to extend certain


5172


housing programs under the NationalHousing Act, and for other purposes,and ask unanimous consent that thestatement of the managers be read inlieu of the report. . . .

MR. [GARRY] BROWN [of Michigan]:Mr. Speaker, I make a point of orderagainst the conference report on S.3295 on the basis that the House man-agers exceeded their authority byagreeing to two matters not in theoriginal House amendment to the Sen-ate bill and which violates clause 2,rule XX, of the House Rules and Prece-dents of the House. Clause 2, rule XX,reads in part as follows:

Nor any amendment of the Senateproviding for an appropriation uponany bill other than a general appro-priation bill shall be agreed to by themanagers on the part of the Houseunless specific authority to agree tosuch amendment shall first be givenby the House by a separate vote onevery such amendment.

The Senate-passed bill contains sec-tion 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which in effectprovide for expenditures to be madefrom the various FHA insurance fundsto honor claims made eligible for pay-ment by the provisions of section 9generally. These amendments are tosection 518(b) of the National HousingAct and relate to sections 203 and 221housing programs for which the au-thority of the Secretary of HUD to payclaims related to certain structural de-fects has expired if the claims were notfiled by March 1976.

Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) includeidentical language which states as fol-lows:

Expenditures pursuant to this sub-section shall be made from the insur-ance fund chargeable for insurance

benefits on the mortgage coveringthe structure to which the expendi-tures relate.

The words ‘‘Expenditures pursuantto this subsection shall be made fromthe insurance fund’’ constitute an ap-propriation within the meaning ofclause 2, rule XX. Based on precedentsunder clause 5, rule XXI, it is clearthat payments out of funds such as theFHA insurance fund are within themeaning of the term ‘‘appropriation’’and that the action taken by the Housemanagers is violative of clause 2, ruleXX.

In support of this point of order, Icite the ruling of the Chair on a pointof order raised by H.R. Gross on Octo-ber 1, 1962, to the conference report onH.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreedto in that report provided that—

The benefits made payable . . . byreason of enactment of this partshall be paid from the civil serviceretirement and disability fund.

Inasmuch as when the House agreedto go to conference, it did not give spe-cific authority to agree to such anamendment. I therefore submit that itis not in order for such language to beincluded in the conference report.

The FHA insurance funds are de-signed to provide the reserves for pay-ments on defaulted mortgages and forthe operation of HUD related to thevarious insurance programs and anydiversion of the use of such funds suchas for payment for defects in the struc-ture would violate clause 5 of rule XXI.In further support of this point oforder, and specifically on the pointthat the provisions constitute a diver-sion of funds for a separate purposenot within the intention of the legisla-


5173


tion establishing the fund, I cite theruling of the Chair on October 5, 1972,which holds that an amendment allow-ing for the use of highway trust fundmoneys to purchase buses,

would seem to violate clause 4 ofrule XXI in that it would divert oractually reappropriate for a new pur-pose funds which have been appro-priated and allocated and are in thepipeline for purposes specified by thelaw under the original 1956 act.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point oforder against the conference report onthis basis.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that thegentleman from Oklahoma is the onewho sustained the point of order raisedby Mr. Gross in the case which I havereferred to.

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to antici-pate a ruling against my point oforder, but if that should be the case,Mr. Speaker, I suggest we are makinga mockery of the rules of the House.

Since some of my comrades may notbe aware of it, the rules of the Housein clause 5, rule XXI, provide:

No bill or joint resolution carryingappropriations shall be reported byany committee not having jurisdic-tion to report appropriations, norshall an amendment proposing anappropriation be in order during theconsideration of a bill or joint resolu-tion reported by a committee nothaving that jurisdiction. . . .

Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of theHouse. Now, since the House in itsrules cannot have extraterritorial effector extra body effect, in order to protectthe House from having its rules vio-lated by the Senate, we adopted clause2 of rule XX which related to actionthat the Senate might take that would

be violative of the House rules. But thevery fact that this is not a Senateamendment on a House bill is insignifi-cant if the rules of the House are goingto have any real meaning becausewhat we are saying is any time wewant to violate the House rules, wecan have the rule provide that afterconsideration of the bill it shall be inorder for the such-and-such Senate billto be taken from the Speaker’s deskand everything after the enactingclause stricken and apply the Houselanguage. . . .

MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [ofOhio]: . . . Mr. Speaker, clause 2 ofrule XX of the rules of the Housemakes out of order any provision in aSenate amendment which provides foran appropriation. However, the ruledoes not address itself to provisions inSenate bills. The conferees acceptedthe provision in question, withoutchange, from a Senate bill and notfrom a Senate amendment. Therefore,no violation of the House rules is in-volved even if the provision is consid-ered to be an appropriation.


The gentleman from Michigan hasmade a point of order against the con-ference report, referring to the lan-guage of rule XX, clause 2, whichplaces certain restrictions on the man-agers on the part of the House in aconference with the Senate.

The Chair has ruled on this matterbefore.

On January 25, 1972, the Chairruled in connection with a point oforder made by the gentleman fromIowa (Mr. Gross) against the con-ference report on a foreign military as-


5174


13. 122 CONG. REC. 21634, 94th Cong.2d Sess., June 30, 1976.


sistance authorization bill (S. 2819) onthe ground that the House confereeshad exceeded their authority by includ-ing in the conference report an appro-priation entirely in conflict with clause2, rule XX. That rule provides, in rel-evant part, that ‘‘no amendment of theSenate’’—that is the important lan-guage—no amendment of the Senateproviding for an appropriation uponany bill other than a general appro-priation bill, shall be agreed to by themanagers on the part of the House.

The Chair would point out that itwas a Senate bill which was sent toconference with a House amendmentthereto. The rule is restricted in its ap-plication to Senate amendments and,thus, is not applicable in the presentsituation.


After the above ruling, Mr.Brown pointed to the followinglanguage in the conference reportas representing, in effect, anagreement by the Senate ‘‘with aSenate amendment’’:

That the Senate recede from its dis-agreement to the amendment of theHouse to the text of the bill and agreeto the same with an amendment.

The Speaker responded that aconference report on a Senate billwhich recommends that the Sen-ate concur in the House amend-ment with an amendment doesnot place before the House a Sen-ate amendment against which apoint of order can be raised underclause 2 of Rule XX, since the con-

ference report represents only aproposed compromise and not aSenate amendment originallycommitted to conference.(13)

§ 13.12 Although Rule XXIclause 5 permits a point oforder against an appropria-tion in a legislative bill oramendment to be raised ‘‘atany time’’ during the initialconsideration of the bill oramendment under the five-minute rule in the House, apoint of order against similarlanguage permitted to re-main in the House versionand included in a conferencereport on that bill will notlie, since the only rule pro-hibiting such inclusion (RuleXX clause 2) is limited to lan-guage originally contained ina Senate amendment whereHouse conferees have notbeen specifically authorizedto agree thereto.The following proceedings took

place on May 1, 1975,(14) duringconsideration of a conference re-port, as indicated below:

MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Penn-sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up theconference report on the bill (H.R.


5175


6096) to authorize funds for humani-tarian assistance and evacuation pro-grams in Vietnam and to clarify re-strictions on the availability of fundsfor the use of U.S. Armed Forces inIndochina, and for other purposes, andask unanimous consent that the state-ment of the managers be read in lieuof the report. . . .

MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, I would like tomake a point of order against the con-ference report.

THE SPEAKER [Carl Albert, of Okla-homa]: The gentlewoman will state it.

MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Speaker, section7 of the conference report in the lastsentence refers to evacuation programsauthorized by this act. It permits awaiver of a series of laws for the pur-pose of allowing those evacuation pro-grams to take place.

In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section3 dealt with evacuation programs re-ferred to in section 2 of the bill andwaived the same series of laws with re-spect thereto. In order for section 3 tobe considered, it required a rule fromthe Rules Committee. And a rule wasgranted waiving points of order againstsection 3 of the bill. But section 7 ofthe conference report, in speaking ofevacuation programs authorized by theentire act and not just by one section,exceeds the scope of section 3 of thebill and exceeds the waiver that waspermitted under the rule. It thereforeviolates rule XXI, clause 5, and vio-lates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibitsHouse conferees from accepting a Sen-ate amendment providing for an appro-priation on a nonappropriation bill inexcess of the rules of the House. . . .

