[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 13. Powers and Prerogatives of the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1767-1774]
 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House


[[Page 1767]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Thomas J. Nicola, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Generally

    Sec. 1. Scope
    Sec. 2. Admitting States to the Union

B. War Powers

    Sec. 3. In General
    Sec. 4. War Powers Act
    Sec. 5. Declarations of War
    Sec. 6. --House Action
    Sec. 7. --Senate Action
    Sec. 8. Legislation Authorizing Military Action Prior to War Powers 
            Act
    Sec. 9. Pre-World War II Legislative Restrictions on Military 
            Activity
   Sec. 10. Vietnam Era Restrictions on Military Activity
   Sec. 11. Receipt of Presidential Messages
   Sec. 12. Presidential Proclamations

C. House Prerogative to Originate Revenue Bills

   Sec. 13. In General
   Sec. 14. Consideration of Objections
   Sec. 15. Return of Senate Legislation
   Sec. 16. Tabling Objection to Infringement
   Sec. 17. Referring Objection to Committee
   Sec. 18. Action on House Bill in Lieu of Senate Bill

[[Page 1768]]

   Sec. 19. Senate Action on Revenue Legislation
   Sec. 20. Authority to Make Appropriations

D. Congress and the Budget; Impoundment

   Sec. 21. In General; Congressional Budget Act

E. Relations With Executive Branch

   Sec. 22. In General; Confirmation of Nomination for Vice President
   Sec. 23. Executive Reorganization Plans

Appendix
  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS


                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

ACTION agency reorganization plan, Sec. Sec. 23.1, 23.2
Agriculture and Interior, Departments of, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.8
Air Force, Army, and Navy, Departments of, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.9
Alaska, admission of, to Union, Sec. 2.1
American forces in Iceland, announcement of arrival of, Sec. 11.8
American ports, proclamation regarding use of, by belligerent nations, 
    Sec. 12.5
Appropriate, resolution regarding Senate authority to, Sec. 20.1
Appropriation for Department of Agriculture, Senate, Sec. 20.2
Appropriation for District of Columbia, Senate, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4
Approval, by committee, of House bill in lieu of Senate bill, 
    Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
Approval, on floor, of House bill in lieu of Senate bill, 
    Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.3
Army, Navy, and Air Force, Departments of, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.9
Backdoor spending, controls on, Sec. 21
Bases, exchange of destroyers for, Sec. 11.7
Berlin, resolution to protect, Sec. 8.9
Buckley v Valeo, Sec. 22.2
Budget, Bureau of, reorganization plan affecting, Sec. 23.3
Budget Committee, Sec. 21
Budget, congressional procedure to establish, Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946 as affecting, Sec. 21.1
Budget control by Congress, Sec. 21
Bulgaria, House declaration of war as to, Sec. 6.4
Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania, request for declaration of war on, 
    Sec. 11.3
Bulgaria, Senate declaration of war as to, Sec. 7.4
Cambodia and Laos, prohibition of military support for, Sec. 10.2

[[Page 1769]]

Cambodia, Laos, and North and South Vietnam, prohibition of funds for 
    military activities in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4
Cambodia, North and South Vietnam, and Laos, prohibition of funds for 
    military activity in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.5
Cambodia, prohibition of American ground forces from, Sec. 10.3
Chair, constitutional issue not decided by, Sec. 19.1
Civil Aeronautics Board reorganization plan, Sec. 23.6
Commerce, Department of, reorganization plan affecting, Sec. 23.10
Committee approval of House bill in lieu of Senate bill, 
    Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
Committee jurisdiction of bill incidentally producing revenue, Senate, 
    Sec. 19.2
Community Relations Service reorganization plan, Sec. 23.7
Concurrent resolutions on budget, Sec. 21
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Sec. 21
Congressional Budget Office, Sec. 21
Congressional session, proclamation convening extraordinary, for 
    neutrality legislation, Sec. 12.3
Constitutional issue decided by Senate, Sec. 19.1
Cuba missile crisis, authorization to activate reserves during, 
    Sec. 8.11
Cuba, proclamation of embargo on trade with, Sec. 12.2
Cuba, resolution regarding Soviet weapons in, Sec. Sec. 8.7, 8.8
Deletion of tariff schedule amendments by Senate, Sec. 19.5
Destroyers for bases, announcement of exchange of, Sec. 11.7
District of Columbia government reorganization plan, Sec. 23.14
Embargo on trade with Cuba, proclamation of, Sec. 12.2
Emergency, proclamation of, regarding Korea, Sec. 12.1
Environmental Protection Agency reorganization plan, Sec. 23.16
Executive Office of the President and federal agencies, reorganization 
    plan affecting, Sec. 23.15
Federal agencies and Executive Office of the President reorganization 
    plan, Sec. 23.15
Federal Communications Commission reorganization plan, Sec. Sec. 23.17, 
    23.18
Federal Home Loan Bank Board reorganization plan, Sec. 23.19
Federal maritime functions reorganization plan, Sec. Sec. 23.20, 23.21
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation reorganization plan, 
    Sec. 23.22
Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, and United States 
    Employment Service reorganization plan, Sec. 23.23
Federal Trade Commission reorganization plan, Sec. 23.24
Floor approval of House bill in lieu of Senate bill, Sec. Sec. 18.1-
    18.3
Forces, see military forces
Ford, Gerald R., confirmation of, as Vice President, Sec. 22.1
Foreign nations and Germany, proclamation regarding war between, 
    Sec. 12.4
Formosa and Pescadores, request for authority to protect, Sec. 11.5
Formosa and Pescadores, resolution to protect, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 8.4
Funds, prohibition of, for military activities in North and South 
    Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, Sec. 10.4
Germany and foreign nations, proclamation regarding war between, 
    Sec. 12.4

[[Page 1770]]

Germany and Italy, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.2
Germany, House declaration of war on, Sec. 6.2
Germany, Senate declaration of war on, Sec. 7.2
Germany, termination of state of war with, Sec. 3.1
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2
Hawaii, admission of, to Union, Sec. 2.2
Health, Education, and Welfare reorganization plan, acceleration of 
    effective date for, Sec. Sec. 23.33, 23.34
Housing, Department of Urban Affairs and, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.13
Housing, lending, and insuring agencies reorganization plan, Sec. 23.25
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania, request for declaration of war on, 
    Sec. 11.3
Hungary, House declaration of war on, Sec. 6.5
Hungary, Senate declaration of war on, Sec. 7.5
Iceland, announcement of arrival of American forces in, Sec. 11.8
Impoundment Act of 1974, Sec. 21
Impoundment controls by Congress, Sec. 21
Infringement of House revenue prerogative, Senate amendment to House 
    bill as, Sec. 19.4
Infringement of House revenue prerogative, Senate amendment to Senate 
    bill as, Sec. 19.3
Insuring, lending, and housing agencies reorganization plan, Sec. 23.25
Interior and Agriculture, Departments of, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.8
Internal Revenue, Bureau of, and Department of the Treasury 
    reorganization plan, Sec. 23.4
Italy and Germany, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.2
Italy, House declaration of war on, Sec. 6.3
Italy, Senate declaration of war on, Sec. 7.3
Japan, House declaration of war on, Sec. 6.1
Japan, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.1
Japan, Senate declaration of war on, Sec. 7.1
Jurisdiction of bill incidentally producing revenue, Senate committee, 
    Sec. 19.2
Korea, proclamation of national emergency regarding, Sec. 12.1
Labor, Department of, reorganization plan, Sec. Sec. 23.11, 23.12
Laos and Cambodia, prohibition of military support for, Sec. 10.2
Laos and Thailand, prohibition of American ground forces from, 
    Sec. 10.1
Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, prohibition of funds for military 
    activities in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4
Laos, North and South Vietnam, and Cambodia, prohibition of military 
    activity in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.5
Lebanon, announcement of deployment of Marines to, Sec. 11.9
Lending, housing, and insuring agencies reorganization plan, Sec. 23.25
Lend-lease Act, Sec. 9.3
Marines, announcement of deployment of, to Lebanon, Sec. 11.9
Maritime functions, reorganization plan for federal, Sec. Sec. 23.20, 
    23.21
Middle Eastern nations, request for authority to protect, Sec. 11.4
Middle Eastern nations, resolution to protect, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6
Military activities, prohibition of funds for, in North and South 
    Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4

[[Page 1771]]

Military assistance to American Republics, Sec. 9.2
Military forces (American), announcement of arrival of, in Iceland, 
    Sec. 11.8
Military forces (American), prohibition of, from Cambodia, Sec. 10.3
Military forces (American), prohibition of, from Thailand and Laos, 
    Sec. 10.1
Military forces, inducted, limited to western hemisphere, Sec. 9.5
Military forces (Marines), announcement of deployment of, to Lebanon, 
    Sec. 11.9
Military forces, reserve, authorization to activate, Sec. Sec. 8.10, 
    8.11
Military forces, reserve, limited to western hemisphere, Sec. 9.4
Military involvement, prohibition of, in North and South Vietnam, Laos, 
    and Cambodia after fixed date, Sec. 10.5
Military support for Cambodia and Laos prohibited, Sec. 10.2
Narcotics, Bureau of, reorganization plan, Sec. 23.5
National emergency, proclamation of, regarding Korea, Sec. 12.1
National Labor Relations Board reorganization plan, Sec. Sec. 23.26, 
    23.27
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reorganization plan, 
    Sec. 23.28
Navy, Army, and Air Force, Departments of, reorganization plan 
    affecting, Sec. 23.9
Neutrality Act, Sec. 9.1
Neutrality legislation, extraordinary congressional session convened 
    for, Sec. 12.3
Neutrality legislation, request for, Sec. 11.6
North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, prohibition of funds for 
    military activities in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4
North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, prohibition of military 
    involvement in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.5
Objection to Senate general surtax amendment to House excise tax bill, 
    tabling, Sec. 16.1
Pescadores and Formosa, request for authority to protect, Sec. 11.5
Pescadores and Formosa, resolution to protect, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 8.4
Ports (American), proclamation regarding use of, by belligerent 
    nations, Sec. 12.5
Postponing vote on reorganization plan, Sec. 23.35
Prerogative to raise revenue, Senate amendment to House bill as 
    infringement of, Sec. 19.4
Prerogative to raise revenue, Senate amendment to Senate bill as 
    infringement of, Sec. 19.3
Prerogatives of House, infringement of, as privileged matter, Sec. 14.1
Prerogatives of House, timeliness of objection to alleged Senate 
    infringement of, Sec. 14.2
President, Executive Office of, and federal agencies, reorganization 
    plan affecting, Sec. 23.15
President's authority to exchange ships for bases, opinion of Attorney 
    General on, Sec. 3.2
Privileged matter, infringement of House prerogative as, Sec. 14.1
Reconstruction Finance Corporation reorganization plan, Sec. 23.30
Referral to committee of objection to Senate authorization to use 
    securities proceeds as debt, Sec. 17.1
Reorganization plans
    ACTION, Sec. Sec. 23.1, 23.2
    Agriculture and Interior, Departments of, Sec. 23.8

[[Page 1772]]

    Army, Navy, and Air Force, Departments of, Sec. 23.9
    Budget, Bureau of, Sec. 23.3
    Civil Aeronautics Board, Sec. 23.6
    Commerce, Department of, Sec. 23.10
    Community Relations Service, Sec. 23.7
    District of Columbia government, Sec. 23.14
    Environmental Protection Agency, Sec. 23.16
    Executive Office of the President and federa1 agencies, Sec. 23.15
    Federal Communications Commission, Sec. Sec. 23.17, 23.18
    Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Sec. 23.19
    Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Sec. 23.22
    Federal Security Agency, United States Employment Service, and 
        Social Security Board, Sec. 23.23
    Federal Security, Federal Works, and loan agencies and Executive 
        Office of the President, Sec. 23.15
    Federal Trade Commission, Sec. 23.24
    Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of, acceleration of 
        effective date for, Sec. Sec. 23.33, 23.34
    insuring, housing, and lending agencies, Sec. 23.25
    Internal Revenue, Bureau of, and Department of the Treasury, 
        Sec. 23.4
    Labor, Department of, Sec. Sec. 23.11, 23.12
    lending, housing, and insuring agencies, Sec. 23.25
    maritime functions, Sec. Sec. 23.20, 23.21
    Narcotics, Bureau of, Sec. 23.5
    National Labor Relations Board, Sec. Sec. 23.26, 23.27
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sec. 23.28
    Navy, Army, and Air Force, Departments of, Sec. 23.9
    postponing vote on, Sec. 23.35
    priority of consideration, Sec. 23.36
    Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Sec. 23.30
    Science, Office of, Sec. 23.29
    Securities and Exchange Commission, Sec. Sec. 23.31, 23.32
    Social Security Board, Federal Security Agency, and United States 
        Employment Service, Sec. 23.23
    United States Employment Service, Federal Security Agency, and 
        Social Security Board, Sec. 23.23
    Urban Affairs and Housing, Department of, Sec. 23.13
Reserve forces, authorization to activate, Sec. Sec. 8.10, 8.11
Reserve forces limited to Western Hemisphere, Sec. 9.4
Return of Senate measure
    adding another tax to House bill, Sec. 15.8
    amending Firearms Act, Sec. 15.7
    amending Silver Purchase Act, Sec. 15.1
    amending Tariff Act of 1930, Sec. 15.2
    amending tariff provisions, Sec. 15.6
    exempting olympic game receipts from taxation, Sec. 15.3
    raising duty on fishery products, Sec. 15.5
    redetermining sugar quota, Sec. 15.4
Revenue-raising prerogative, Senate amendment to House bill as 
    infringement of, Sec. 19.4
Revenue-raising prerogative, Senate amendment to Senate bill as 
    infringement of, Sec. 19.3
Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, request for declaration of war on, 
    Sec. 11.3
Rumania, House declaration of war on, Sec. 6.6
Rumania, Senate declaration of war on, Sec. 7.6

[[Page 1773]]

Science, Office of, reorganization plan affecting, Sec. 23.29
Securities and Exchange Commission reorganization plan, 
    Sec. Sec. 23.31, 23.32
Senate appropriation for Department of Agriculture, Sec. 20.2
Senate appropriation for District of Columbia, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4
Senate authority to appropriate, resolution regarding, Sec. 20.1
Senate bill, committee approval of House bill in lieu of, 
    Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
Senate bill, floor approval of House bill in lieu of, Sec. Sec. 18.1-
    18.3
Senate bill, return of, see Return of Senate measure
Senate committee jurisdiction of bill incidentally producing revenue, 
    Sec. 19.2
Senate deletion of tariff schedule amendments, Sec. 19.5
Senate infringement of House prerogatives, timeliness of objection to, 
    Sec. 14.2
Senate withdrawal of Internal Revenue Code amendments, Sec. 19.6
Social Security Board, Federal Security Agency, and United States 
    Employment Service reorganization plan, Sec. 23.23
South and North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, prohibition of funds for 
    military activities in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4
States, admission of, to Union
    Alaska, Sec. 2.1
    Hawaii, Sec. 2.2
Tabling objection to Senate general surtax amendment to House excise 
    tax bill, Sec. 16.1
Thailand and Laos, prohibition of American ground forces from, 
    Sec. 10.1
Timeliness of objection to alleged Senate infringement of House 
    prerogatives, Sec. 14.2
Timetable for budget preparation, Sec. 21
Treasury, Department of, and Bureau of Internal Revenue reorganization 
    plan, Sec. 23.4
United States Employment Service, Federal Security Agency, and Social 
    Security Board reorganization plan, Sec. 23.23
Urban Affairs and Housing, Department of, reorganization plan, 
    Sec. 23.13
Veto of War Powers Resolution, Sec. 4.1
Vice President, confirmation of Gerald R. Ford as, Sec. 22.1
Vietnam, North and South, Cambodia and Laos, prohibition of funds for 
    military activities in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.4
Vietnam, North and South, Cambodia and Laos, prohibition of military 
    activity in, after fixed date, Sec. 10.5
War
    Bulgaria, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.4
    Bulgaria, declaration of war on, by Senate, Sec. 7.4
    Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania, request for declaration of war on, 
        Sec. 11.3
    Germany and foreign nations, proclamation regarding war between, 
        Sec. 12.4
    Germany and Italy, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.2
    Germany, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.2
    Germany, declaration of war on by Senate, Sec. 7.2
    Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania, request for declaration of war on, 
        Sec. 11.3
    Hungary, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.5

