[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 13. Powers and Prerogatives of the House]
[C. House Prerogative to Originate Revenue Bills]
[Â§ 20. Authority to Make Appropriations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1880-1888]
 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 20. Authority to Make Appropriations

    The precedents in this section relate to the efforts of the Senate 
to originate appropriation measures.(12) Mr. Clarence Cannon 
has observed: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1500, 1501; and 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 319-322, for earlier precedents.
13. Cannon's Procedure (1959) p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under immemorial custom the general appropriation bills, 
    providing for a number of subjects (14) as distinguished 
    from special bills appropriating for single, specific 
    purposes,(15) originate in the House of Representatives 
    and there has been no deviation from that practice since the 
    establishment of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3566-3568.
15. Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2285.

Following the view expressed by Mr. Cannon, the House has returned 
Senate-passed general appropriation bills.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 20.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate has not always accepted the view that the House has the 
exclusive right to originate appropriation measures.(17~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 20.1, infra. See also Authority of the Senate to Originate 
        Appropriation Bills, S. Doc. No. 17, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 
        30, 1963.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Regarding Authority to Appropriate

Sec. 20.1 The Senate has adopted a resolution asserting that the power 
    to originate appropriation bills is not exclusively in the House of 
    Representatives but is shared by the Senate, and suggesting that an 
    appropriate commission be established to study article I, section 
    7, clause 1, of the Constitution.

    On Oct. 13, 1962,(18) the Senate by voice vote agreed to 
Senate Resolution 414, asserting the

[[Page 1881]]

power of the Senate to originate bills appropriating 
money.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 23470, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See 108 Cong. Rec. 12898, 12899, 12904-11, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 9, 1962, for a resolution of the Senate Committee on 
        Appropriations, setting forth areas of dispute between it and 
        the House Committee on Appropriations, and resolving that among 
        the issues to be discussed or negotiated between them was the 
        power of the Senate to originate appropriation bills; a 
        resolution of the House Committee on Appropriations suggesting 
        negotiations on conference procedures between special 
        committees of the House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations; and the text of a report of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary (H. Rept. No. 147, 46th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 2, 
        1881), in which the majority recommended adoption of a 
        resolution stating that the Senate may originate appropriation 
        bills and that the power to originate bills appropriating money 
        is not exclusive in the House. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1500 
        discusses this report.
            For a recent discussion of this subject, see Authority of 
        the Senate to Originate Appropriation Bills, S. Doc. No. 17, 
        88th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 30, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Assertion of the Power of the Senate to Originate Bills 
           Appropriating Money for the Support of the Government

        Mr. [Richard B.] Russell [of Georgia]: Mr. President, I submit 
    and send to the desk a privileged resolution, for which I request 
    immediate consideration.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (20) The 
    resolution will be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution (S. Res. 414) submitted by Mr. Russell was read, 
    as follows:

            Whereas the House of Representatives has adopted House 
        Resolution 831 alleging that Senate Joint Resolution 234, a 
        resolution continuing the appropriations for the Department of 
        Agriculture, to be in contravention of the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the Constitution and an infringement of the 
        privileges of the House; and

            Whereas this clause of the Constitution provides only that 
        ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of 
        Representatives,'' and does not in anywise limit or restrict 
        the privileges and power of the Senate with respect to any 
        other legislation; and
            Whereas the acquiescence of the Senate in permitting the 
        House to first consider appropriation bills cannot change the 
        clear language of the Constitution nor affect the Senate's 
        coequal power to originate any bill not expressly ``raising 
        revenue''; and
            Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
        Representatives, pursuant to a directive of the House of 
        Representatives, reported to the House in 1885 that the power 
        to originate bills appropriating money from the Treasury did 
        not reside exclusively in the House: Therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Senate respectfully asserts its power to 
        originate bills appropriating money for the support of the 
        Government and declares its willingness to submit the issue 
        either for declaratory judgment by an appropriate appellate 
        court of the United States or to an appropriate commission of 
        outstanding educators specializing in the study of

[[Page 1882]]

        the English language to be chosen in equal numbers by the 
        President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House; and be it 
        further
            Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to 
        the House of Representatives.