MR. MORGAN: . . . The point oforder has no standing. Section 3 of the

House bill and section 7 of the con-ference report referred to use of fundsof the Armed Forces of the UnitedStates for the protection and evacu-ation of certain persons from SouthVietnam. The language of the con-ference report does not increase fundsavailable for that purpose. Both theHouse bill and the conference reportsimply removed limitations on the useof funds from the DOD budget. Theselimitations were not applicable to thefunds authorized in H.R. 6096. Thescope of the waiver is the same in theconference report and the House bill.

Mr. Speaker, the changes in lan-guage are merely conforming changes.Section 2 of the House bill was a sec-tion which authorized the evacuationprograms in the House bill. The con-ference version contains the evacuationprograms authority in several sectionsplus reference to the entire act ratherthan to one specific section. . . .


The gentlewoman from New Yorkmakes the point of order that section 7of the conference report constitutes anappropriation on a legislative bill inviolation of clause 5, rule XXI, towhich the House conferees were notauthorized to agree pursuant to clause2, rule XX.

The Chair would first point out thatthe provisions of clause 2, rule XX, pre-clude House conferees from agreeing toa Senate amendment containing an ap-propriation on a legislative bill, and donot restrict their authority to consideran appropriation which might havebeen contained in the House-passedversion. In this instance, the confereeshave recommended language which is


5176


15. 81 CONG. REC. 975, 976, 75th Cong.1st Sess.

virtually identical to section 3 of theHouse bill, and they have not agreed toa Senate amendment containing an ap-propriation. Therefore, clause 2, ruleXX, is not applicable to the presentconference report.

While clause 5, rule XXI, permits apoint of order to be raised against anappropriation in a legislative bill ‘‘atany time’’ consistent with the orderlyconsideration of the bill to which ap-plied—Cannon’s VII, sections 2138–39—the Chair must point out thatH.R. 6096 was considered in the Houseunder the terms of House Resolution409 which waived points of orderagainst section 3 of the House bill asconstituting an appropriation of avail-able funds for a new purpose. . . .

The gentlewoman from New Yorkalso has in effect made the point oforder that section 7 of the conferencereport goes beyond the issues in dif-ference between the two Houses com-mitted to conference in violation ofclause 3, rule XXVIII.

In the House-passed bill, section 3contained waivers of certain provisionsof law in order to make available fundsalready appropriated to the Depart-ment of Defense to be used for theArmed Forces in ‘‘evacuation programsreferred to in section 2 of the act.’’ Theconferees have recommended that thesame waivers of law shall apply to‘‘evacuation programs authorized bythis act.’’

In the opinion of the Chair, a con-forming change in phraseology in aconference report from language con-tained in the House or Senate versionto achieve consistency in the languagethereof, absent proof that the effect ofthat change is to broaden the scope of

the language beyond that contained ineither version, does not necessarilyrender the conference report subject toa point of order. In this instance, it ap-pears to the Chair that the only effectof the language in the conference re-port was to accomplish the same resultthat would have been reached by sec-tion 3 of the House bill, namely to re-move certain limitations on the use offunds in the Defense budget for mili-tary evacuation programs under thisbill.

The Chair therefore holds that theconferees have not exceeded their au-thority and overrules the point oforder.

Amendments to Senate Amend-ments

§ 13.13 Where a Senate amend-ment on a general appropria-tion bill proposes an expend-iture not authorized by law,it is in order in the House toperfect such Senate amend-ment by germane amend-ments.The following proceedings took

place on Feb. 8, 1937,(15) duringconsideration of H.R. 3587, a defi-ciency appropriations bill:

MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM [of Vir-ginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to recedeand concur in the Senate amendmentwith an amendment, which I send tothe Clerk’s desk. . . .