[[Page 1774]]

    Hungary, declaration of war on, by Senate, Sec. 7.5
    Italy and Germany, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.2
    Italy, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.3
    Italy, declaration of war on, by Senate, Sec. 7.3
    Japan, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.1
    Japan, declaration of war on, by Senate, Sec. 7.1
    Japan, request for declaration of war on, Sec. 11.1
    Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, request for declaration of war on, 
        Sec. 11.3
    Rumania, declaration of war on, by House, Sec. 6.6
    Rumania, declaration of war on, by Senate, Sec. 7.6
War Powers Resolution
    passage of, Sec. 4.2
    veto of, Sec. 4.1
Western Hemisphere, inducted land forces limited to, Sec. 9.5
Western Hemisphere, reserve forces limited to, Sec. 9.4
Withdrawal of Internal Revenue Code amendments by Senate, Sec. 19.6

[[Page 1775]]



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 1. Scope



    This chapter does not exhaustively treat the powers of Congress 
enumerated in the Constitution. It is intended, rather, as a discussion 
of selected areas, including some in which issues have arisen, or may 
arise, as to the relative scope of authority of Congress and other 
branches of government.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Ch. 11, supra, for a discussion of the related subject, 
        privilege of the House, and Ch. 24, infra, for a discussion of 
        congressional vetoes.
            See also 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1480-1561; and 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 314-329, for treatment of 
        precedents arising prior to 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 2. Admitting States to the Union

    Article IV, section 3, clause 1, empowers Congress to admit new 
states to the Union. No new state may be formed within the jurisdiction 
of any other state or by the junction of two or more states, or parts 
of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the two states 
concerned as well as the Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 216 (1973); and Constitution of the 
        United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. 
        No. 9282, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 842-845 (1973) for discussion 
        of this provision.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska

Sec. 2.1 The House and Senate agreed to a bill admitting Alaska into 
    the Union.

    The House on May 28, 1958,(3) and the Senate on June 30, 
1958,(4) agreed to H.R. 7999, admitting Alaska into the 
Union. The measure was approved on July 7, 1958.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 9756, 9757, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 12650.
 5. 572 Stat. 339 (Pub. L. No. 85-508).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hawaii

Sec. 2.2 The Senate and House agreed to a bill admitting Hawaii into 
    the Union.

[[Page 1776]]

    The Senate on Mar. 11, 1959,6 and the House on Mar. 12, 
1959,7 agreed to S. 50 admitting Hawaii into the Union. The 
House agreed to S. 50 in lieu of H.R. 4221.8 S. 50 was 
approved on Mar. 18, 1959.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 3890, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at pp. 4038, 4039.
 8. See 105 Cong. Rec. 4005, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1959, for 
        the unanimous-consent agreement to consider S. 50 in lieu of 
        H.R. 4221.
 9. 73 Stat. 4 (Pub. L. No. 86-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 3. In General




    Article I, section 8, clauses 11-14 of the Constitution describe 
the fundamental war powers of Congress, including:

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make 
    Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 5, infra, for a discussion of authority to declare war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to 
    that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
        To provide and maintain a Navy;
        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and 
    naval Forces. . . .

Like all powers of Congress, the war power must also be understood in 
light of the general grant of legislative authority of article I, 
section 8, clause 18:

        The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which 
    shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
    foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution 
    in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or 
    Officer thereof.

A more general grant of authority appears in article I, section 8, 
clause 1, ``Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common 
Defense and general Welfare of the United States. . . .''

    In addition to these powers, article I, section 8, clauses 15 and 
16 grant Congress power over the militia, including:

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of 
    the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
    Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in 
    the Service of the United

[[Page 1777]]

    States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of 
    the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according 
    to the discipline prescribed by Congress. . . .

Closely related to authority to protect the states is article IV, 
section 4, which imposes duties on the United States without specifying 
a particular political department:

        The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union 
    a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them 
    against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the 
    Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against 
    domestic violence.

    Significant among constitutional grants of authority are provisions 
relating to raising and supporting an army and providing and 
maintaining a navy. Pursuant to this authority Congress prohibited use 
of conscripts and reserves beyond the Western Hemisphere prior to World 
War II(11) and prohibited expenditure or obligation of funds 
for military purposes in certain countries of Indochina during the 
conflict in Vietnam.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5, infra, for illustrations of these 
        restrictions.
12. See the precedents in Sec. 10, infra, for these restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article II, section 2, clause 1 provides that, ``The President 
shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, 
and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual 
Service of the United States. . . .''
    The precedents in this division focus primarily on congressional 
authorization of and limitations on use of force by the Commander in 
Chief.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 5, 8, infra, for discussion of the authorization of 
        use of force by declaration of war and by statute, 
        respectively; and Sec. Sec. 9, 10, infra, for precedents 
        relating to restrictions on use of force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Supreme Court has declined to pass on the 
constitutionality of the ``peacetime'' draft, lower courts have 
uniformly held that the congressional power to raise armies is not 
limited by the absence of a declaration of war.(14) In 
upholding a statute prohibiting destruction of a selective service 
registrant's registration certificate, Chief Justice Warren, speaking 
for the court majority, observed that, ``. . . the power of Congress to 
classify and conscript manpower for military serv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and 
        Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 331 
        (1973). See, for example, Hart v United States, 382 F2d 1020 
        (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 956 (1968); and United 
        States v Holmes, 387 F2d 781 (7th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 
        U.S. 936 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1778]]

ice is `beyond question.' '' (15) In a dissent, Justice 
Douglas denied that the question of peacetime conscription was 
settled.(16)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. United States v O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1967). The internal 
        quotation was taken from Lichter v United States, 334 U.S. 742, 
        756 (1948) which upheld the wartime renegotiation Act as a 
        constitutional exercise of the authority of Congress to ``make 
        all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
        Execution the foregoing Powers.''
16. United States v O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 389 (1967). See his dissent 
        to the denial of certiorari in Holmes v United States, 391 U.S. 
        936 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wartime conscription does not deprive the states of the right to a 
well-regulated militia or violate the 13th amendment which prohibits 
involuntary servitude.(17) In making this determination, the 
Supreme Court rejected the contention that congressional power to exact 
compulsory service was limited to calling forth the militia for the 
three purposes specified in the Constitution,(18) despite 
the fact that none of these purposes explicitly comprehend service 
abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 381 (1918).
18. Id. These purposes are to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
        insurrections, and repel invasions. See U.S. Const. art. I, 
        Sec. 8, clause 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sections in this division focus on the role of Congress in 
committing troops to hostilities, and include discussion of 
institutional means to insure congressional judgment in such 
circumstances; (19) declarations of war; (20) 
authorization of use of force and activation of reserves by legislation 
short of declarations of war; (1) restrictions on use of 
force and deployment of troops before World War II (2) and 
during the Vietnam era; (3) receipt of Presidential 
messages; (4) and publication of Presidential 
proclamations.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 4, infra.
20. Sec. Sec. 5-7, infra.
 1. Sec. 8, infra.
 2. Sec. 9, infra.
 3. Sec. 10, infra.
 4. Sec. 11, infra.
 5. Sec. 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Collateral References (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The articles in this section relate to war powers generally. See 
        collateral references in Sec. 4, infra, War Powers Act, and 
        Sec. 10, infra, Vietnam Era Restrictions on Military Activity, 
        for articles relating to these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berdahl, Clarence Arthur. War Powers of the Executive in the United 
    States. Johnson Reprint Corp., New York 1970 [c1921].
Berger, Raoul. War-making by the President. 121 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 29-86 
    (Nov. 1972). See 119 Cong. Rec. 4568-84, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 
    20, 1973, for a reprint of this article.
Bickel, Alexander. Congress, the President and the Power to Wage War. 
    48

[[Page 1779]]

    Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 131 (Fall-Winter 1971).
Campisi, Dominic J. Honored in the Breech: Presidential Authority to 
    Execute the Laws with Military Force. 83 Yale L.J. 130 (1973).
Coolidge, Francis L., Jr., and Sharrow, Joel David. The War-Making 
    Powers: The Intentions of the Framers in Light of Parliamentary 
    History. 50 Boston U.L.R. 4 (Spring 1970).
Deutsch, Eberhard P. The President as Commander in Chief. 57 A.B.A.J. 
    27 (1971).
Emerson, J. Terry. War Powers: An Invasion of Presidential Prerogative. 
    58 A.B.A.J. 809 (1972).
Fulbright, J. W. Congress, the President and the War Power. 25 Ark. L. 
    Rev. 71-84 (Spring 1971).
Goldwater, Barry M. The President's Constitutional Primacy in Foreign 
    Relations and National Defense. 13 Va. Jour. of International Law 
    463-89 (Summer 1973).
Keown, Stuart S. The President, the Congress, and the Power to Declare 
    War. 16 U. of Kansas L.R. 82 (Nov. 1967).
Lofgren, Charles A. War-Making Under the Constitution: The Original 
    Understanding. Yale L.J. 672 (1972).
May, Ernest. The Ultimate Decision: The President as Commander in 
    Chief. G. Braziller (1960).
McKay, Robert B. The Constitutional Issues--the Opposition Position. 45 
    N.Y.U.L.R. 640 (1970) [reply to Rehnquist, William H., The 
    Constitutional Issues--Administration Position, 45 N.Y.U.L.R. 628 
    (1970)].
Monaghan, Henry P. Presidential War-Making. 50 Boston U.L.R. 19 (Spring 
    1970).
Moore, John Norton. The National Executive and the Use of Armed Forces 
    Abroad. 21 Naval War Coll. Rev. 28 (1969), reprinted in The Vietnam 
    War and International Law, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 
    N.J. 808 (1969).
Pusey, Merlo John. The Way We Go to War. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 
    (1969).
Ratner, Leonard G. The Coordinated War-Making Power--Legislative, 
    Executive, and Judicial Roles. 44 So. Calif. L. Rev. 461-89 (Winter 
    1971).
Rehnquist, William H. The Constitutional Issues--Administration 
    Position. 45 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 628-39 (June 1970).
Reveley, W. Taylor, III. Presidential War-Making: Constitutional 
    Prerogative or Usurpation? 55 Va. L. Rev. 1243-305 (Nov. 1969).
Rogers, William P. Congress, the President, and the War Powers. 59 
    Calif. L. Rev. 1194-214 (Sept. 1971).
Round Table: The Role of Congress. 65 American Journal of International 
    Law 168 (Sept. 1971) [proceedings of the American Society of 
    International Law at its 65th annual meeting, Wash., D.C., Apr. 29, 
    May 1, 1971 (participants: Jacob Javits, Paul Findley, George Ball, 
    and McGeorge Bundy)].
Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. Congress and the Making of American Foreign 
    Policy. 5 Foreign Affairs 78 (Oct. 1972).
Shaffer, Lewis A. Presidential Power to Make War. 7 Ind. L. Rev. 900-24 
    (1974).
Velvel, L. R. Constitution and the War: Some Major Issues. 49 Jour. of 
    Urban Law--U. of Detroit 231-95 (Nov. 1971).
 Wright, Quincy. The Power of the Executive to Use Military Forces 
    Abroad. 10

[[Page 1780]]

    Va. Jour. of International Law 42-57 (Dec. 
    1969).                      

Termination of State of War With Germany

Sec. 3.1 The House and Senate agreed to a House joint resolution 
    terminating the state of war between the United States and the 
    government of Germany.

    On July 27, 1951,(7) the House by a vote of yeas 379, 
present 1, not voting 53, agreed to a House joint resolution, 
terminating the state of war between the United States and the 
Government of Germany. On Oct. 18, 1951,(8) the Senate by 
voice vote passed the measure (9) which was approved by the 
President in the following form: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 9036, 9049, 9050, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 13438, 13443, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. See 97 Cong. Rec. 13785, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1951, for 
        notification to the Clerk of Presidential approval.
10. This excerpt is taken from 65 Stat. 451, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 82-181).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Joint Resolution 289
    To terminate the state of war between the United States and the 
        Government of Germany.

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of 
    war declared to exist between the United States and the Government 
    of Germany by the joint resolution of Congress approved December 
    11, 1941, is hereby terminated and such termination shall take 
    effect on the date of enactment of this resolution: Provided, 
    however, That notwithstanding this resolution and any proclamation 
    issued by the President pursuant thereto, any property or interest 
    which prior to January 1, 1947, was subject to vesting or seizure 
    under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 
    6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended, or which has heretofore been 
    vested or seized under that Act, including accruals to or proceeds 
    of any such property or interest, shall continue to be subject to 
    the provisions of that Act in the same manner and to the same 
    extent as if this resolution had not been adopted and such 
    proclamation had not been issued. Nothing herein and nothing in 
    such proclamation shall alter the status, as it existed immediately 
    prior hereto, under that Act, of Germany or of any person with 
    respect to any such property or interest.
        Approved October 19, 1951.

Attorney General's Opinion Regarding President's Authority to Exchange 
    Ships for Bases

Sec. 3.2 The House received an opinion of the Attorney General 
    outlining the President's authority to acquire offshore naval and 
    air bases from Great Britain and transfer

[[Page 1781]]

    American destroyers to Great Britain.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(11) the House received an opinion from 
the Attorney General (12) as to the authority of the 
President to enter into agreements for the acquisition of offshore 
military bases (see below). The opinion accompanied the President's 
message regarding the agreements in question.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11355-57, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. See Borchard, The Attorney General's Opinion on the Exchange of 
        Destroyers for Naval Bases, 34 American Journal of 
        International Law 690 (1940).
13. See Sec. 11.7, infra, for the text of the President's message.

                                                  August 27, 1940.
    The President,
    The White House.