        The Acting President Pro Tempore: Without objection, the Senate 
    will proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution.
        Mr. Russell: Mr. President, this resolution is just as self-
    explanatory, I believe, as the clause of the Constitution which is 
    involved. I see no necessity for laboring it.
        I move the adoption of the resolution. . . .
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing 
    to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Department of Agriculture Appropriation

Sec. 20.2 A Senate joint resolution making an appropriation out of the 
    general funds of the Treasury was held to be an infringement of the 
    privileges of the House, and was returned to the Senate.

    On Oct. 10, 1962,(1) the House by a vote of yeas 245, 
nays 1, not voting 188, agreed to House Resolution 831, returning to 
the Senate Senate Joint Resolution 234, because it infringed upon the 
privileges of the House. The Senate joint resolution provided in part 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 23014-16, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That there is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
    otherwise appropriated, and out of the applicable corporate and 
    other revenue . . . such amounts as may be necessary for 
    continuing, during . . . 1963 . . . projects of the Department of 
    Agriculture.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 831) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 234, making 
        appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and the Farm 
        Credit Administration for the fiscal year 1963, in the opinion 
        of the House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh 
        section of the first article of the Constitution and is an 
        infringement of the privileges of this House, and that the said 
        joint resolution be taken from the Speaker's table and be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, on October 4, 1962, the other body 
    messaged to the House Senate Joint Resolution 234, now on the 
    Speaker's table. This joint resolution is an infringement on the 
    privileges of the House, as stated in section 7 of article I of the 
    Constitution, under which the House of Representatives has always 
    maintained the right to originate the appropriation bills.
        The priority of the House in the initiation of appropriation 
    bills is buttressed by the strongest and most im

[[Page 1883]]

    pelling of all rules, the rule of immemorial usage. As Mr. Asher 
    Hinds relates in section 1500 of volume II of ``Hinds' Precedents'' 
    at page 973--while the issue has been raised a number of times--
    ``there has been no deviation from the practice.'' . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, on that ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney: Would a yea vote be a vote to send Senate Joint 
    Resolution 234 back to the Senate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has correctly stated the 
    situation.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 245, nays 1, not 
    voting 188, as follows: . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.

District of Columbia Appropriation

Sec. 20.3 The House returned a Senate joint resolution which 
    appropriated money from the District of Columbia general funds, on 
    the ground that it invaded the prerogatives of the House.

        On Mar. 12, 1953,(4) the House by voice vote agreed 
    to House Resolution 176, to return to the Senate Senate Joint 
    Resolution 52, appropriating money from the District of Columbia 
    general fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 99 Cong. Rec. 1897, 1898, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege of the House and offer a resolution (H. Res. 
    176).
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 52, making an 
        appropriation out of the general fund of the District of 
        Columbia, in the opinion of the House, contravenes the first 
        clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
        Constitution and is an infringement of the privileges of this 
        House, and that the said joint resolution be taken from the 
        Speaker's table and be respectfully returned to the Senate with 
        a message communicating this resolution.

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 52 was passed 
    on Monday, providing an appropriation out of the general fund of 
    the District of Columbia. It was not referred, as the rules 
    require, to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, but was 
    passed direct. This infringes the privileges of the House as set 
    forth in section 7 of article I of the Constitution which gives the 
    House of Representatives the privilege of initiating all 
    appropriation bills.
        This question was thoroughly discussed by the Honorable John 
    Sharp Williams when he was a Member of the Senate back in 1912. He 
    analyzed the authorities on that subject. The article was printed 
    as a Senate document on July 15, 1919. The article discusses the 
    situation in great detail, and there is no question about it. I 
    hope that the resolution will be promptly adopted.