MR. [HENRY] ELLENBOGEN [of Penn-sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a pref-


5177


16. John J. O’Connor (N.Y.).


18. H.R. 5389.

erential motion, which I send to theClerk’s desk.

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. Ellenbogen moves that the

House recede and concur in Senateamendment no. 9.

MR. WOODRUM: Mr. Speaker, I askfor a division of the question.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) Thegentleman from Virginia demands a di-vision of the question. The question is,Shall the House recede from its dis-agreement to the Senate amendment?

The question was taken, and the mo-tion to recede was agreed to.

MR. WOODRUM: Mr. Speaker, I moveto concur in the Senate amendmentwith an amendment, which I send tothe Clerk’s desk.


Mr. Woodrum moves that theHouse concur in the Senate amend-ment with an amendment as follows:In lieu of the matter inserted by saidamendment insert the following: ‘‘orof any appropriation or other fundsof any executive department or inde-pendent executive agency shall beused after June 30, 1937, to pay thecompensation of any person detailedor loaned for service in connectionwith any investigation or inquiry un-dertaken by any committee of eitherHouse of Congress under special res-olution thereof.’’

MR. ELLENBOGEN: Mr. Speaker, Imake the point of order that the mo-tion of the gentleman from Virginiaviolates the rules of the House in thatit is legislation on an appropriationbill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair will state that the Senateamendment is legislation, and the

amendment to that amendment offeredby the gentleman from Virginia is notout of order because it contains legisla-tion. The Chair therefore overrules thepoint of order.

MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman will state it.

MR. O’MALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I makethe point of order that the amendmentof the gentleman from Virginia is notgermane, since it limits the Senateamendment by date.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. TheChair will state that it deals with thesame subject matter, and the merelimitation of the Senate amendment bydate does not destroy its germaneness,and the Chair therefore overrules thepoint of order.

§ 13.14 Where the Senate at-taches to an appropriationbill a legislative amendment,it is in order in the House toconcur with a perfectingamendment provided suchamendment does not broad-en the scope of the legisla-tion in the Senate amend-ment.On June 15, 1933,(17) during

consideration of Senate amend-ments to the independent officesappropriation bill,(18) the followingproceedings took place:



5178


19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).20. 75 CONG. REC. 13522–25, 72d Cong.

1st Sess.

Amendment No. 30: On page 57,after line 14, insert:

‘‘Sec. 6. After the enactment of thisact the Postmaster General is di-rected to suspend payments uponany air mail or ocean mail contractto any individuals, companies, or cor-porations which, singly or in com-bination with other individuals, com-panies, or corporations receiving asubsidy, pay any salary or salarycombined with bonus to any officer,agent, or employee in excess of a sal-ary of $17,500. . . .’’

MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM [of Vir-ginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to recedeand concur with an amendment, whichI send to the desk.


Mr. Woodrum moves that theHouse recede from its disagreementto the amendment of the Senatenumbered 30, and agree to the samewith an amendment as follows: Inlieu of the matter inserted by saidamendment insert the following:

‘‘Sec. 6. Hereafter the PostmasterGeneral shall not award any air mailcontract or any ocean mail contractunder the Merchant Marine Act of1928 to any individuals, companies,or corporations which, singly or incombination with other individuals,companies, or corporations pay anysalary, or salary combined withbonus, to any officer, agent, or em-ployee in excess of $17,500. . . .’’

MR. [EDWARD W.] GOSS [of Con-necticut]: Mr. Speaker, a point oforder.

The amendment as I heard it readcontains the word ‘‘hereafter’’, makingthis permanent law, forever. I have noparticular objection to the languagecontained, that makes it for the dura-tion of the life of this appropriationbill, but it might not be wise, undercertain circumstances, to make it per-

manent, forever. The word ‘‘hereafter’’makes it legislation on an appropria-tion bill, which makes it permanentlegislation.

MR. WOODRUM: The original textmakes it permanent legislation.

MR. GOSS: But it reads ‘‘after the en-actment of this act.’’

THE SPEAKER: (19) We are consideringthe Senate amendment. The entireamendment of the Senate is legislationwhich the House may now perfect byany germane amendment.