        My Dear Mr. President: In accordance with your request, I have 
    considered your constitutional and statutory authority to proceed 
    by Executive agreement with the British Government immediately to 
    acquire for the United States certain offshore naval and air bases 
    in the Atlantic Ocean without awaiting the inevitable delays which 
    would accompany the conclusion of a formal treaty.
        The essential characteristics of the proposal are:
        (a) The United States to acquire rights for immediate 
    establishment and use of naval and air bases in Newfoundland, 
    Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Santa Lucia, Trinidad, and British 
    Guiana, such rights to endure for a period of 99 years and to 
    include adequate provisions for access to and defense of such bases 
    and appropriate provisions for their control.
        (b) In consideration it is proposed to transfer to Great 
    Britain the title and possession of certain over-age ships and 
    obsolescent military materials now the property of the United 
    States and certain other small patrol boats which, though nearly 
    completed, are already obsolescent.
        (c) Upon such transfer all obligation of the United States is 
    discharged. . . . [Our Government] undertakes no defense of the 
    possessions of any country. In short, it acquires optional bases 
    which may be developed as Congress appropriates funds therefor, but 
    the United States does not assume any continuing or future 
    obligation, commitment, or alliance.
        The questions of constitutional and statutory authority, with 
    which alone I am concerned, seem to be these:
        First. May such an acquisition be concluded by the President 
    under an Executive agreement, or must it be negotiated as a treaty, 
    subject to ratification by the Senate?
        Second. Does authority exist in the President to alienate the 
    title to such ships and obsolescent materials; and if so, on what 
    conditions?
        Third. Do the statutes of the United States limit the right to 
    deliver the so-called mosquito boats now under construction or the 
    over-age destroyers by reason of the belligerent status of Great 
    Britain? . . .
        Accordingly you are respectfully advised:
        (a) That the proposed arrangement may be concluded as an 
    Executive

[[Page 1782]]

    agreement, effective without awaiting ratification.
        (b) That there is Presidential power to transfer title and 
    possession of the proposed considerations upon certification by 
    appropriate staff officers.
        (c) That the dispatch of the so-called mosquito boats would 
    constitute a violation of the statute law of the United States, but 
    with that exception there is no legal obstacle to the consummation 
    of the transaction, in accordance, of course, with the applicable 
    provisions of the Neutrality Act as to delivery.
        Respectfully submitted.
                                              Robert H. Jackson,
                                                 Attorney General.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 4. War Powers Act

    To ensure proper legislative branch participation in decisions to 
deploy American forces, legislation on war powers was introduced in the 
91st and 92d Congresses.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, H.J. Res. 1355, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970); S. 
        2956, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971); H.J. Res. 1, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess. (1971); S. 731, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973 the House approved House Joint Resolution 542. The Senate 
struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the 
language of S. 440. Following a conference, a compromise between the 
House and Senate versions was agreed to.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 4.2, infra, for the vote over-riding the President's veto 
        of the compromise, H.J. Res. 542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conferees resolved a major difference in the two measures which 
related to defining the authority of the Commander in Chief to deploy 
troops. S. 440, section 3, provided that in the absence of a 
congressional declaration of war armed forces could be introduced only 
in certain circumstances, including repulsion of an armed attack, 
protection of American citizens being evacuated in situations of danger 
abroad, and pursuant to specific statutory authorization. Sections of 
the Senate bill which related to reporting, period of commitment, 
termination dates, and congressional procedures were expressly tied to 
section 3. House Joint Resolution 542 did not contain a similar 
provision.
    Section 2(c) in the ``Purpose and Policy'' provisions of the 
resolution agreed to by the conferees states:

        The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in 
    Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or 
    into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is 
    clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant 
    to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, 
    or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United 
    States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Unlike the Senate bill, no subsequent section of the resolution re

[[Page 1783]]

fers to section 2(c), the description of war powers of the Commander in 
Chief. Much of the debate on the conference report focused on whether 
the President could introduce troops only in the situations described 
in section 2(c) and in no other situation (2) or whether 
that section merely stated his authority in a manner which did not 
limit his authority to deploy troops.(3~) The most revealing 
expression of the intent of the conferees on this controversy appears 
in two sentences in the conference report: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Section 2(a) of the act states that insuring the collective 
        judgment of Congress and the President in the introduction of 
        American forces into hostilities is a purpose of the act.
 3. In his veto message the President, applying the restrictive 
        interpretation of Sec. 2(c), stated that America's effective 
        response in the Berlin crisis of 1961, Cuban missile crisis of 
        1962, Congo rescue operation of 1964, and the Jordanian crisis 
        of 1970, would have been ``vastly complicated or even made 
        impossible.'' (See 119 Cong. Rec. 34990, 34991, 93d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 25, 1973.)
 4. H. Rept. No. 93-547, 2 U.S. Code legis. and Adm. News, p. 2364 
        (1973)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 2(c) is a statement of the authority of the Commander 
    in Chief respecting the introduction of United States Armed Forces 
    into hostilities. . . . Subsequent sections of the joint resolution 
    are not dependent upon thc language of this subsection, as was the 
    case with a similar provision of the Senate bill (section 3).

This statement supports an inference that section 2(c) does not 
exhaustively define all circumstances in which the President may deploy 
troops.

    A nonrestrictive interpretation of the three situations described 
in section 2(c) avoids the question whether Congress may define the 
constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief by statute rather 
than constitutional amendment. The President in his veto message 
asserted that a constitutional amendment is the only way in which 
constitutional authorities of another branch of government may be 
altered. A statutory attempt to make such alterations is ``clearly 
without force.'' (5) The congressional view on this matter 
is expressed in section 2(b) of the act. Citing and interpreting 
article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution, section 2(b) 
states the constitutional provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 4.1, infra, for the veto message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [P]rovided that the Congress shall have power to make all 
    laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its 
    own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in 
    the Government of the United States or in any department or officer 
    thereof.

    Section 3 of the resolution imposes on the President a duty ``in

[[Page 1784]]

every possible instance'' to consult with Congress before introducing 
troops and to consult regularly after such introduction until armed 
forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from 
such situations. The conferees explained that this provision is not a 
limitation upon or substitute for other provisions of the resolution. 
The conferees intended that consultations take place even when advance 
consultation is not possible.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See H. Rept. No. 93-547, 2 U.S. Code Legis. and Adm. News, p. 2364 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4 provides that in the absence of a declaration of war, in 
any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced in certain 
circumstances, the President must submit within 48 hours to the Speaker 
and President pro tempore specified information as well as any other 
information Congress requests. The President must continue to make 
reports periodically as long as troops are engaged in hostilities but 
not less often than once every six months. The objective of this 
section, explained the conferees, is to insure that Congress by right 
and as a matter of law will be provided with all the information it 
needs to carry out its responsibilities.
    Section 5 relates to referral of the report to committee and 
appropriate action by the Congress, and requires the President to 
terminate use of armed forces within 60 days after submission of the 
report, unless Congress (1) has declared war or enacted specific 
authorization, (2) has by law extended the 60-day period, or (3) is 
physically unable to meet. The 60-day period may be extended not more 
than 30 days. Notwithstanding the 60-day provision, forces engaged in 
hostilities outside the United States, its possessions, and territories 
must be removed by the President if Congress so directs by concurrent 
resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. Statutes have been adopted which authorize the use of 
        concurrent resolutions to achieve congressional purposes and 
        which apply procedures patterned after the War Powers Act. 
        Thus, the statute implementing the United States proposal for 
        an early warning system in Sinai empowers Congress by 
        concurrent resolution to remove U.S. civilian personnel from 
        Sinai if it determines that their safety is jeopardized or that 
        continuation of their role is no longer necessary. 22 USC 
        Sec. 2441 note, Pub. L. No. 94-110, 89 Stat. 572, Oct. 13, 
        1975. The National Emergencies Act authorizes Congress by 
        concurrent resolution to terminate a national emergency. 50 USC 
        Sec. 1622, Pub. L. No. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255, Sept. 14, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 mandates that a joint resolution or bill declaring war or

[[Page 1785]]

authorizing use of armed forces introduced at least 30 days prior to 
the 60-day period specified in section 5 be referred in the House to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs (renamed the Committee on 
International Relations on Mar. 19, 1975). When reported by the 
committee, the measure becomes the pending business and is voted on 
within three calendar days thereafter unless otherwise determined by 
the yeas and nays. After passage in one House, the measure is to be 
referred to the counterpart committee of the other House and reported 
out not later than 14 calendar days before the expiration of the 60-day 
period and then voted on. In the case of disagreement between the two 
Houses, conferees are appointed, and the conference committee must 
report on the measure no later than four calendar days before the 
expiration of the 60-day period. If conferees cannot agree within 48 
hours, they report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. 
Notwithstanding any rule concerning printing or delay of consideration 
of conference reports, the report must be acted on by both Houses not 
later than the expiration of the 60-day period.
    Section 7 provides that a concurrent resolution introduced pursuant 
to section 5 directing the President to remove forces engaged in 
hostilities be referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs or to 
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as the case may be. Such 
committee must report with recommendations within 15 calendar days 
unless otherwise determined by the yeas and nays. Such resolution 
becomes the pending business of the House in question. After passage in 
one House, the resolution is to be referred to the counterpart 
committee in the other House, and is to be reported out with 
recommendations within 15 calendar days, at which time it becomes the 
pending business of that House. In the case of disagreement between the 
two Houses, conferees must be promptly appointed. The conference 
committee must report on the measure within six calendar days after 
referral to the committee of conference. Such report must be acted on 
by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the report is 
filed.
    Section 8, relating to interpretation of the joint resolution, 
states that authority to introduce troops shall not be inferred from 
any provision of law unless such provision specifically authorizes 
introduction of forces, or from any treaty unless it is implemented by 
legislation specifically authorizing in

[[Page 1786]]

troduction of forces. The joint resolution does not necessitate further 
specific statutory authorization to permit American participation in 
headquarters operations with armed forces of one or more foreign 
countries. The term ``introduction of United States Armed Forces'' is 
clarified. The joint resolution does not alter constitutional authority 
of the President or Congress. It does not grant any authority to the 
President which he would not have had in the absence of the joint 
resolution.
    Sections 9 and 10 relate to separability of provisions and the 
effective date, respectively.

                 Collateral References (~8)
Congress, the President, and War Powers, hearings before the 
    Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific 
    Developments of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 91st Cong. 
    2d Sess. (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also the collateral references in Sec. 3, supra, and Sec. 10, 
        infra, relating to war powers generally and Vietnam era 
        restrictions on military activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress and the War Powers. 37 Mo. L. Rev. 1-32 (Winter 1972).
Eagleton, Thomas F. August 15 Compromise and the War Powers of 
    Congress. 18 St. Louis U.L. Jour. 1-11 (Fall 1973).
Emerson, J. T. War Powers Legislation, 74 W. Va. L.R. 53 (Nov.-Jan. 
    1971-1972).
Javits, Jacob K. Congress and the President: A Modern Delineation of 
    the War Powers. 35 Albany L. Rev. 632-37 (1971).
Jenkins, Gerald L. The War Powers Resolution: Statutory Limitation on 
    the Commander in Chief. 11 Harv. Jour. on Legislation 181-204 (Feb. 
    1974).
Rostow, Eugene V. Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act. 50 Tex. 
    L. Rev. 833-900 (May 1972).
Scribner, Jeffrey L. The President Versus Congress on War-Making 
    Authority. 52 Military Rev. 87 (Apr. 1972).
Spong, W. B., Jr. Can Balance Be Restored in the Constitutional War 
    Powers of the Prcsident and Congress? 6 U. of Richmond L. Rev. 1-47 
    (Fall 1971).
Wallace, Don, Jr. War-making Powers: A Constitution Flaw? 57 Cornell L. 
    Rev. 719-76 (May 1972).
War Powers Legislation, Hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations 
    Committee, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971).
Wooters, Garry J. The Appropriations Power as a Tool of Congressional 
    Foreign Policy Making, 50 Boston U.L.R. 34; reprinted in The 
    Vietnam War and International Law: The Widening Context, Princeton 
    University Press, Princeton, N.J., 606 
    (1972).                          -------------------

Veto of War Powers Resolution

Sec. 4.1 The War Powers Resolution was vetoed by the President.

    On Oct. 25, 1973,(9) the President's veto message 
outlining his
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 34990, 34991, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1787]]

objections to the War Powers Resolution was laid before the House.

        The Speaker (10) laid before the House the following 
    veto message from the President of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).

                                    To the House of Representatives:

            I hereby return without my approval House Joint Resolution 
        542--the War Powers Resolution. While I am in accord with thc 
        desire of the Congress to assert its proper role in the conduct 
        of our foreign affairs the restrictions which this resolution 
        would impose upon the authority of the President are both 
        unconstitutional and dangerous to the best interests of our 
        Nation.
            The proper roles of the Congress and the Executive in the 
        conduct of foreign affairs have been debated since the founding 
        of our country. Only recently, however, has there been a 
        serious challenge to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in 
        choosing not to draw a precise and detailed line of demarcation 
        between the foreign policy powers of the two branches.
            The Founding Fathers understood the impossibility of 
        foreseeing every contingency that might arise in this complex 
        area. They acknowledged the need for flexibility in responding 
        to changing circumstances. They recognized that foreign policy 
        decisions must be made through close cooperation between the 
        two branches and not through rigidly codified procedures. . . .
            House Joint Resolution 542 would attempt to take away, bv a 
        mere legislative act, authorities which the President has 
        properly exercised under the Constitution for almost 200 years. 
        One of its provisions would automatically cut off certain 
        authorities after sixty days unless the Congress extended them. 
        Another would allow the Congress to eliminate certain 
        authorities merely by the passage of a concurrent resolution--
        an action which does not normally have the force of law, since 
        it denies the President his constitutional role in approving 
        legislation.
            I believe that both these provisions are unconstitutional. 
        The only way in which the constitutional powers of a branch of 
        the Government can be altered is by amending the Constitution--
        and any attempt to make such alterations by legislation alone 
        is clearly without force.
            While I firmly believe that a veto of House Joint 
        Resolution 542 is warranted solely on constitutional grounds, I 
        am also deeply disturbed by the practical consequences of this 
        resolution. For it would seriously undermine this Nation's 
        ability to act decisively and convincingly in times of 
        international crisis. . . .
            I am particularly disturbed by the fact that certain of the 
        President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief of the 
        Armed Forces would terminate automatically under this 
        resolution 60 days after they were invoked. No overt 
        Congressional action would be required to cut off these 
        powers--they would disappear automatically unless the Congress 
        extended them. . . .
            This Administration is dedicated to strengthening 
        cooperation between the Congress and the President in the 
        conduct of foreign affairs and to preserving the constitutional 
        prerogatives of both branches of our Government. I know that 
        the Congress shares that goal. A commission on the 
        constitutional roles of the Congress and the President would 
        provide a useful opportunity for both branches to work together 
        toward that common objective.

                                                Richard Nixon,
                                                The White House,
                                                 October 24, 1973.

[[Page 1788]]

Passage of War Powers Resolution

Sec. 4.2 By a two-thirds vote in each body, the House and Senate 
    overrode the President's veto of the War Powers Resolution.

    On Nov. 7, 1973, the House by a vote of yeas 284, nays 135, not 
voting 14,(11) and the Senate by a vote of yeas 75, nays 
18,(12) two-thirds in each body voting in the affirmative, 
agreed to override the President's veto of House Joint Resolution 542, 
the War Powers Resolution, which became law on Nov. 7, 1973, in the 
following form: (l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 36202, 36221, 36222, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        119 Cong. Rec. 24707, 24708, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 
        1973, for initial House approval of this joint resolution (H. 
        Rept. No. 93-287, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. [1973]); and 119 Cong. 
        Rec. 33858, 33873, 33874, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 12, 1973, 
        for consideration and approval of the conference report (H. 
        Rept. No. 93-547) by a vote of yeas 238, nays 123, not voting 
        73.
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36175, 36197, 36198, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        119 Cong. Rec. 25120, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1973, for 
        unanimous-consent agreement to strike from H.J. Res. 542 all 
        after the resolving clause and substitute therefor the text of 
        the Senate version of the War Powers Resolution, S. 440, which 
        the Senate had just approved (p. 25119) by a vote of yeas 72, 
        nays 18 (S. Rept. No. 220, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. [1973]); and 119 
        Cong. Rec. 33569, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 1973, for 
        Senate approval of the conference report by a vote of yeas 75, 
        nays 20.
13. This excerpt is taken from 87 Stat. 555, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 93-148). It is codified at 50 USC Sec. Sec. 1541 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Short Title

        Section 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the ``War 
    Powers Resolution''.