[[Page 1884]]

    Pursuant to the consent granted me, I submit herewith certain parts 
    of Senator Williams' treatise:

            Mr. President, if the Senate can constitutionally originate 
        general appropriation bills when money is in the Treasury, then 
        it can do the same thing when there is no money in the 
        Treasury; and thus this body, representing the States and not 
        the people, representing chiefly the smaller States, could 
        force either Federal insolvency, not to be thought of, or else 
        could force the House to levy new or additional taxes; thus 
        force the House to originate tax bills. The two things hang 
        together. If this Senate could originate general supply bills, 
        then it could commit the Government to a course of expenditure 
        that would coerce the House not only into originating but into 
        passing tax bills.
            As Seward well says, speaking of the long practice under 
        which the House always insisted upon and the Senate always 
        conceded, the right of the House to originate general 
        appropriation bills:
            ``This [practice] could not have been accidental; it was 
        therefore designed. The design and purpose were those of the 
        contemporaries of the Constitution itself. It evinces their 
        understanding of the subject, which was that bills of a general 
        nature for appropriating the public money or for laying of 
        taxes or burdens on the people, direct or indirect in their 
        operation, belonged to the province of the House of 
        Representatives.'' (See Congressional Record, vol. 16, pt. 2, 
        p. 959.)
            He added:
            ``If this power be confined to the one and not to the 
        other, that is, to the levying of taxes to get money, but not 
        to its expenditure, then the right is useless, because we 
        change revenue laws so seldom.''
            This criticism of Seward's is correct, although it was made 
        in view of what occurred later and not of what was in the minds 
        of the framers of the Constitution. I believe it is not too 
        much to say that, in the minds of the framers of the 
        Constitution, a bill to raise revenue was a budget; that is, a 
        bill levying taxes and at the same time appropriating the 
        proceeds of the levy, because such was the contemporaneous 
        practice.
            Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said that he regarded the 
        Senate origination of general appropriation bills as ``a 
        departure from the spirit of the Constitution'' (ibid.).

            Mr. Hinds, in his incomparable work, in a note at the 
        bottom of page 973, volume 2 [Sec. 1500], concerning the 
        question of the right of the House to originate general 
        appropriation or supply bills, says: ``But while there has been 
        a dispute as to the theory, there has been no deviation from 
        the practice that the general appropriation bills originate in 
        the House of Representatives.'' He expressly uses this phrase 
        as contra-distinguished from special bills appropriating for 
        single, specific purposes.
            It is well to remember in this connection the Hurd 
        resolution of January 13, 1885,(5) which was laid on 
        the table in the House. The fact that it was laid upon the 
        table has been quoted very frequently, but the resolution was 
        directed at Senate bill 398 (the Blair educational bill). It 
        was not a supply bill, but a bill of specific appropriation; 
        not a bill for carrying on the Government any more than a bill 
        making appropriation for a public building would be a bill for 
        carrying on the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1501 for discussion of this incident, 
        which actually occurred on Jan. 23, 1885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon].
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon: Mr. Speaker, this is not an 
    inconsequential

[[Page 1885]]

    matter. It is fundamental in the practice of the House and is 
    supported by the strongest rule known in parliamentary procedure, 
    the rule of immemorial usage. A great many precedents could be 
    recited, but the whole matter is summed up in a comment by the 
    former Parliamentarian of the House, Asher Hinds, who knew more 
    about procedure and had more to do with establishing the orderly 
    procedures of the House than any man in American history with the 
    single exception of Vice President Jefferson. . . .
        In summing up the whole question Asher Hinds said:

            There has been some debate about the theory of restricting 
        the origin of appropriation bills to the House but there has 
        been no deviation in the practice.