MR. GOSS: I will reserve it for themoment, to hear further explanation. Ido not want to see it made permanentlaw.

MR. WOODRUM: The only changewhich the House makes in it is thevery proper change not to undertake tomake this retroactive to apply to con-tracts. They have postoffice contractsthat have already been made in goodfaith, but it does provide——

MR. GOSS: For all time.MR. WOODRUM: Yes; until Congress

changes it, because the original lan-guage was for all time. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The Chair overrulesthe point of order made by the gen-tleman from Connecticut.

§ 13.15 In amending a Senateamendment the House is notconfined within the limits ofthe amount set by the origi-nal bill and the Senateamendment.On June 20, 1932,(20) during

consideration of H.R. 11267, the


5179


Economy Committee amendmentto the legislative appropriationbill, a Senate amendment wasunder consideration which pro-vided for an 11 percent reductionin all government salaries in ex-cess of $2,500. An amendmentwas offered proposing to reducesalaries by a graduated scale witha minimum exemption of $1,200.A point of order was made as fol-lows, and proceedings ensued asindicated below:

MR. [FIORELLO H.] LAGUARDIA [ofNew York]: Mr. Speaker, I make thepoint of order that the subject mattercontained in the gentleman’s motion atthis time is not proper in that there isnothing before the House at this timewhich shows a change of attitude onthe part of the House in its action onthe question of salary reduction. Thereare two propositions before the House.One is the House bill providing for areduction with a $2,500 exemption,and the other is the Senate so-calledfurlough plan. The gentleman seeks toconcur in the Senate plan with anamendment, and the matter in theamendment is not germane to thatplan. The gentleman’s motion is be-yond the province of conferees. Thesubject matter contained in the motionis an entirely new proposition. If con-ferees have failed to agree on eitherthe House bill or Senate bill, then theyshould be discharged. If the gentlemanseeks to carry out a reduction plan,then I submit that the House has notindicated by vote or otherwise that itrecedes from its original position. Whatthe gentleman is seeking to do is to get

legislative action de novo on a matterwhich has already been passed on bythe House. When we come to thatpoint—enter on our own initiative orfrom the Senate—new conferees rep-resenting the views of the Houseshould be and would be appointed. Irepeat, Mr. Speaker, that the view ofthe House must first be presented byfriends of the proposition to the Senateconferees. There is no indication in thereport or otherwise that the House billwas actually sponsored in conferenceby the conferees on the part of theHouse, and I submit that at this stagewe can not legislate de novo in order tocarry out the personal views or pref-erence of the conferees. The Houseshould at least be given the oppor-tunity to express itself on its own bill.In this roundabout method the Houseis compelled to take other action with-out first knowing what the attitude ofthe other body on the proposition maybe.

MR. [JOHN C.] SCHAFER [of Wis-consin]: Mr. Speaker, I believe theChair should hold that the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Ala-bama is out of order, because theamendment goes beyond the range ofdifference between the action of theHouse and the Senate. The furloughplan incorporated in the bill by theSenate and the salary-reduction planas passed by the House contain no sal-ary reductions in salaries below $2,500per year. I believe on that point alonethe amendment is not germane, andtherefore it is not in order, as the con-ferees have exceeded their authority.

MR. [JOHN] MCDUFFIE [of Alabama]:Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair hasample precedent for overruling thepoint of order raised by the gentleman


5180


1. Id. at pp. 14207, 14208.2. H.R. 11452.3. John N. Garner (Tex.).

from Wisconsin, because, in the firstplace we are not dealing with a con-ference report, and in the second place,I direct the attention of the Speaker tothe fact that anything that is germaneis permissible to be written in anamendment such as I have offered.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE [Wil-liam B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: TheChair is ready to rule.