                             Purpose and Policy

        Sec. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to 
    fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United 
    States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress 
    and the President will apply to the introduction of United States 
    Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent 
    involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the 
    circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in 
    hostilities or in such situations.
        (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is 
    specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to 
    make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not 
    only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the 
    Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any 
    department or officer thereof.
        (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-
    Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces

[[Page 1789]]

    into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in 
    hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are 
    exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific 
    statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by 
    attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or 
    its armed forces.

                                Consultation

        Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult 
    with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into 
    hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in 
    hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after 
    every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress 
    until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in 
    hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

                                 Reporting

        Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case 
    in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

            (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent 
        involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the 
        circumstances;
            (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign 
        nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which 
        relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of 
        such forces; or
            (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States 
        Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign 
        nation;
    the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the 
    Senate a report in writing, setting forth--

            (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of 
        United States Armed Forces;
            (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under 
        which such introduction took place; and
            (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or 
        involvement.

        (b) The President shall provide such other information as the 
    Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional 
    responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and 
    to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
        (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into 
    hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of 
    this section, the President shall], so long as such armed forces 
    continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to 
    the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or 
    situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities 
    or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less 
    often than once every six months.

                            Congressional Action

        Sec. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1) 
    shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
    and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar 
    day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the 
    Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate 
    action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has 
    adjourned sine die or has ad

[[Page 1790]]

    journed for any period in excess of three calendar days, the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
    tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned 
    by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective 
    Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in 
    order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action 
    pursuant to this section.
        (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or 
    is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1), whichever 
    is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States 
    Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or 
    required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war 
    or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United 
    States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, 
    or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack 
    upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for 
    not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines 
    and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military 
    necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces 
    requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of 
    bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
        (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United 
    States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the 
    territory of the United States, its possessions and territories 
    without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, 
    such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so 
    directs by concurrent resolution.

       Congressional Priority Procedures for Joint Resolution or Bill

        Sec. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to 
    section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of 
    the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or 
    the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may 
    be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or 
    bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four 
    calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period 
    specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise 
    determine by the yeas and nays.
        (b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the 
    pending business of the House in question (in the case of the 
    Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the 
    proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three 
    calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise 
    determine by yeas and nays.
        (c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall 
    be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection 
    (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days 
    before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 
    5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the 
    pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on 
    within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such 
    House shall determine by yeas and otherwise nays.
        (d) ln the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of 
    Congress

[[Page 1791]]

    with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, 
    conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of 
    conference shall make and file a report with respect to such 
    resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the 
    expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5 (b). In 
    the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they 
    shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. 
    Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of 
    conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the 
    consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by 
    both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

        Congressional Priority Procedures for Concurrent Resolution

        Sec. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to 
    section 5(c) shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign 
    Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such 
    concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee 
    together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, 
    unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
        (b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the 
    pending business of the House in question (in the case of the 
    Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the 
    proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three 
    calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise 
    determine by yeas and nays.
        (c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be 
    referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection 
    (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its 
    recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon 
    become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon 
    within three calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise 
    determine by yeas and nays.
        (d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of 
    Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both 
    Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of 
    conference shall make and file a report with respect to such 
    concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the 
    legislation is referred to the committee of conference. 
    Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of 
    conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the 
    consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by 
    both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference 
    report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree 
    within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses 
    in disagreement.

                     Interpretation of Joint Resolution

        Sec. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces 
    into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in 
    hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be 
    inferred--
        (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before 
    the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any 
    provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provi

[[Page 1792]]

    sion specifically authorizes the introduction of United States 
    Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states 
    that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization 
    within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
        (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless 
    such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing 
    the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or 
    into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute 
    specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint 
    resolution.
        (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to 
    require any further specific statutory authorization to permit 
    members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with 
    members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the 
    headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were 
    established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution 
    and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified 
    by the United States prior to such date.
        (c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term 
    ``introduction of United States Armed Forces'' includes the 
    assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, 
    participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or 
    irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when 
    such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent 
    threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
        (d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

            (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of 
        the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing 
        treaties; or
            (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the 
        President with respect to the introduction of United States 
        Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein 
        involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the 
        circumstances which authority he would not have had in the 
        absence of this joint resolution.

                            Separability Clause

        Sec. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the 
    application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, 
    the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such 
    provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected 
    thereby.

                               Effective Date

        Sec. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of 
    its enactment.


 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 5. Declarations of War

    Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution authorizes 
Congress to declare war. Granting Congress this authority and making 
the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy represents a 
compromise between the views of delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention who wanted to grant Congress authority to ``make'' war and 
delegates who wanted to grant such authority to the President alone, 
the Senate

[[Page 1793]]

alone, or the President and Senate together.(14~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and 
        Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 325 
        (1973). Delegates Madison and Gerry, who introduced the 
        amendment substituting ``declare war'' in place of ``make 
        war,'' which appeared in an early draft of the Constitution, 
        noted that the change would, ``leav[e] to the Executive the 
        power to repel sudden attacks.'' 2 M. Farrand, The Records of 
        the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 
        1937) 318; and Constitution of the United States of America: 
        Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., n. 9, p. 326 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All declarations of war since 1936 have been made by adoption of 
joint resolutions approved by the President.(15~) Either 
House may originate a joint resolution to declare war. In all cases 
during this period, the House suspended the rules and promptly agreed 
to these joint resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3368; and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1038 for earlier precedents relating to declarations of 
        war on Spain and Germany, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provision of the House rules which requires that matters 
reported by committees not be considered in the House until the third 
calendar day on which the report has been available to Members does not 
apply to declarations of war.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Rule XI clause 27(d)(4)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(d)(4) 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction over 
legislation declaring war.(l7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XI clause 7(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 689 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the constitutional provision authorizing Congress to 
declare war, American forces have been committed to protracted land 
wars in Korea and Indochina in the absence of such declarations. After 
North Korea attacked South Korea in June of 1950, the President without 
consulting Congress ordered air and sea forces to respond. He committed 
ground troops when the United Nations Security Council requested 
assistance from United Nations members. Although the President never 
requested a declaration of war, he proclaimed the existence of a 
national emergency in December of 1950, six months after the outbreak 
of hostilities.(1) Congressional acquiescence in the 
American involvement in the Indochina war was originally found in the 
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution approved by the House and Senate in August of 
1964.(2) Following express repeal of this resolution in 
January of 1971, Congress in most instances (3~) approved au

[[Page 1794]]

thorizations and appropriations to support troops in the field. The 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the test ``whether there is 
any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the 
military activity'' in Vietnam in the absence of a declaration of war 
or express statutory sanction, held that congressional authorization 
could be implied from approval of legislation to furnish manpower and 
materials of war.(4) The court observed that. ``. . . 
neither the language nor the purpose underlying that provision [the 
declaration clause] prohibits an inference of the fact of authorization 
from such legislative action as we have in this instance'' 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 12.1, infra, for the text of this proclamation.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2, infra, for discussion of this resolution.
 3. See the precedents in Sec. 10, infra, for restrictions on use of 
        forces.
 4. Orlando v Laird, 443 F2d 1039 (1973), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869. 
        Accord, Da Costa v Laird, 448 F2d 1369 (2d Cir. 1971). Contra, 
        Mottola v Nixon, 318 F Supp 538 (N.D. Calif. 1970), reversed 
        for lack of standing, 464 F2d 26 (9th Cir. 1972). The Supreme 
        Court summarily affirmed a decision of a three judge district 
        court dismissing a challenge to the constitutionality of the 
        war on political question grounds. Attlee v Richardson, 411 
        U.S. 911 (1973), aff'g., 347 F Supp 689 (D.D.Pa. 1972).
 5. Orlando v Laird, supra, at p. 1043. Section 8 of the War Powers 
        Resolution (see Sec. 4.1, supra, for the text) which states 
        that authority to introduce armed forces cannot be inferred 
        from any provision of law or treaty unless sanction is 
        expressly stated was drafted as a direct result of Orlando v 
        Laird. See S. Rept. No. 220, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., at 25 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress on several occasions has empowered the President to 
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities by specific 
statutory authorization short of formal declaration of 
war.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 6. House Action

On Japan

Sec. 6.1 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and approved 
    a House joint resolution formally declaring a state of war between 
    the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan and then 
    vacated the proceedings and tabled the House joint resolution after 
    agreeing to an identical Senate joint resolution.

    On Dec. 8, 1941,(7) the House by a vote of yeas 388, 
nays 1, not voting 41, approved a motion made by Mr. John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules (8) and approve House 
Joint

[[Page 1795]]

Resolution 254, formally declaring a state of war between the United 
States and the Imperial Government of Japan.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 87 Cong. Rec. 9520, 9536, 9537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Earlier that day the Speaker was authorized by unanimous consent to 
        recognize Members for suspension of the rules. Id. at p. 9519.
 9. See Sec. 11.1, infra, for the text of the President's request for a 
        declaration of war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass House Joint Resolution 254, which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will read the joint 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial 
        Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the 
        United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
            Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed 
        repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of 
        the United States of America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been 
        thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and 
        that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
        directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the 
        United States and the resources of the Government to carry on 
        war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the 
        conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of 
        the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United 
        States.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Miss [Jeannette] Rankin of Montana: I object.
        The Speaker: This is no unanimous-consent request. No objection 
    is in order.
        Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second is considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

    After debate:

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote, and on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        Miss Rankin of Montana: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts demands the yeas 
    and nays. Those who favor taking this vote by the yeas and nays 
    will rise and remain standing until counted.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Miss Rankin of Montana: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.

        The Speaker: The yeas and nays have been ordered. The question 
    is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the resolution?
        Miss Rankin of Montana: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: A roll call may not be interrupted.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 388, nays 1, not 
    voting 41, as follows: . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended, and the joint resolution was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    After receiving a message that the Senate had approved Senate

[[Page 1796]]

Joint Resolution 116, which was identical to House Joint Resolution 
254, the House by unanimous consent passed the Senate measure and 
vacated the proceedings by which the House had approved the House 
measure, and tabled the House joint resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 9537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 8, 1941. See 
        Sec. 7.1, infra, for Senate proceedings on the Senate joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Further Message from the Senate

        A further message from the Senate by Mr. Frazier, its 
    legislative clerk, announced that the Senate had passed a joint 
    resolution (S.J. Res. 116) declaring that a state of war exists 
    between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the 
    people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the 
    same, in which the concurrence of the House is requested. . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
    from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 116, and agree to 
    the same.
        The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows:

            Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed 
        unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of 
        the United States of America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been 
        thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared . . .

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object--and, of course, I am not going to object--this is the 
    same declaration that we just passed?
        The Speaker: The same.
        Mr. McCormack: Yes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        There was no objection.
        The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third 
    time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings by which the House passed House Joint Resolution 254 be 
    vacated and that the resolution be laid on the table.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        There was no objection.

On Germany

Sec. 6.2 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and approved 
    a House joint resolution formally declaring a state of war between 
    the United States and the Government of Germany and then by 
    unanimous consent vacated the proceedings and tabled the House 
    measure after agreeing to an identical Senate joint resolution.

[[Page 1797]]

    On Dec. 11, 1941,(12) the House by a vote of yeas 393, 
present 1, not voting 36, agreed to a motion made by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules (13) and 
approve House Joint Resolution 256, formally declaring a state of war 
between the United States and the Government of Germany.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong Rec. 9665, 9666, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Earlier that day the Speaker was authorized by unanimous consent to 
        recognize Members for suspension of the rules. Id. at p. 9665.
14. See Sec. 11.2, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask 
    to have read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust 
        upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the 
        President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the 
        entire naval and military forces of the United States and the 
        resources of the Government to carry on war against the 
        Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a 
        successful termination, all of the resources of the country are 
        hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

        The Speaker: (15) The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. 
    The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there 
    were--yeas 393, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 36, as follows: 
    . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    After receiving a message that the Senate had approved Senate Joint 
Resolution 119, which was identical to House Joint Resolution 256, the 
House by unanimous consent passed the Senate measure and vacated the 
proceedings by which the House had approved the House measure, and 
tabled the House joint resolution.(16~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 9666, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1941. See 
        Sec. 7.2, infra, for Senate proceedings on the joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Message From the Senate

        A message from the Senate, by Mr. Frazier, its legislative 
    clerk, announced that the Senate had passed joint resolutions of 
    the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is 
    requested:

            S.J. Res. 119. Joint resolution declaring that a state of 
        war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government 
        and the people of the United States and making provision to 
        prosecute the same. . . .

[[Page 1798]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
    from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 119, which is 
    identical with the resolution just adopted by the House, and pass 
    the Senate resolution.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        The Senate joint resolution was read a third time, and passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    action just taken by the House in the passage of House Joint 
    Resolution 256 be vacated and that the resolution be laid on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

On Italy

Sec. 6.3 After receiving a message that the Senate had passed the 
    measure, the House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and 
    agreed to a Senate joint resolution declaring a state of war 
    between the United States and the Government of Italy.

    On Dec. 11, 1941,(17) the House by a vote of yeas 399, 
present 1, not voting 30, suspended the rules and passed Senate Joint 
Resolution 120, declaring a state of war between the United States and 
the Government of Italy, after receiving a message that the Senate had 
agreed to the measure.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 9666, 9667 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See Sec. 11.2, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war; and Sec. 7.3, infra, for Senate approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Message From the Senate

        A message from the Senate, by Mr. Frazier, its legislative 
    clerk, announced that the Senate had passed joint resolutions of 
    the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is 
    requested: . . .

            S.J. Res. 120. Joint resolution declaring that a state of 
        war exists between the Government of Italy and the Government 
        and the people of the United States and making provision to 
        prosecute the same. . . .

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rule and pass Senate Joint Resolution 120, which I 
    have sent to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Italy has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Italy, which has thus been thrust 
        upon the United States, is hereby formally declared. . . .

        The Speaker: (~19) The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1799]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I ask for the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 399, answered 
    ``present'' 1, not voting 30, as follows: . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the rules were 
    suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

On Bulgaria

Sec. 6.4 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and 
    unanimously approved a House resolution formally declaring a state 
    of war between the United States and the Government of Bulgaria.

    On June 3, 1942,(20) the House by a vote of yeas 357, 
nays 0, not voting 73, agreed to a motion by Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, to suspend the rules (1) and pass House Joint 
Resolution 319, declaring a formal state of war between the United 
States and Bulgaria.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 88 Cong. Rec. 4816, 4817, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The Speaker had been authorized by unanimous consent to recognize 
        Members for suspension of the rules. 88 Cong. Rec. 4799, 77th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., June 2, 1942.
 2. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war; and Sec. 7.4, infra, for Senate approval of this 
        measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 319) declaring that a state of 
    war exists between the Government of Bulgaria and the Government 
    and the people of the United States and making provisions to 
    prosecute the same.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Bulgaria has formally declared 
        war against the Government and the people of the United States 
        of America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Bulgaria, which has thus been 
        thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared. . . 
        .

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: (3) The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 357, nays 0, not 
    voting 73, as follows: . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

On Hungary

Sec. 6.5 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and 
    unanimously approved a

[[Page 1800]]

    House joint resolution formally declaring a state of war between 
    the United States and the Government of Hungary.