        As Mr. Hinds pointed out, this rule is one of the rules which 
    came down to us from the English Parliament. . . .
        [The House of] Commons through the years began to assert and 
    eventually maintained through debate and by the sword the primacy 
    of the House in the origin of money bills, the levying of taxes, 
    and the appropriation and expenditure of revenues.
        Whenever the Commons became too insistent on the redress of 
    grievances and began to protest too vigorously the chronic denial 
    of justice, the King would prorogue Parliament and send them home. 
    But inevitably the forced loans, the sale of privileges, and the 
    money borrowed at usurious rates of interest dwindled and as a last 
    resort the King would be compelled to convene Parliament. In that 
    day, as now, the control of the purse strings was the only recourse 
    of the people. It was and is the primary prerogative of democracy 
    and the one effective weapon in defense of rights and liberties of 
    a free nation.
        . . . The Representatives in the House, elected by the people 
    every 2 years, should have exclusive rights in the origination of 
    appropriation bills. I hope the resolution of the gentleman from 
    New York will be agreed to.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Taber: I yield.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when my friend, the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and my friend, the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] agree that the House of Representatives 
    must, indeed, have a sound case. But will the gentleman, for the 
    record, state just what part of this resolution, which has come 
    from the other body, violates the long standing custom and usage 
    and practice of the Congress?
        Mr. Taber: This resolution, Mr. Speaker, in its entirety, 
    violates the practice. There is no part of it which could be 
    construed as covering anything else or any other subject matter.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement satisfies 
    me.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Martin. Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 20.4 After receiving a Senate joint resolution which had

[[Page 1886]]

    been returned on the ground that it infringed upon the prerogative 
    of the House to originate revenue-raising bills, the Senate 
    entertained a discussion of its prerogative to originate bills 
    affecting the revenue of the District of Columbia.

        On Mar. 16, 1953,(7) the prerogative of the Senate 
    to originate bills affecting the revenue of the District of 
    Columbia was discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 1978, 1979, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Hendrickson [of New Jersey]: Mr. President, on 
    Monday, March 9, the Senate passed by unanimous consent Senate 
    Joint Resolution 52, which was thereafter transmitted to the House. 
    This resolution appropriated $17,000 out of the general fund of the 
    District of Columbia for the operation of the Office of Rent 
    Control in the District of Columbia.
        On March 12 the House passed House Resolution 176, returning 
    Senate Joint Resolution 52 to the Senate on the ground that it 
    ``contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first 
    article of the Constitution and is an infringement of the 
    privileges of this House.''
        I invite the attention of the Senate to a similar situation 
    which obtained during the 82d Congress. On May 7, 1952, the Senate 
    considered and passed S. 2703 which would increase the District of 
    Columbia gasoline tax from 4 to 5 cents per gallon. At that time 
    the House refused to consider S. 2703, also on the ground that it 
    contravened the constitutional provision referred to in House 
    Resolution 176.
        It is suggested that the issue thus raised on two occasions 
    within the past year by the House of Representatives involves not 
    only a parliamentary question but a constitutional question as 
    well.
        Indeed, these recent House actions appear to constitute a 
    challenge to the concept that home rule may be achieved in the 
    District of Columbia by means short of a constitutional amendment.
        The issue of whether such legislation can originate in the 
    Senate was one aspect of the routine analyses the Republican 
    calendar committee gave to these bills. Their consideration of the 
    bills included a routine discussion of the parliamentary question 
    with the Parliamentarian of the Senate, Mr. Charles L. Watkins. He 
    stated that article I, section 7 of the Constitution does not apply 
    to such bills. He reasoned that the bills do not contemplate the 
    raising of Federal revenue; that they are limited in their 
    application to the District of Columbia; and that, as such, like 
    any other bill affecting the District, the Senate may initiate such 
    legislation. . . .
        Article I, section 7, paragraph 1, of the Constitution provides 
    as follows:

            All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
        of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
        amendments as on other bills.

        Article I, section 8, paragraph 17, provides Congress with 
    power--

            To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, 
        over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square)

[[Page 1887]]

        as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of 
        Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United 
        States.

        It is well established that the various provisions of the 
    Constitution must be harmonized.

            In expounding the Constitution of the United States every 
        word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it 
        is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was 
        unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions 
        which have taken place upon the construction of the 
        Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; 
        and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of 
        the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have 
        been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and 
        effect to have been fully understood. (Holmes v. Jennison 
        ((1840) 14 Peters 540, 570); see also Cohens v. Virginia 
        ((1821) 6 Wheat 264).)