The gentleman from New York (Mr.LaGuardia) interposes a point of orderagainst the amendment offered by thegentleman from Alabama (Mr.McDuffie) to the Senate proposal, uponthe ground that it does not affirma-tively appear that the House confereesreally took into consideration the ac-tion and voice of the House in the con-ference. That, of course, is a matter en-tirely beyond the province of the Chair,and is a matter of speculation, nec-essarily. The Chair, therefore, over-rules that point of order.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.Schafer) raised the point of order thatthe provisions embodied in the motionof the gentleman from Alabama to re-cede and concur with an amendment tothe Senate amendment was beyond thelimits fixed in either the House bill orthe Senate amendment. The Parlia-mentarian has furnished the Chairwith a syllabus of an opinion by Chair-man Hepburn, of Iowa, made on Feb-ruary 26, 1902, which may be found inHinds’ Precedents (vol. 5, sec. 6187). Itis as follows: ‘‘In amending a Senateamendment the House is not confinedwithin the limits of amount set by theoriginal bill and the Senate amend-ment.’’ The Chair thinks that that de-cision disposes of the point of orderraised by the gentleman from Wis-consin. The Chair desires to say in

passing upon these points of order thatin cases of this kind the only require-ment is that the amendment proposedin the motion to recede and concurwith an amendment must be germaneto the Senate amendment. This ques-tion arose on May 3, 1922, when Mr.Speaker Gillett, in overruling a pointof order similar to this, held that to aSenate amendment providing a newmethod of taxation in the District ofColumbia and revising the fiscal rela-tionship of the District of Columbiaand the United States with other inci-dental propositions an amendment pro-posing a different scheme is germane,although different in detail.

The Chair thinks that these deci-sions fully cover points of order raisedby the gentleman from New York andthe gentleman from Wisconsin, andtherefore overrules the points of order.

Similarly, on June 28, 1932, (1)

the following proceedings tookplace during consideration of theNavy appropriation bill: (2)

THE SPEAKER: (3) The Clerk will re-port the next amendment in disagree-ment.


Amendment No. 16: Page 23, line17, strike out ‘‘$1,014,250’’ and in-sert in lieu thereof ‘‘$1,191,850.’’

MR. [WILLIAM A.] AYRES (of Kansas):Mr. Speaker, I move that the Houserecede and concur with an amendment.


Mr. Ayres moves to recede andconcur in Senate amendment No. 16


5181



5. Id. at pp. 13181, 13182, July 31,1957.

with the following amendment: Inlieu of the sum proposed by saidamendment insert the following:‘‘$1,157,535 (none of which shall beavailable for increased pay for mak-ing aerial flights by nonflying offi-cers or observers except eight officersabove the grade of lieutenant com-mander, to be selected by the Sec-retary of the Navy).’’

Mr. LaGuardia: I make the point oforder that the amendment offered bythe gentleman from Kansas is beyondthe power and scope of the conferees;that it brings in entirely new matter,that the difference between the Senatebill and the House bill is simply one ofamount, and we can not at this stageof the proceedings legislate on the bill.

THE SPEAKER: On the grounds thegentleman makes his point of order theChair will overrule it. The question ison the motion to concur with anamendment.

The motion was agreed to.THE SPEAKER: Let the Chair say in

connection with that point of orderthat if the gentleman from New Yorkhad made the point of order that theproposed amendment was not germaneto the Senate amendment, the Chairthinks it would have been sufficient,but the gentleman from New York saidit was beyond the jurisdiction of theconferees, and the motion to concurwith an amendment is not subject tothat point of order.

Point of Order Against Appro-priations in Senate Bill

§ 13.16 A point of order underthe rule barring appropria-tions in a legislative bill maybe raised against an item of

appropriation in a Senatebill.On July 30, 1957, (4) during con-

sideration of S. 1865, a bill estab-lishing an airways modernizationboard and to provide for the devel-opment and modernization of thenational system of navigation andtraffic control facilities to servepresent and future needs of civiland military aviation, a provisiongranting authority to transfer‘‘unexpended balances of appro-priations, allocations, and otherfunds available,’’ was ruled out byChairman George H. Mahon, ofTexas, as an appropriation re-ported from a nonappropriatingcommittee in violation of clause 4,rule XXI.

The language having beenstricken from the Senate bill pur-suant to the point of order, thatfact was reported by ChairmanMahon to the House.(5) The lan-guage stricken from the bill onthe point of order was treated asan amendment of the Senate billand so engrossed and messaged tothe Senate.