    On June 3, 1942,(4) the House by a vote of yeas 360, 
nays 0, not voting 70, agreed to a motion made by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules (5) and 
pass House Joint Resolution 320, declaring a formal state of war 
between the United States and the Government of Hungary.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 4817, 4818, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. The Speaker had been authorized by unanimous consent to recognize 
        Members for suspension of the rules. See 88 Cong. Rec. 4799, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 2, 1942.
 6. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for the 
        declaration of war; and Sec. 7.5, infra, for Senate approval of 
        this joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 320) declaring that a state of 
    war exists between the Government of Hungary and the Government and 
    the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute 
    the same.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Hungary has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc, That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Hungary which has thus been thrust 
        upon the United States is hereby formally declared. . . .

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: (7) The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 360, nays 0, not 
    voting 70, as follows: . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the joint resolution was passed.

        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

On Rumania

Sec. 6.6 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and 
    unanimously agreed to a House joint resolution declaring a formal 
    state of war between the United States and the Government of 
    Rumania.

    On June 3, 1942,(8) the House by a vote of yeas 361, 
nays 0, not voting 69, agreed to a motion made by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules (9~) and 
pass House

[[Page 1801]]

Joint Resolution 321, declaring a formal state of war between the 
United States and the Government of Rumania.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 4818, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Speaker had been authorized by unanimous consent to recognize 
        Members for suspension of the rules. See 88 Cong. Rec. 4799, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 2, 1942.
10. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 7.6, infra, for Senate approval of this 
        measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the joint resolution ( H.J. Res. 321) declaring that a state 
    of war exists between the Government of Rumania and the Government 
    and the people of the United States, and making provisions to 
    prosecute the same.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Rumania has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Rumania which has thus been thrust 
        upon the United States is hereby formally declared. . . .

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: 11 The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn ( Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 361, nays 0, not 
    voting 69, as follows: . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 7. Senate Action

On Japan

Sec. 7.1 The Senate by yea and nay vote unanimously agreed to a Senate 
    joint resolution declaring a state of war between the United States 
    and the Imperial Government of Japan.

    On Dec. 8, 1941,(12) the Senate by a vote of yeas 82, 
nays 0, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 116, declaring a state of war 
between the United States and the Imperial Government of 
Japan.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 9505, 9506, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. See 11. 1, infra, for the President's request for this declaration, 
        and Sec. 6.1, supra, for House approval of the joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: Mr. President, I introduce a 
    joint resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration without 
    reference to a committee.
        The Vice President: (14) The joint resolution will 
    be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 116) declaring that a state of 
    war exists between the Imperial Government of

[[Page 1802]]

    Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and 
    making provision to prosecute the same, was read the first time by 
    its title, and the second time at length, as follows:

            Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed 
        unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of 
        the United States of America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been 
        thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared. . . 
        .

        The Vice President: Is there objection to the present 
    consideration of the joint resolution?
        There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
    joint resolution.
        Mr. Connally: Mr. President, on the passage of the resolution I 
    ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        Mr. Connally: . . . I therefore ask for the yeas and nays on 
    the passage of the joint resolution.
        The Vice President: If there be no amendment proposed, the 
    question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
    reading and was read the third time.
        The Vice President: The joint resolution having been read three 
    times, the question is, Shall it pass? On that question the yeas 
    and nays have been demanded and ordered. The clerk will call the 
    roll.
        The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 0, as follows: . . .
        So the joint resolution was passed.

On Germany

Sec. 7.2 The Senate by yea and nay vote unanimously agreed to a Senate 
    joint resolution declaring a state of war between the United States 
    and the Government of Germany.

    On Dec. 11, 1941,(15) the Senate by a yea and nay vote 
of yeas 88, nays 0, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 119, declaring a 
state of war between the United States and the Government of 
Germany.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 9652, 9653, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See Sec. 11.2, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 6.2, supra, for House approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported 
    an original joint resolution ( S.J. Res. 119) declaring that a 
    state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the 
    Government and the people of the United States, and making 
    provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first time by 
    its title, and the second time at length, as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and

[[Page 1803]]

        the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the 
        United States, is hereby formally declared. . . .

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: Mr. President, I shall 
    presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
    the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is 
    submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the 
    declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of 
    Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of 
    the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with 
    the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
    Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and 
    submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as 
    chairman and the request which I expected to make.
        I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to 
    the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint 
    resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of 
    all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on 
    Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course 
    suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have 
    authority to express his views.
        Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present 
    consideration of the joint resolution.
        The Vice President: (17) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
    joint resolution (S.J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war 
    exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the 
    people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the 
    same.
        The Vice President: The question is on the engrossment and 
    third reading of the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
    reading, and was read the third time.
        The Vice President: The joint resolution having been read the 
    third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
        Mr. Connally: On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded 
    to call the roll.
        The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows: . . .
        So the joint resolution(S.J. Res. 119) was passed.
        The preamble was agreed to.

On Italy

Sec. 7.3 The Senate by yea and nay vote unanimously agreed to a Senate 
    resolution formally declaring a state of war between the United 
    States and the Government of Italy.

    On Dec. 11, 1941,(18) the Senate by a vote of yeas 90, 
nays 0, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 120, declaring a state of war 
between the United States and the Government of Ita1y.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 9653, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. See Sec. 11.2, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 6.3, supra, for House approval of the Senate 
        joint resolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1804]]

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas], from the Committee on Foreign 
    Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S.J. Res. 120) 
    declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of 
    Italy and the Government and the people of the United States and 
    making provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first 
    time by its title and the second time at length, as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Italy has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: therefore be it
            Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United 
        States and the Government of Italy which has thus been thrust 
        upon the United States is hereby formally declared. . . .

        The result [of the vote] was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as 
    follows: . . .
        So the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 120) was passed.

On Bulgaria

Sec. 7.4 After receiving a message that the House had approved the 
    measure, the Senate by yea and nay vote unanimously agreed to a 
    House joint resolution formally declaring a state of war between 
    the United States and the Government of Bulgaria.

    On June 4, 1942,(20) the Senate by a vote of yeas 73, 
nays 0, agreed to House Joint Resolution 319, declaring a formal state 
of war between the United States and the Government of Bulgaria. The 
House had approved the measure the previous day.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 88 Cong. Rec. 4851-54, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 6.4, supra, for House approval of this joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The message also announced that the House had passed the 
    following bills and joint resolutions, in which it requested the 
    concurrence of the Senate: . . .
        H.J. Res. 319. Joint resolution declaring that a state of war 
    exists between the Government of Bulgaria and the Government and 
    the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute 
    the same: . . .
        The Vice President: (2) The joint resolution having 
    been read three times, the question is, Shall it pass?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded 
    to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 0, as follows: . . .
        So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 319) was passed.
        The preamble was agreed to.

On Hungary

Sec. 7.5 After receiving a message that the House had approved the 
    measure, the Senate

[[Page 1805]]

    unanimously agreed to a House joint resolution formally declaring a 
    state of war between the United States and the Government of 
    Hungary.

    On June 4, 1942,(3) the Senate by a vote of yeas 73, 
nays 0, agreed to House Joint Resolution 320, declaring a formal state 
of war between the United States and the Government of Hungary. The 
House had approved the measure the previous day.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 4851, 4852, 4854, 4855, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 6.5, supra, for House approval of the joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The message also announced that the House had passed the 
    following bills and joint resolutions, in which it requested the 
    concurrence of the Senate: . . .
        H.J. Res. 320. Joint resolution declaring that a state of war 
    exists between the Government of Hungary and the Government and the 
    people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the 
    same. . . .
        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: Mr. President, with reference 
    to House Joint Resolution 320, declaring the fact that a state of 
    war exists between the Government of Hungary and that of the United 
    States, I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to 
    report the resolution to the Senate with a recommendation that it 
    pass. Consent has already been given for the immediate 
    consideration of the joint resolution.
        The Vice President: (5) Consent has been given for 
    the immediate consideration of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H.J. 
    Res. 320) declaring that a state of war exists between the 
    Government of Hungary and the Government and people of the United 
    States and making provisions to prosecute the same, which was read, 
    as follows:

            Whereas the Government of Hungary has formally declared war 
        against the Government and the people of the United States of 
        America: Therefore be it. . . .

        The Vice President: The joint resolution having been read three 
    times, the question is, Shall it pass?
        Mr. Connally: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk 
    proceeded to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 0, as follows: . . .
        So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 320) was passed.
        The preamble was agreed to.

On Rumania

Sec. 7.6 After receiving a message that the House had approved the 
    measure, the Senate unanimously agreed to a House joint resolution 
    formally declaring a state of war between the United

[[Page 1806]]

    States and the Government of Rumania.

    On June 4, 1942,(6) the Senate by a vote of yeas 73 to 
nays 0, agreed to House Joint Resolution 321, declaring a formal state 
of war between the United States and the Government of Rumania. The 
House had approved the measure the previous day.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 4851, 4852, 4855, 4856, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. See Sec. 11.3, infra, for the President's request for a declaration 
        of war, and Sec. 6.6, supra, for House approval of this joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The message also announced that the House had passed the 
    following bills and joint resolutions, in which it requested the 
    concurrence of the Senate: . . .
        H.J. Res. 321. Joint resolution declaring that a state of war 
    exists between the Government of Rumania and the Government and the 
    people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the 
    same. . . .
        The Vice President: (8) The joint resolution having 
    been read three times, the question is, Shall it pass?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded 
    to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 0, as follows: . . .
        So the resolution (H.J. Res. 321) was passed.
        The preamble was agreed to.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 8. Legislation Authorizing Military Action Prior to War Powers Act

    In several instances prior to the War Powers Act, Congress, usually 
in response to Presidential requests,(9) granted the Chief 
Executive express statutory authority to use force he deemed necessary 
in specific areas. These so-called ``area resolutions'' were short of 
formal declarations of war, but constituted either prior or subsequent 
acquiescence to Presidential use of force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The exception is the Cuba resolution which was not requested by the 
        President. See Sec. Sec. 8.7, 8.8, infra, for discussion of 
        this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A question arose in such situations as to whether, if Congress 
could authorize the President to use force by approving a statute short 
of a declaration of war, it could divest the President of that 
authority merely by repealing the statute. The answer to that question 
depended on other congressional actions. Only one area resolution, the 
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,(10) was repealed. Following 
repeal, the President continued to direct military operations and send 
troops to Vietnam, and Con

[[Page 1807]]

gress continued to approve legislation providing manpower and supplies 
for the war effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2, infra, for a discussion of approval and 
        repeal of this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Groups of servicemen who had received orders to fight in Vietnam 
filed suit contending that repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution had 
divested the President and other executive branch officials of 
authority to prosecute the war. Ruling on this challenge, the Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit held that authorization could be 
inferred from congressional approval of authorizations and 
appropriations for war supplies and personnel. (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. DaCosta v Laird, 448 F2d 1368 (1971); see also Orlando v Laird, 443 
        F2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 869. Contra, 
        Mottola v Nixon, 318 F Supp 538 (N.D. Calif. 1970) which found 
        no ratification [reversed on grounds of lack of standing, 464 
        F2d 26 (9th Cir. 1972)]. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed a 
        three-judge district court opinion which dismissed a challenge 
        to the constitutionality of the war on political question 
        grounds. Altee v Richardson, 411 U.S. 911 (1973, aff'g. 347 F 
        Supp 689 (E.D.Pa. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following precedents comprise some examples of congressional 
action prior to the War Powers Act, taken in most instances in response 
to Presidential requests for such 
action.                          -------------------

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Sec. 8.1 The House by yea and nay vote suspended the rules and agreed 
    to a House joint resolution (known as the Gulf of Tonkin 
    Resolution) supporting the President's actions to repel aggression 
    by North Vietnam.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(12) the House by a vote of yeas 416, 
nays 0, present 1, not voting 14, suspended the rules and agreed to 
House Joint Resolution 1145, known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, 
supporting the President's action to repel aggression by North Vietnam. 
The resolution was approved by the President on Aug. 10, 1964, in the 
following form: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 18538-55, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. This excerpt is taken from 78 Stat. 384, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 88-408).
            See Sec. 8.2, infra, for Senate approval of this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Joint Resolution
    To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in 
        southeast Asia.

        Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in 
    violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
    and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked 
    United States naval vessels

[[Page 1808]]

    lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created 
    a serious threat to international peace; and
        Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic 
    campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam 
    has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with 
    them in the collective defense of their freedom; and
        Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast 
    Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or 
    political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these 
    peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in 
    their own way: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress 
    approves and supports the determination of the President, as 
    Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any 
    armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent 
    further aggression.
        Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national 
    interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace 
    and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of 
    the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in 
    accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective 
    Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the 
    President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the 
    use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the 
    Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in 
    defense of its freedom.
        Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall 
    determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably 
    assured by international conditions created by action of the United 
    Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by 
    concurrent resolution of the Congress.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After conferring with the congressional 
leadership and others with respect to attacks by North Vietnamese 
torpedo boats against U.S. destroyers, President Johnson ordered 
retaliation against the bases from which the torpedo boats operated. In 
an address to the nation on radio and TV, late on Monday, Aug. 3, he 
stated that he had requested the Congress to support his action by a 
resolution. On Aug. 5, the President transmitted to the Congress a 
message on the developing situation in Southeast Asia and a draft of a 
resolution. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which the message was 
referred (H. Doc. 333), asked for and was granted permission to sit 
during the session of the House on Aug. 6.
    Authority granted by this resolution was repealed by approval, on 
Jan. 12, 1971, of section 12 of an act to amend the Foreign Military 
Sales Act.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Stat. 2053, 2055,91st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 91-672).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.2 The Senate by yea and nay vote agreed to a House

[[Page 1809]]

    joint resolution known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution supporting 
    the President's actions to repel aggression by North Vietnam.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(15) the Senate by a vote of yeas 88, 
nays 2, agreed to House Joint Resolution 1145, known as the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution, supporting the President's actions to repel 
aggression by North Vietnam.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 18470, 18471, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See Sec. 8.1, supra, for the House vote and text of this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority granted by this resolution was repealed by approval, on 
Jan. 12, 1971, of section 12 of an act to amend the Foreign Military 
Sales Act.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Stat. 2053, 2055 (Pub. L. No. 91672) H.R. 15628, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution to Protect Formosa and Pescadores

Sec. 8.3 The House by yea and nay vote agreed to a House joint 
    resolution authorizing the President to employ armed forces to 
    protect the security of Formosa, the Pescadores, and related 
    positions and territories of that area.

    On Jan. 25, 1955,(18) the House by a vote of yeas 410, 
nays 3, not voting 21, agreed to House Joint Resolution 
159,(19) which was approved by the President on Jan. 29, 
1955, in the following form: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 659, 669, 680, 681, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. See Sec. 8.4, infra, for Senate approval of this measure.
20. This excerpt is taken from 69 Stat. 7, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Ch. 4 
        (Pub. L. No. 84-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Joint Resolution
    Authorizing the President to employ the Armed Forces of the United 
        States for protecting the security of Formosa, the Pescadores 
        and related positions and territories of that area.

        Whereas the primary purpose of the United States, in its 
    relations with all other nations, is to develop and sustain a just 
    and enduring peace for all; and Whereas certain territories in the 
    West Pacific under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China are 
    now under armed attack, and threats and declarations have been and 
    are being made by the Chinese Communists that such armed attack is 
    in aid of and in preparation for armed attack on Formosa and the 
    Pescadores. . . . Therefore be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President 
    of the United States be and he hereby is authorized to employ the 
    Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the 
    specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa and the 
    Pescadores against armed attack, this authority to include the 
    securing and protection of such related positions and territories 
    of that area now in friendly hands and the taking of such other 
    measures as he

[[Page 1810]]

    judges to be required or appropriate in assuring the defense of 
    Formosa and the Pescadores.
        This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine 
    that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by 
    international conditions created by action of the United Nations or 
    otherwise, and shall so report to the Congress.