        There is no conflict whatever between the two provisions of the 
    Constitution cited above, and where Congress exercises exclusive 
    legislative power over the District of Columbia, article I, section 
    7, of the Constitution does not apply.
        Only one case comes to hand that construes article I, section 7 
    of the Constitution. In Hubbard v. Lowe ((1915) 226 Fed. 135), the 
    District Court for the Southern District of New York had before it 
    a challenge to the validity of a statute dealing with contracts for 
    cotton futures. A bill which originated in and passed the Senate 
    called for their exclusion from the mails. The House struck out all 
    after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute by way of a 
    prohibitive tax. The House version was the one which was ultimately 
    enacted. The court in that case threw out the statute as being 
    unconstitutional, since prior to enactment it had a Senate number--
    S. 1107. The question became moot because of the enactment shortly 
    thereafter of a revenue bill which dealt with the problem of cotton 
    futures.
        It will be recalled that some years ago the Congress provided 
    by statute for the establishment of local government in the 
    District of Columbia. The legislative body of that government 
    passed revenue and appropriation measures. In this connection, 
    attention is directed to an 1885 decision in the case of the 
    District of Columbia v. Waggaman (4 Mackey 328). The following is 
    quoted from that decision:

            We have to consider first, then, the validity of the act of 
        the legislative assembly which imposed this tax on commissions 
        earned by real-estate agents, and required a semiannual return 
        of those commissions and a bond to secure the performance of 
        these and other acts prescribed by law.
            In Roach v. Van Riswick (7 Wash. L. Rep., 496), this court 
        held that the very broad terms in which the organic act of 1870 
        granted legislative powers to the legislative assembly had the 
        effect to clothe that body with only such powers as might be 
        given to a municipal corporation, and that it was not competent 
        for Congress to delegate the larger powers of general 
        legislation which it had itself received from the Constitution. 
        We are still satisfied with that decision; but we hold, on the 
        other hand, that the provision referred to had the effect to 
        bestow every power of municipal legislation which could be 
        given to a municipal corporation, and especially the power of 
        taxation and implied or included

[[Page 1888]]

        power to provide measures by which taxes may be enforced and 
        collected. Section 49 of the organic act provided that ``the 
        legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful 
        subjects of legislation within the District, consistent with 
        the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of 
        this title''; and section 57 provided that ``the legislative 
        assembly shall not have power to tax the property of the United 
        States, nor to tax the lands or other property of nonresidents 
        higher than the lands or other property of residents.''

        The court referred to the legal tender cases and then went on 
    to state that ``the general grant of power to legislate on all 
    rightful subjects, and so forth, is by inclusion, an express grant 
    of power to legislate on this subject of taxation, except as 
    limited in section 57.'' There is another case which bears on the 
    subject, namely, Welsh v. Cook (97 U.S. 541, 542) [1879].
        It can thus be seen that a local legislative body in the 
    District of Columbia was given authority to enact revenue 
    legislation affecting the District of Columbia; that pursuant to 
    such authority that local legislative body enacted such revenue 
    legislation; and the cited cases established judicial sanction for 
    such enactment. If a local legislative body can pass valid revenue 
    legislation for the District of Columbia, it appears equally clear 
    that the Senate of the United States has authority to initiate a 
    revenue bill concerning the District of Columbia. That conclusion 
    certainly would be consistent with the Senate's share of 
    responsibility in exercising exclusive legislative power over the 
    District under article I, section 8, paragraph 17, of the 
    Constitution.
        There is a further aspect to the issue raised by the House last 
    week in connection with Senate Joint Resolution 52. This is the 
    question whether an appropriation bill comes within the purview of 
    article I, section 7, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, relating to 
    the raising of revenue. However, the issue of whether a general 
    appropriation bill may originate in the Senate, notwithstanding 
    long established custom to the contrary, warrants much fuller 
    discussion than will here be made. As a Member of the Senate, I 
    categorically dispute the House's contention in respect to Senate 
    Joint Resolution 52.

    The Senate did not take further action on Senate Joint Resolution 
52.