Special Rule Waiving Points ofOrder

§ 13.17 A resolution is set forthbelow waiving points of


5182



Note: The waiver of points of orderagainst the amendment was nec-essary because the language of theamendment would have been subjectto the point of order that it con-stituted further legislation on an ap-propriation bill.


8. 88 CONG. REC. 5953, 5954, 5960,5961, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.


order against a conferencereport on a general appro-priation bill, and making inorder a motion to recedefrom disagreement and toconcur therein with anamendment.On Dec. 23, 1963, (6) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia:

Mr. Speaker, I present a privilegedresolution (H. Res. 600) from the Com-mittee on Rules and ask for its imme-diate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the reso-lution.

THE SPEAKER: (7) The resolution willbe referred to the House Calendar andordered to be printed.

The resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoptionof this resolution it shall be in orderto consider without the interventionof any point of order the conferencereport on the bill (H.R. 9499) makingappropriations for foreign aid and re-lated agencies for the fiscal year end-ing June 30, 1964, and for other pur-poses, and that during the consider-ation of the amendment of the Sen-ate numbered 20 to the bill, it shallbe in order to consider, without theintervention of any point of order, a

motion by the Chairman of the Man-agers on the part of the House to re-cede and concur in said Senateamendment numbered 20 with anamendment.

Suspension of Rules for Mat-ters Not in Disagreement

§ 13.18 The two Houses havingbeen unable to agree on allprovisions of the bill, theHouse, under a motion tosuspend the rules, passed anew bill containing mattersin the original bill not incontroversy.On July 2, 1942, (8) the Depart-

ment of Agriculture appropriationbill for fiscal 1943 was passed inthe House in the following man-ner:

MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor-gia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspendthe rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349,which I send to the Clerk’s desk.


A bill making appropriations forthe Department of Agriculture forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 1943,and for other purposes.

THE SPEAKER: (9) Is a second de-manded?

MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

MR. TARVER: Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that a second beconsidered as ordered.


5183


THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromGeorgia (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 Agri-cultural appropriation bill, insofar asthose provisions have been agreedupon by the House and the Senate,and with respect to the appropriationsfor the farm tenant land purchase pro-gram and for the Farm Security Ad-ministration, which are in disagree-ment, the provisions of the bill are forexpenditures by the Farm Security Ad-ministration for these purposes for thenext 60 days; that is, for the months ofJuly and August, which will be author-ized upon the same bases propor-tionate for the time involved as the ex-penditures for those purposes were au-thorized in the Agricultural Appropria-tion Act for the fiscal year 1942, withthe proviso that any amount expendedby the Farm Security Administrationfor these purposes during the monthsof July and August shall be chargedagainst whatever amounts are finallyappropriated by the Congress to theuses of the Farm Security Administra-tion for these objectives.

As I said, all of the provisions of thebill, and all of the limitations in thebill so far as there does not exist dis-agreement between the House andSenate with reference thereto, are pro-posed to be enacted. The proviso withregard to Commodity Credit Corpora-tion funds is to be enacted except asthe Senate amendments thereto in dis-agreement are involved.

There is also a further proviso intitle II of the bill which I have justsent to the Clerk’s desk, which wouldvalidate expenditures upon the baseswhich I have described to and includ-ing the 1st day of July.

H.R. 7349 passed in the House.Subsequently, various Membersdiscussed the consequences of thebill’s passage. Some of the re-marks are as follows:

MR. DIRKSEN: Mr. Speaker, may I in-quire whether or not the majority lead-er wants to say anything about the sit-uation that is now in abeyance for theinformation of the House?

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas-sachusetts]: I have nothing to advisethe House about at this time. The Sen-ate has adjourned, and I have been in-formed that they sent the bill whichpassed the House a short time ago tothe committee.