Sec. 8.4 The Senate by yea and nay vote agreed to a House joint 
    resolution authorizing the President to employ armed forces to 
    protect the security of Formosa, the Pescadores, and related 
    positions.

    On Jan. 28, 1955,(1) the Senate by a vote of yeas 85, 
nays 3, agreed to House Joint Resolution 159, directing the President 
to employ armed forces to protect the security of Formosa, the 
Pescadores, and related positions in the area.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 994, 995, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See Sec. 8.3, supra, for the text of and House vote on this 
        measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution to Protect Middle Eastern Nations

Sec. 8.5 The House by yea and nay vote agreed to a House joint 
    resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East by 
    authorizing the President to cooperate with and assist any nation 
    or group of nations in that area in the development of economic 
    strength, and to undertake programs of military assistance; the 
    resolution further stated congressional intent with respect to 
    using armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the 
    territorial integrity and political independence of any nation 
    which requests aid from armed aggression by any nation controlled 
    by communism.

    On Mar. 7, 1957,(3) the House by a vote of 350 yeas, 60 
nays, not voting 23, agreed to House Resolution 188, to accept House 
Joint Resolution 117, autllorizing the President to cooperate with 
nations of the Middle East in the development of economic strength, to 
undertake programs of military assistance, and to employ armed 
forces.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 103 Cong. Rec. 3250, 3265, 3266, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See Sec. 8.6, infra, for the Senate vote on the House joint 
        resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The joint resolution was approved by the President in the following 
form on Mar. 9, 1957: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. This language is taken from 71 Stat. 5, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. [Pub. 
        L. No. 85-7] (footnotes omitted).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1811]]

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
        The President be and hereby is authorized to cooperate with and 
    assist any nation or group of nations in the general area of the 
    Middle East desiring such assistance in the development of economic 
    strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence.
        Sec. 2. The President is authorized to undertake, in the 
    general area of the Middle East, military assistance programs with 
    any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such 
    assistance. Furthermore, the United States regards as vital to the 
    national interest and world peace the preservation of the 
    independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East. To 
    this end, if the President determines the necessity thereof, the 
    United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such 
    nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed 
    aggression from any country controlled by international communism: 
    Provided, That such employment shall be consonant with the treaty 
    obligations of the United States and with the Constitution of the 
    United States.
        Sec. 3. The President is hereby authorized to use during the 
    balance of fiscal year 1957 for economic and military assistance 
    under this joint resolution not to exceed $200,000,000 from any 
    appropriation now available for carrying out the provisions of the 
    Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, in accord with the 
    provisions of such Act: Provided, That, whenever the President 
    determines it to be important to the security of the United States, 
    such use may be under the authority of section 401(a) of the Mutual 
    Security Act of 1954, as amended (except that the provisions of 
    section 105(a) thereof shall not be waived), and without regard to 
    the provisions of section 105 of the Mutual Security Appropriation 
    Act, 1957. . . .
        Sec. 5. The President shall within the months of January and 
    July of each year report to the Congress his action hereunder.
        Sec. 6. This joint resolution shall expire when the President 
    shall determine that the peace and security of the nations in the 
    general area of the Middle East are reasonably assured by 
    international conditions created by action of the United Nations or 
    otherwise except that it may be terminated earlier by a concurrent 
    resolution of the two Houses of Congress.

Sec. 8.6 The Senate agreed to a House joint resolution to promote peace 
    and stability in the Middle East by authorizing the President to 
    assist nations in that area in the development of economic 
    strength, and to undertake programs of military assistance; the 
    resolution also endorsed the concept of employing armed forces of 
    the United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity 
    and political independence of any nation which requests aid from 
    armed aggression by any nation controlled by communism.

[[Page 1812]]

    On Mar. 5, 1957,(6) the Senate by a vote of 72 yeas to 
19 nays, agreed to House Joint Resolution 117,(7) 
authorizing the President to cooperate with and assist any nation or 
group of nations in that area in the development of economic strength, 
to undertake programs of military assistance, and to employ American 
Armed Forces to resist aggression as stated above. This House joint 
resolution was approved in lieu of Senate Joint Resolution 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 3127, 3129, 3130, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. See Sec. 8.5, supra, for the text of and House vote on this 
        measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Regarding Soviet Weapons in Cuba

Sec. 8.7 The Senate agreed to a Senate joint resolution expressing the 
    position of the United States with respect to Soviet buildup of 
    weapons in Cuba.

    On Sept. 20, 1962,(8) the Senate by a vote of 86 yeas, 1 
nay, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 230, expressing the position of 
the United States with respect to buildup of Soviet weapons in 
Cuba.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 20024, 20058, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. See Sec. 8.8, infra, for the text of and House vote on this 
        measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.8 After rejecting a motion to recommit the measure, the House by 
    yea and nay vote agreed to a Senate joint resolution expressing the 
    position of the United States with respect to Soviet buildup of 
    weapons in Cuba.

    On Sept. 26, 1962,(10) the House by a vote of yeas 384, 
nays 7, not voting 44, agreed to a Senate joint resolution which was 
approved by the President on Oct. 3, 1962, in the following form: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 20859, 20909-11, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See Sec. 8.7, supra, for Senate approval of this measure. This 
        excerpt is taken from 76 Stat. 697, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 87-733).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas President James Monroe, announcing the Monroe Doctrine 
    in 1823, declared that the United States would consider any attempt 
    on the part of European powers ``to extend their system to any 
    portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety''; 
    and
        Whereas in the Rio Treaty of 1947 the parties agreed that ``an 
    armed attack by any State against an American State shall be 
    considered as an attack against all the American States . . . one 
    of the said contracting parties undertakes to assist in meeting the 
    attack in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or 
    collective self defense recognized by article 51 of the Charter of 
    the United Nations''; and . . .

        Whereas the international Communist movement has increasingly 
    ex

[[Page 1813]]

    tended into Cuba its political, economic, and military sphere of 
    influence; Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United 
    States is determined--
        (a) to prevent by whatever means may be necessary, including 
    the use of arms, the Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba from 
    extending, by force or the threat of force, its aggressive or 
    subversive activities to any part of this hemisphere;
        (b) to prevent in Cuba the creation or use of an externally 
    supported military capability endangering the security of the 
    United States; and
        (c) to work with the Organization of American States and with 
    freedom- loving Cubans to support the aspirations of the Cuban 
    people for self-determination.

    Passage of the Senate joint resolution followed rejection by a vote 
of yeas 140, nays 251, not voting 46, of a motion to recommit with 
instructions which had been offered by Mr. William S. Broomfield. of 
Michigan.
    Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution was approved prior to the 
Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Resolution to Protect Berlin

Sec. 8.9 The House and Senate agreed to a House concurrent resolution 
    expressing the determination of Congress to prevent by whatever 
    means, including the use of arms, Soviet violation of American, 
    British, and French rights to Berlin, including ingress and egress, 
    and to fulfill the American commitment to the people of Berlin.

    On Oct. 5, 1962, the House by a vote of yeas 312, nays 0, not 
voting 123,(12) and on Oct. 10, 1962, the Senate by voice 
vote,(13) agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 570, 
expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to Berlin in the 
following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 22618-38, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at pp. 22964-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the primary purpose of the United States in its 
    relations with all other nations is and has been to develop and 
    sustain a just and enduring peace for all; and
        Whereas it is the purpose of the United States to encourage and 
    support the establishment of a free, unified, and democratic 
    Germany; and
        Whereas in connection with the termination of hostilities in 
    World War II of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and 
    the Soviet Union freely entered into binding agreements under which 
    the four powers have the right to remain in Berlin, with the right 
    of ingress and egress, until the conclusion of a final settlement 
    with the Government of Germany; and
        Whereas no such final settlement has been concluded by the four 
    powers and the aforementioned agreements continue in force: Now, 
    therefore, be it

[[Page 1814]]

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress--
        (a) that the continued exercise of United States, British, and 
    French rights in Berlin constitutes a fundamental political and 
    moral determination;
        (b) that the United States would regard as intolerable any 
    violation by the Soviet Union directly or through others of those 
    rights in Berlin, including the right of ingress and egress;
        (c) that the United States is determined to prevent by whatever 
    means may be necessary, including the use of arms, any violation of 
    those rights by the Soviet Union directly or through others, and to 
    fulfill our commitment to the people of Berlin with respect to 
    their resolve for freedom.

Authorization to Activate Reserve Forces

Sec. 8.10 The House agreed to a Senate joint resolution authorizing the 
    President to order units and members of the Ready Reserve to active 
    duty for not more than 12 months.

    On July 31, 1961,(14) the House by a vote of yeas 403, 
nays 2, not voting 32, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 120, 
authorizing the President to order units and members of the Ready 
Reserve into active military service. The joint resolution, passed by 
the Senate on a vote of yeas 75, nays 0, on July 28, 
1961,(15), and approved by the President on Aug. 1, 
1961,(16) reads as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 14051, 14061, 14062, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 13930, 13942.
16. See 107 Cong. Rec. 14370, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1961, for 
        announcement in the Senate of Presidential approval.
17. This excerpt is taken from 75 Stat. 242, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 87-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Joint Resolution
    To authorize the President to order units and members in the Ready 
        Reserve to active duty for not more than twelve months, and for 
        other purposes.

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, until July 1, 1962, the 
    President may, without the consent of the persons concerned, order 
    any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve 
    as a unit, in the Ready Reserve of an armed force to active duty 
    for not more than twelve consecutive months. However, not more than 
    two hundred and fifty thousand members of the Ready Reserve may be 
    on active duty (other than for training), without their consent, 
    under this section at any one time.

        Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until July 
    1, 1962, the President may authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
    extend enlistments, appointments, periods of active duty, periods 
    of active duty for training, peri

[[Page 1815]]

    ods of obligated service, or other military status, in any 
    component of an armed force or in the National Guard that expire 
    before July 1, 1962, for not more than twelve months.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In an address to the Nation on July 25, 
1961, President John F. Kennedy requested authority to call up the 
Ready Reserves to respond to the Berlin crisis.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. This address is reprinted at 107 Cong. Rec. 13460-62, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess., July 26, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.11 During the Cuban missile crisis, the Senate and House agreed 
    to a Senate joint resolution authorizing the President to activate 
    units and members of the Ready Reserve, for not more than 12 
    months.

    On Sept. 13, 1962, the Senate by a vote of 76 yeas, 0 
nays,(19) and on Sept. 24, 1962, the House by a vote of 342 
yeas, 13 nays, 80 not voting,(20) agreed to Senate Joint 
Resolution 224, authorizing the President to activate units and members 
of the Ready Reserve. The measure was approved on Oct. 3, 1962, in the 
following form: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 19349, 19365, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at pp. 20489, 20521, 20522
 1. This excerpt is taken from 76 Stat. 710, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 87-736).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Joint Resolution
    To authorize the President to order units and members in the Ready 
        Reserve to active duty for not more than twelve months, and for 
        other purposes.

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, until February 28, 
    1963, the President may, without the consent of the persons 
    concerned, order any unit, or any member, of the Ready Reserve of 
    an armed force to active duty for not more than twelve consecutive 
    months. However, not more than one hundred and fifty thousand 
    members of the Ready Reserve may be on active duty (other than for 
    training), without their consent, under this section at any one 
    time.
        Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law until 
    February 28, 1963, the President may authorize the Secretary of 
    Defense to extend enlistments, appointments, periods of active 
    duty, periods of active duty for training, periods of obligated 
    service or other military status, in any component of an armed 
    force or in the National Guard that expire before February 28, 
    1963, for not more than twelve months. However, if the enlistment 
    of a member of the Ready Reserve who is ordered to active duty 
    under the first section of this Act would expire after February 28, 
    1963, but before he has served the entire period for which he was 
    so ordered to active duty, his enlistment may be extended until the 
    last day of that period.
        Sec. 3. No member of the Ready Reserve who was involuntarily 
    ordered to

[[Page 1816]]

    active duty or whose period of active duty was extended under the 
    Act of August 1, 1961, Public Law 87-117 (75 Stat. 242), may be 
    involuntarily ordered to active duty under this Act.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 9. Pre-World War II Legislative Restrictions on Military Activity

    The German invasion of Poland in September of 1939 and the 
subsequent declarations of war on Germany by Britain and France 
intensified the public debate over United States involvement or support 
for its traditional allies in the conflict.
    Shortly after the German invasion, the President by proclamation 
convened an extraordinary session of Congress to act on neutrality 
legislation.(2) Accepting the President's 
request,(3) Congress repealed provisions of the Neutrality 
Acts of 1935 and 1937 which prohibited shipments of arms and ammunition 
to belligerent nations.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 12.3, infra, for this proclamation.
 3.  See Sec. 11.6, infra, for a discussion of the President's address 
        to a joint session.
 4. Sec Sec. 9.1, infra, for the discussion of the Neutrality Act of 
        1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress later authorized the President to provide military 
supplies to American republics.(5) The concept of providing 
assistance to other nations which originated in the joint resolution 
making military assistance available to American republics was extended 
beyond the Western Hemisphere. The Lend-Lease Act authorized the 
President to direct the manufacture, lease, or loan of military and 
naval supplies to ``the government of any country whose defense the 
President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'' 
(6~) This act permitted the United States to supply Britain 
and other nations in their struggle against Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 9.2, infra, for a discussion of this measure. The 
        Neutrality Act of 1939 did not apply to American republics.
 6. See Sec. 9.3, infra, for a discussion of the Lend-Lease Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the request of the President, Congress approved the first 
peacetime draft in the nation's history, the Selective Service Act of 
1940, but prohibited the employment of inducted land forces outside the 
Western Hemisphere.~(7~) An identical restriction had been 
imposed a month earlier in a joint resolution authorizing the President 
to activate reserve and retired military personnel.(8) 
Protecting the Western Hemisphere became sig

[[Page 1817]]

nificant in actions preceding American involvement in World War II. The 
President justified his actions as in the interest of Western 
Hemisphere defense when he acted to acquire British territory in 
Newfoundland, Bermuda, and certain Caribbean islands for bases in 
exchange for out-of-date American destroyers,(9) and sent 
American troops to replace British forces in Iceland.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 9.5, infra, for this restriction.
 8. See Sec. 9.4, infra, for this resolution.
 9. See Sec. 11.7, infra. See also Sec. 3.2, supra, for an opinion of 
        the Attorney General as to the constitutionality of this action 
        taken without consulting Congress.
10. See Sec. 11.8, infra, for an announcement of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legislation regulating thc economy was enacted prior to and during 
World War II. The Priorities Act of May 31, 1941,(11) 
empowered the President to allocate any material where necessary to 
facilitate the defense effort. The Second War Powers Act 
(12) extended this authority. These two acts furnished the 
statutory foundation for the extensive system of consumer rationing 
administered by the Office of Price Administration, as well as for the 
comprehensive control of industrial materials and output which was 
exercised by the War Production Board.(13) Under the 
Emergency Price Control Act,(14) the Office of Price 
Administration regulated the price of almost all commodities, as well 
as the rentals for housing accommodations in scores of defense rental 
areas. The War Labor Disputes Act (15) permitted the 
President to commandeer plants which were closed by strikes. The 
Renegotiation Act,(1~6) which the Su

[[Page 1818]]

preme Court found to be a proper exercise of the war powers by 
Congress,(17) authorized the government to recover excessive 
profits realized on war contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 55 Stat. 236, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-92).
12. 56 Stat. 176, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-507).
13. Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and 
        Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 337 
        (1973).
14. 56 Stat. 23, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-421).
15. 57 Stat. 163, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-89).
16. The Supreme Court in Lichter v United States, 334 U.S. 742, 745 
        (1948) stated that the term ``the Renegotiation Act'' included 
        56 Stat. 226, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-528), the 
        Sixth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 
        sometimes called the First Renegotiation Act; 56 Stat. 798, 
        801, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-753), the Revenue Act 
        of 1942, Title VIII, Renegotiation of War Contracts; 57 Stat. 
        347, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-108), Military 
        Appropriations Act of 1944; 57 Stat. 564, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (Pub. L. No. 78-149), an act to prevent payment of excessive 
        fees or compensation in connection with the negotiation of war 
        contracts; 58 Stat. 21, 78-93, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 
        78-235), Revenue Act of 1943, Title VII, Renegotiation of War 
        Contracts, and Title VIII, Repricing of War Contracts.
17. Lichter v United States, 334 U.S. 742 
        (1948).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neutrality Act

Sec. 9.1 The House and Senate agreed to the conference report on the 
    Neutrality Act of 1939.

    On Nov. 3, 1939, the House by a vote of yeas 243, nays 172, not 
voting 14,(18) and the Senate by a vote of yeas 55, nays 
24,(19) agreed to the conference report (H. Rept. No. 1475) 
on House Joint Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, to preserve 
the neutrality and peace of the United States and secure the safety of 
its citizens and their interests.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 85 Cong. Rec. 1389, 76th Cong. 2d Sess. See also pp. 1381-86, for 
        the conference report and statement of the conferees.
19. Id. at p. 1356.
20. 22 USC Sec. Sec. 441, 444, 445, 447-451, 453-457; Pub. Res. No. 54, 
        54 Stat. 4, Ch. 2, H.J. Res. 306, 76th Cong. 2d Sess., approved 
        Nov. 4, 1939. Neutrality legislation had been approved on Aug. 
        31, 1935 (Pub. Res. No. 67, 49 Stat. 1081, S.J. Res. 173, 74th 
        Cong. 1st Sess.), and amended on May 1, 1937 (Pub. Res. No. 27, 
        50 Stat. 121, S.J. Res. 251, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The act, which did not apply to any American republic engaged in 
war against a non-American state or states, authorized the President to 
issue a proclamation naming foreign states as belligerents whenever he 
or the Congress by concurrent resolution found that a state of war 
existed between foreign states.(1) He was also authorized to 
require a bond from the owner or person in command of any domestic or 
foreign vessel which he had reason to believe was about to carry out of 
a port or from the jurisdiction of the United States, fuel, men, arms, 
ammunition, implements of war, supplies, dispatches, or information to 
any warship, tender, or supply ship of a belligerent state; and to 
promulgate rules and regulations.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 12.4, infra, for an example of this kind of proclamation.
 2. This provision effectuated a request of the President to repeal 
        embargo provisions of earlier Neutrality Acts. See Sec. 11.6, 
        infra, for a discussion of the President's message requesting 
        the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was further provided that where states and areas are named as 
being at war in a Presidential proclamation issued pursuant to

[[Page 1819]]

authority granted in the act, no American vessels may lawfully carry 
passengers or articles to such states.(3~) Similarly, the 
terms of the act provided that no American citizen or vessel may 
lawfully proceed into an area designated by the President as a combat 
zone.~(4~) Moreover, no American citizen may lawfully travel 
on any vessel of any such state and no American merchant vessel engaged 
in commerce with any foreign state may lawfully be armed.(5) 
And no person in the United States may lawfully engage in certain 
financial transactions with any government or any political subdivision 
of such states or person acting for or on behalf of such 
governments.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. This provision, Sec. 2 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, was repealed 
        by 55 Stat. 764, Ch. 473 Sec. 1, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. 
        No. 77-294), approved on Nov. 17, 1941.
 4. This provision, Sec. 3 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, was repealed 
        by 55 Stat. 764, Ch. 473 Sec. 1, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. 
        No. 77-294), approved on Nov. 17, 1941.
 5. This provision, Sec. 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, was repealed 
        by 55 Stat. 764, Ch. 473 Sec. 2, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. 
        No. 77-294), approved Nov. 17, 1941.
 6. This provision, Sec. 7 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, was amended 
        to be inoperative when the United States engages in war. 56 
        Stat. 95, Ch. 104, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-459), 
        approved on Feb. 21, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The act also provided that no person within the United States may 
solicit or receive any contribution for or on behalf of a government, 
agency, or instrumentality of such states. Whenever the President 
places special restrictions on the use of ports and territorial waters 
of the United States, submarines and armed merchant vessels of a 
foreign state may not enter or depart from those ports or territorial 
waters.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 12.5, infra, for such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The act also established the National Munitions Control 
Board.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. This provision, Sec. 12 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, was repealed 
        by 68 Stat. 861, Ch. 937, title V Sec. 542(a) (12), 83d Cong. 
        2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 83-665, H.R. 9678), approved on Aug. 26, 
        1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Assistance to American Republics

Sec. 9.2 The Senate and House agreed to a joint resolution authorizing 
    the Secretaries of War and of the Navy to assist the governments of 
    American republics to increase their military and naval 
    establishments.

    On May 28, 1940, the Senate amended and passed,(9) and 
on

[[Page 1820]]

June 5, 1940, the House agreed to Senate amendments and 
passed,(10) House Joint Resolution 367, authorizing the 
President in his discretion to direct the Secretary of War to 
manufacture or otherwise procure coast-defense and antiaircraft 
materiel, including ammunition therefor, and to direct the Secretary of 
the Navy to construct vessels of war on behalf of any American 
republic.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 6977, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
10. Id. at p. 7616. See 85 Cong. Rec. 9861, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        24, 1939, for initial House approval of this joint resolution.
11. Pub. Res. No. 83, 54 Stat. 396 (June 15, 1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lend-Lease Act

Sec. 9.3 The Senate and House agreed to a bill further to promote the 
    defense of the United States, known as the Lend-Lease Act, which 
    authorized the President to direct manufacture, lease, and loan of 
    war supplies to foreign governments.

    On Mar. 8, 1941, the Senate by a vote of yeas 60, nays 31, not 
voting 4, amended and agreed to,(12) and the House by a vote 
of yeas 317, nays 71, present 1, not voting 40,(13) agreed 
to Senate amendments and passed, H.R. 1776, further to promote the 
defense of the United States, known as the Lend-Lease Act, which 
authorized the President to direct manufacture of defense articles for 
the government of any country whose defense the President deemed vital 
to the def ense of the United States, and to direct the lease or loan 
of defense articles. The act was approved in the following language: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 2097. 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Id. at p. 2178. See 87 Cong. Rec. 815, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 
        8, 1941, for initial House approval of this bill by a vote of 
        yeas 260, nays 165, not voting 6.
14. The text is taken from 55 Stat. 31 (Pub. L. No. 77-11), Mar. 11, 
        1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
    be cited as ``An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States''.
        Sec. 2. As used in this Act--
        (a) The term ``defense article'' means--
        (1) Any weapon, munition, aircraft, vessel, or boat;
        (2) Any machinery, facility, tool, material, or supply 
    necessary for the manufacture, production, processing, repair, 
    servicing, or operation of any article described in this 
    subsection. . . .
        Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, 
    the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the 
    interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the 
    Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or 
    agency of the Government--

[[Page 1821]]

        (1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under 
    their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which 
    funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from 
    time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the 
    government of any country whose defense the President deems vital 
    to the defense of the United States.
        (2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or 
    otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article, 
    but no defense article not manufactured or procured under paragraph 
    (1) shall in any way be disposed of under this paragraph, except 
    after consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Chief 
    of Naval Operations of the Navy, or both. . . .(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 57 Stat. 2], 25, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-11), for 
        an amendment to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) To test, inspect, prove, repair, outfit, recondition, or 
    otherwise to place in good working order, to the extent to which 
    funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from 
    time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for any 
    such government, or to procure any or all such services by private 
    contract. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 58 Stat. 222, 223, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-304), 
        for an amendment to this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) After June 30, 1943, or after the passage of a concurrent 
    resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares 
    that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no 
    longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, 
    neither the President nor the head of any department or agency 
    shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to 
    subsection (a); except that until July 1, 1946, any of such powers 
    may be exercised to the extent necessary to carry out a contract or 
    agreement with such a foreign government made before July 1, 1943, 
    or before the passage of such concurrent resolution, whichever is 
    the earlier. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 59 Stat. 52, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 79-31); 58 Stat. 
        222, 223, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-304); and 57 
        Stat. 20, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-9), for 
        amendments to this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. (a) The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or 
    the head of any other department or agency of the Government 
    involved shall, when any such defense article or defense 
    information is exported, immediately inform the department or 
    agency designated by the President to administer section 6 of the 
    Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 714), of the quantities, character, 
    value, terms of disposition, and destination of the article and 
    information so exported.
        (b) The President from time to time, but not less frequently 
    than once every ninety days, shall transmit to the Congress a 
    report of operations under this Act except such information as he 
    deems incompatible with the public interest to disclose. Reports 
    provided for under this subsection shall be transmitted to the 
    Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, as the case may be, if the Senate or the House of 
    Representatives, as the case may be, is not in session.
        Sec. 6. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated from 
    time to

[[Page 1822]]

    time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
    such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and 
    accomplish the purposes of this Act.
        (b) All money and all property which is converted into money 
    received under section 3 from any government shall, with the 
    approval of the Director of the Budget, revert to the respective 
    appropriation or appropriations out of which funds were expended 
    with respect to the defense article or defense information for 
    which such consideration is received, and shall be available for 
    expenditure for the purpose for which such expended funds were 
    appropriated by law, during the fiscal year in which such funds are 
    received and the ensuing fiscal year; but in no event shall any 
    funds so received be available for expenditure after June 30, 1946. 
    . . . (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 61 Stat. 449, 450, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 80-123), 
        for repeal of this provision which had been amended by 59 Stat. 
        52, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 79-31); 58 Stat. 222, 
        223, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-304); and 57 Stat. 20, 
        78th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 78-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 11. If any provision of this Act or the application of 
    such provision to any circumstance shall be held invalid, the 
    validity of the remainder of the Act and the applicability of such 
    provision to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Reserve Forces Limited to Western Hemisphere

Sec. 9.4 The House and Senate agreed to a provision restricting 
    employment of reserve components of the United States Army beyond 
    the limits of the Western Hemisphere in a Senate joint resolution 
    authorizing the President to activate the reserves.

    On Aug. 15, 1940,(19) the House by a vote of yeas 342, 
nays 34, not voting 54, agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 286, 
authorizing the President to order members and units of reserve 
components and retired personnel of the Regular Army into active 
military service. The joint resolution, which was passed by the Senate 
by a vote of yeas 71, nays 7, on Aug. 8, 1940,(20) and 
signed by the President on Aug. 27, 1940, as Public

[[Page 1823]]

Resolution No. 96,(1) contained the following restriction on 
use of reserves: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 10429, 10448, 10449, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See also 86 
        Cong. Rec. 10763, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 22, 1940, for House 
        approval of the conference report.
20. Id. at p. 10068. The Senate by a vote of yeas 31, nays 45, rejected 
        a motion to recommit the joint resolution with instructions to 
        report it back forthwith with an amendment substituting 
        ``continental United States and Territories and possessions of 
        the United States'' in place of the remainder of section 1 
        beginning with ``Western Hemisphere.'' Id. at pp. 10067, 10068. 
        See also 86 Cong. Rec. 10791, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 23, 
        1940, for Senate voice vote approval of this measure.
 1. See 86 Cong. Rec. 11089, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 28, 1940, for 
        announcement in the Senate of Presidential approval.
 2. This excerpt is taken from 54 Stat. 858, 859, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . .  . [T]he members and units of the reserve components of the 
    Army of the United States ordered into active Federal service under 
    this authority shall not be employed beyond the limits of the 
    Western Hemisphere except in the territories and possessions of the 
    United States, including the Philippine Islands.

    After commencement of World War II, this provision was 
repealed.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 55 Stat. 799, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-338), 
        approved Dec. 13, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inducted Land Forces Limited to Western Hemisphere

Sec. 9.5 The House and Senate agreed to a provision restricting 
    employment of inducted land forces beyond the limits of the Western 
    Hemisphere in a conference report on the Selective Training and 
    Service Act of 1940.

    On Sept. 14, 1940,(4) the House by a vote of yeas 233, 
nays 124, present 2, not voting 70, agreed to a conference report on S. 
4164, the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. This measure, 
passed as a conference report by the Senate on a vote of yeas 47, nays 
25, on Sept. 14, 1940,(5) and signed by the President on 
Sept. 16, 1940, as Public Law No. 783,(6) contained the 
following restriction on use of inducted land forces: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 12207, 12227, 12228, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5. Id. at pp. 12156-61.
 6. See 86 Cong. Rec. 12290, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 19, 1940, for 
        announcement in the Senate of Presidential approval.
 7. This excerpt is taken from 54 Stat. 885, 886, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) Persons inducted into the land forces of the United States 
    under this Act shall not be employed beyond the limits of the 
    Western Hemisphere except in the Territories and possessions of the 
    United States, including the Philippine Islands.

    After the commencement of World War II, this provision was 
repealed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 55 Stat. 799, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-338) 
        approved Dec. 13, 1941. The House by a vote of 203 yeas, 202 
        nays, had agreed to H.J. Res. 222, extending the period of 
        conscription beyond the 12 months established in the Selective 
        Training and Service Act of 1940. 87 Cong. Rec. 6995, 7074, 
        7075, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1941.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1824]]


                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 10. Vietnam Era Restrictions on Military Activity

    As debate over American involvement in Indochina intensified 
following the 1968 elections, Congress, exercising its constitutional 
authority to raise and support armies,(9) imposed 
restrictions on the obligation and expenditure of funds relating to 
military activity in Vietnam and neighboring areas. These restrictions, 
which were placed in authorization (10) as well as 
appropriation bills,(11) in some instances prohibited 
obligation or expenditure of funds in particular countries after a 
fixed date,(12) and in other instances did not specify such 
a date.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, clause 12.
10. Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3, infra.
11. Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.4, infra.
12. Sec. Sec. 10.4, 10.5, infra.
13. Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedents in this section comprise a few examples of the many 
initiatives undertaken by Congress in response to the Vietnam crisis.