MR. DIRKSEN: Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to proceed for 1minute.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection?Mr. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michi-

gan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the rightto object, as I understand the par-liamentary situation, as far as the ap-propriation bill is concerned, it is this.The House passed the regular Depart-ment of Agriculture appropriation bill.It went to the Senate. The Senateplaced amendments. The two Houseswere in disagreement and confereeswere appointed. That appropriation billis in conference. This afternoon certainmembers of the Appropriations Com-mittee who happened to be the con-ferees on the agriculture bill broughtin another and different appropriation


5184


10. H.R. 7349.

11. 108 CONG. REC. 14400–03, 87thCong. 2d Sess.


bill.(10) It was passed under suspensionof the rules, with a new number. Ithad no connection with the bill in con-ference. It was an independent bill.After that bill passed the House andwent to the Senate, the Senate recog-nized it as a new appropriation bill,which it is, and treated it according tothe rules of the Senate, and referred itto the Appropriations Committee of theSenate for consideration. The Senateconferees had no part in framing thenew bill. So that today the regular ag-riculture appropriation bill is in con-ference between the two Houses. To-day’s House action has had no effect onthe conference committee. Another ap-propriation bill covering much of thesame matter has been referred to theSenate Committee on Appropriations.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the gentle-man’s statement fairly presents thepicture except—I would not want totake issue—but I would want to en-large or express my own views on oneobservation which the gentlemanmade—that it had no relationship tothe bill in conference. It at least hadan attempted relationship.

MR. MIRCHENER: Yes; the two billsdeal with the same subject matter, butone bill was the legitimate child of therules of the House and the Appropria-tions Committee. The other bill wasnot.

MR. MCCORMACK: I am not takingissue with my friend, but I will cer-tainly say there was an attempted re-lationship. At least the House in itsown way attempted to meet the legisla-tive situation that exists.

Amendment by Concurrent Res-olution

§ 13.19 Items in an appropria-tion bill not in disagreement

between the two Houses, andhence not committed to theconferees, have beenchanged through consider-ation by unanimous consentof a concurrent resolution di-recting the changes in theenrollment of the bill.On July 23, 1962, (11) the fol-

lowing proceedings took place:MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unani-mous agreement of last Friday, I callup for consideration a House concur-rent resolution.


H. CON. RES. 505

Resolved by the House of Rep-resentatives (the Senate concurring),That the Clerk of the House of Rep-resentatives be authorized and di-rected in the enrollment of the billH.R. 11038 to make the followingchanges in the engrossed House bill:

(1) Page 2, strike out lines 13 to16, inclusive. . . .

(28) Page 14, strike out lines 4 to7, inclusive.

(29) Page 14, strike out lines 17 to21, inclusive.

MR. THOMAS (interrupting reading ofthe House concurrent resolution): Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thatfurther reading of the resolution bedispensed with, I shall attempt to ex-plain what it is.



5185


13. Parliamentarian’s Note: The secondsupplemental appropriation bill,H.R. 11038, was passed by theHouse on Mar. 30, 1962; by the Sen-ate, amended, on Apr. 6. The con-ference report was not filed untilJuly 20. Since fiscal year 1962 ex-pired on June 30, the need for someof the funds in the bill had dis-sipated. To eliminate the sums nolonger required and not in disagree-ment, the concurrent resolution wasagreed to.

There was no objection.MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, it will be

recalled this deals with what we callthe second supplemental appropriationbill for 1962 When the supplementalleft the House it had 55 items carryingabout $447 million, which was a reduc-tion, in round figures, of $100 millionunder the budget, a reduction of about20 percent.

It went to the other body and thatbody added some 29 items, increasingthe amount over the House by $112million, which made a round figure ofabout $560 million.

We bring to you two items, one aconcurrent resolution and the other aconference report. First, why the con-current resolution? We put in the con-current resolution some 29 itemswhich were originally in the supple-mental, but those 29 items are a reduc-tion—follow me now—below the figurethat was in the supplemental when itleft the House and the figure when itleft the Senate.

It is a complete reduction and achange. It is in the concurrent resolu-

tion because it could not be in the con-ference report, and the reason it couldnot be in the conference report is be-cause it is a reduction in thoseamounts. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The question is on theresolution.

The concurrent resolution wasagreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table. (13)


appropriation bills - budget counsel

Documents