                 Collateral References (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The articles in this section relate to military involvement during 
        the Vietnam era. See collateral references in Sec. 3, supra, 
        war powers generally, and Sec. 4, supra, War Powers Act, for 
        other articles relating to those subjects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bickel, Alexander M. The Constitution and the War. 54 Commentary 49 
    (July 1972).
Dvorin, Eugene, ed. The Senate's War Powers; Debate on Cambodia from 
    the Congressional Record. Markham Pub. Co., Chicago [c1971].
Faulkner, S. War in Vietnam: Is it Constitutional? 56 Georgetown 
    U.L.J.1132 (1968).
Goldman, Eric F. The President, the People and the Power to Make War. 
    21 American Heritage 4 (1970), reprinted in The Vietnam War and 
    International Law: The Widening Context, Princeton University 
    Press, Princeton, N.J. 489 (1972).
Katzenbach, Nicholas deB. Congress and Foreign Policy. 3 Cornell 
    International L.J. (1970), reprinted in The Vietnam War and 
    International Law: The Widening Context, Princeton University 
    Press, Princeton, N.J. 595 (1972).
Malawer, Stuart S. The Vietnam War Under the Constitution: Legal Issues 
    Involved in the United States Military Involvement in Vietnam. 31 
    U. of Pitt. L.R. 205 (Winter 1969).
Meeker, Leonard C. The Legality of United States Participation in the 
    Defense of Vietnam. 54 Dept. of State Bulletin 474 (Apr. 28, 1966).
Moore, John Norton, James L. Underwood, and Myres S. McDougall The 
    Lawfulness of United States Assistance to the Republic of North 
    Vietnam. 112 Cong. Rec. 15519-67, July 13, 1966.
Moore, John Norton. Law and the IndoChina War. Princeton University 
    Press, Princeton, N.J. (1972).
Moore, John Norton. Legal Dimensions of the Decision to Intercede in 
    Cambodia.

[[Page 1825]]

    65 American J. of International Law 38 (Jan. 1971).
Norton, Patrick M. Constitutional Law--Justicabi1ity--Veto Power--
    Standing--No Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards Exist 
    by Which to Ascertain Whether Bombing of Cambodia Required New 
    Congressional Authorization. 15 Harv. International L. Jour. 143-17 
    (Winter 1974).
Van Alstyne, William. Congress, the President, and the Power to Declare 
    War: A Requiem for Vietnam. 121 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1-28 (Nov. 1972).
Wenner, Scott J. The Indochina War Cases in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the Second Circuit: The Constitutional Allocation of 
    War Powers. 7 N.Y.U. Jour. of International Law and Politics 137-61 
    (Spring 1974).                          -------------------

Prohibition of American Forces in Laos or Thailand

Sec. 10.1 The Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 
    1970 was amended to prohibit use of funds to finance introduction 
    of ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand.

    On Dec. 15, 1969,(15) the Senate by a vote of yeas 73, 
nays 17, agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Frank Church, of 
Idaho, to House bill 15090, making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970. The provision 
appeared in the bill approved by the President in the following form: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 39168, 39172, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 83 Stat. 469, 487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 91-171).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 643. In line with the expressed intention of the President 
    of the United States, none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
    shall be used to finance the introduction of American ground combat 
    troops into Laos or Thailand.

    Because it was a substitute for an amendment offered by Senator 
John Sherman Cooper, of Kentucky, this provision came to be known as 
the Cooper-Church amendment.

Prohibition of Military Support for Cambodia and Laos

Sec. 10.2 A bill authorizing appropriations for military procurement 
    for fiscal year 1971 was amended to prohibit use of funds to 
    support Vietnamese or other freeworld forces in actions designed to 
    provide military support and assistance to the Government of 
    Cambodia or Laos.

    On Aug. 21, 1970,(17) the Senate by voice vote agreed to 
amend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 29686, 29688, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 29572-83, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1971, for debate 
        on amendment No. 812; and 116 Cong. Rec. 34580-602, 91st Cong. 
        2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1970, for debate on and approval of the 
        conference report in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1826]]

ment No. 812, ordered by Senator J. William Fulbright, of Arkansas, to 
H.R. 17123, to authorize appropriations for military procurement for 
the fiscal year 1971. The provision appeared in the form passed by the 
Senate (18) in the bill approved by the President on Oct. 7, 
1970.(19)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 116 Cong. Rec. 33924, 33925, 33933, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
        28, 1970, for the text of the House conference report, H. Rept. 
        No. 91-1473, which states that the House conferees agreed to 
        the Senate amendment and deleted the words ``in Vietnam'' after 
        the words ``and other free world forces'' and before the words 
        ``and local''; and 116 Cong. Rec. 34149, 34161, 34162, 91st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1970, for House approval of the 
        conference report by a vote of yeas 341, nays 11, not voting 
        77.
19. This excerpt is taken from 84 Stat. 905, 910, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (Pub. L. No. 91-441). The italicized sentence is the Fulbright 
        amendment. amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   An Act
    To authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1971 for 
        procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked 
        combat vehicles, and other weapons, and research, development, 
        test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to authorize 
        real estate acquisition and construction at certain 
        installations in connection with the Safeguard anti-ballistic 
        missile system, and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
        strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of 
        the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled . . .
        Sec. 502. Subsection (a) of section 401 of Public Law 89-367, 
    approved March 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 37), as
        ``(a) (1) Not to exceed $2,800,000,000 of the funds authorized 
    for appropriation for the use of the Armed Forces of the United 
    States under this or any other Act are authorized to be made 
    available for their stated purposes to support: (A) Vietnamese and 
    other free world forces in support of Vietnamese forces, (B) local 
    forces in Laos and Thailand; and for related costs, during the 
    fiscal year 1971 on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of 
    Defense may determine. None of the funds appropriated to or for the 
    use of the Armed Forces of the United States may be used for the 
    purpose of paying any overseas allowance, per diem allowance, or 
    any other addition to the regular base pay of any person serving 
    with the free world forces in South Vietnam if the amount of such 
    pay

[[Page 1827]]

    ment would be greater than the amount of special pay authorized to 
    be paid, for an equivalent period of service, to members of the 
    Armed Forces of the United States (under section 310 of title 37, 
    United States Code) serving in Vietnam or in any other hostile fire 
    area, except for continuation of payments of such additions to 
    regular base pay provided in agreements executed prior to July 1, 
    1970. Nothing in clause (A) of the first sentence of this paragraph 
    shall be construed as authorizing the use of any such funds to 
    support Vietnamese or other free world forces in actions designed 
    to provide military support and assistance to the Governments of 
    Cambodia or Laos.''

Prohibition of American Ground Forces From Cambodia

Sec. 10.3 The Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 was amended to 
    prohibit use of funds to finance introduction of United States 
    ground combat troops into Cambodia, or to provide United States 
    advisers to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia, and to 
    assert that American military and economic assistance should not be 
    construed as a commitment by the United States to Cambodia.

    On Dec. 16, 1970,(20) the Senate by a vote of yeas 72, 
nays 22, agreed to strike out all after the enacting clause of the 
Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1971, H.R. 19911, which had been 
approved by the House, and insert an amendment, described above, 
reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The provisions 
(1) became law when approved by the President on Jan. 5, 
1971, in the same form as the Senate amendment: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 41788, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec 
        41616, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, for the text of the 
        amendment from the Committee on Foreign Relations; and 116 
        Cong. Rec. 43221-23, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 22, 1970, for 
        Senate approval of the conference report by a vote of yeas 41, 
        nays 20.
 1. See 116 Cong. Rec. 43133, 43134, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 21, 
        1970; and 116 Cong. Rec. 43342, 43343, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Dec. 22, 1970, for the text of and House approval of the 
        conference report in the House, respectively.
 2. This excerpt is taken from 84 Stat. 1942, 1943, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (Pub. L. No. 91-652).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   An Act
    To provide additional foreign assistance authorizations, and for 
        other purposes.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
    be cited as the ``Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1971''. . . .
        Sec. 7. (a) In line with the expressed intention of the 
    President of the

[[Page 1828]]

    United States, none of the funds authorized or appropriated 
    pursuant to this or any other Act may be used to finance the 
    introduction of the United States ground combat troops into 
    Cambodia, or to provide United States advisers to or for Cambodian 
    military forces in Cambodia.
        (b) Military and economic assistance provided by the United 
    States to Cambodia and authorized or appropriated pursuant to this 
    or any other Act shall not be construed as a commitment by the 
    United States to Cambodia for its defense.

Prohibition of Military Funds After Fixed Date

Sec. 10.4 A House joint resolution continuing appropriations for the 
    fiscal year 1974 was amended to prohibit after a fixed date 
    obligation or expenditure of funds to finance combat activities by 
    United States military forces in, over, or off the shores of North 
    Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia.

    On June 29, 1973,(3) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 636, the Senate agreed to an amendment, described above, 
offered by Senator J. William Fulbright, of Arkansas, on behalf of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. The joint resolution as amended 
(4) was approved by the President on July 1, 
1973.(5)

 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 22305, 22325, 22326, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        119 Cong. Rec. 22603, 22604, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 
        1973, for Senate agreement to the conference report. Senate and 
        House conferees agreed to modify the language of this amendment 
        from ``. . . no funds herein, heretofore or hereafter 
        appropriated . . .'' in the version which originally passed the 
        Senate to ``. . . no funds herein or heretofore appropriated . 
        . .'' in the version approved by the President.
 4. See 119 Cong. Rec. 21306, 21309, 21315, 21319, 21320, 93d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 26, 1973, for House approval of a substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. George H. Mahon (Tex.), as amended by 
        an amendment offered by Mr. Clarence D. Long (Md.), prohibiting 
        expenditure of funds under H.J. Res. 636 to support combat 
        activities in, over, or off the shores of Cambodia or Laos. See 
        also 119 Cong. Rec. 22632-37, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 
        1973, for House approval of the conference report, H. Rept. No. 
        93-364.
 5. This excerpt is taken from 87 Stat. 130, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 93-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joint Resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
        year 1974, and for other purposes.

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
        The following sums are appropriated out of any money in the 
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated and, out of applicable 
    corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several 
    de

[[Page 1829]]

    partments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units 
    of the Government for the fiscal year 1974, namely:
        Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or 
    after August 15, 1973, no funds herein or heretofore appropriated 
    may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly 
    combat activities by United States military forces in or over or 
    from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or 
    Cambodia.

Prohibition of Military Involvement After Fixed Date

Sec. 10.5 The Senate and House agreed to a conference report (on the 
    Department of State Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973) which 
    included a provision prohibiting, after a fixed date, obligation or 
    expenditure of funds to finance involvement of United States 
    military forces in hostilities in, over, or off the shores of North 
    Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia, or to provide assistance 
    to North Vietnam, unless specifically authorized by Congress.

    On Oct. 10, 1973, the Senate (6) and House 
(7) by voice vote agreed to the conference report (H. Rept. 
No. 93-563) to H. R. 7645, the Department of State Appropriations Act 
of 1973. The report included a provision prohibiting, after Aug. 15, 
1973, obligation or expenditure of funds as described above. This 
provision, which originated in the Senate as an amendment by the 
Committee on Foreign Relations to S. 1248,(8)  was approved 
by the President on Oct. 18, 1973, in the following form:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 119. 33577, 33578, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., for Senate approval of 
        the conference report.
 7. See 119 Cong. Rec. 33609, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., for House approval; 
        and 119 Cong. Rec. 33413-15, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 9, 1973, 
        for text of the conference report.
 8. See 119 Cong. Rec. 18901-03, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1973, for 
        the text of this amendment, which did not set a date certain 
        but instead made the prohibition effective ``. . . upon 
        enactment of this Act. . . .'' The date was established in 
        conference. On June 14, 1973, the Senate struck all after the 
        enacting clause of H.R. 7645, and substituted the provisions of 
        S. 1248 (119 Cong. Rec. 19648, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.).
 9. This excerpt is taken from 87 Stat. 451, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. 
        L. No. 93-126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Department of State Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973
                               * * * * *
    An Act to authorize appropriations for the Department of State, and 
        for other purposes.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

[[Page 1830]]

        This Act may be cited as the ``Department of State 
    Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973''. . . .

             requirements for congressional authorization for the 
           involvement of american forces in further hostilities in 
            indochina, and for extending assistance to north vietnam

        Sec. 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or 
    after August 15, 1973, no funds heretofore or hereafter 
    appropriated may: be obligated or expended to finance the 
    involvement of United States military forces in hostilities in or 
    over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, 
    or Cambodia, unless specifically authorized hereafter by the 
    Congress. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon 
    enactment of this Act, no funds heretofore or hereafter 
    appropriated may be obligated or expended for the purpose of 
    providing assistance of any kind, directly or indirectly, to or on 
    behalf of North Vietnam, unless specifically authorized hereafter 
    by the Congress.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 11. Receipt of Presidential Messages

    The precedents in this section are limited exclusively to written 
or oral statements officially received by Congress. Presidential 
statements made to the public at large through the media are not 
included.                          -------------------

Request for Declaration of War on Japan

Sec. 11.1 The President addressed a joint session of Congress to 
    announce the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and request a 
    declaration of war.

    On Dec. 8, 1941,(10) President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
addressed a joint session of Congress to announce the Japanese attack 
on Pearl Harbor and request a declaration of war.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 9519, 9520, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. The message was 
        referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
11. See Sec. 6.1, supra (House declaration), and Sec. 7.1, supra ( 
        Senate declaration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Address by the President (H. Doc. No. 453)

        The address delivered by the President of the United States to 
    the joint meeting of the two Houses of Congress held this day is as 
    follows:
        To the Congress of the United States:

            Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in 
        infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and 
        deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of 
        Japan. . . .
            I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the 
        people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to 
        the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of 
        treachery shall never endanger us again.
            Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that 
        our people, our

[[Page 1831]]

        territory, and our interests are in grave danger. . . .
            I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked 
        and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, a state of 
        war has existed between the United States and the Japanese 
        Empire.

                                        Franklin D. Roosevelt,
                                                The White House,
                                                 December 8, 1941.

Request for Declaration of War on Germany and Italy

Sec. 11.2 The House received a written message from the President 
    announcing that Italy and Germany had declared war on the United 
    States, and requesting the Congress to recognize a state of war 
    between the United States and Germany and the United States and 
    Italy.

    On Dec. 11, l941, (12) the House received a message, as 
follows, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 9665, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. See Sec. Sec. 6.2, 6.3, supra (House action), and Sec. Sec. 7.2, 
        7.3, supra (Senate action), for declarations of war on Germany 
        and Italy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Declaration of War by Germany and Italy Against United States (H. 
                               Doc. No. 454)

        The Speaker (14) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To the Congress of the United States:

            On the morning of December 11, the Government of Germany, 
        pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the 
        United States.
            The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. 
        . . .
            Italy also has declared war against the United States.
            I, therefore, request the Congress to recognize a state of 
        war between the United States and Germany, and between the 
        United States and Italy.

                                        Franklin D. Roosevelt,
                                                The White House,
                                                December 11, 1941.

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the message of the President be referred to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs, and ordered printed.
        The motion was agreed to.

Request for Declaration of War on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania

Sec. 11.3 The House received a written message from the President 
    announcing that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania 
    had declared war on the United States and requesting that Congress 
    recognize a state of war between the United States and these 
    nations.

[[Page 1832]]

    On June 2, 1942, (15) the House received a message, as 
follows, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 4787, 77th Cong. 2nd Sess. The message was referred 
        to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
16. See Sec. Sec. 6.4-6.6, supra (House action), and Sec. Sec. 7.4-7.6, 
        supra (Senate action), for declarations of war on Bulgaria, 
        Hungary, and Rumania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 
                                      761)

        The Speaker (17) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read, 
    and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To the Congress of the United States:

            The Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania have 
        declared war against the United States. . . .
            Therefore I recommend that the Congress recognize a state 
        of war between the United States and Bulgaria, between the 
        United States and Hungary, and between the United States and 
        Rumania.

                                        Franklin D. Roosevelt,
                                                The White House,
                                                     June 2, 1942.

Request for Authority to Protect Middle Eastern Nations

Sec. 11.4 The President personally addressed a joint session of 
    Congress to request authorization to cooperate with and assist any 
    Middle Eastern nation or group of nations in the development of 
    economic strength, undertake military assistance, and employ 
    American Armed Forces to secure and protect the territorial 
    integrity and political independence of nations which request aid 
    against armed aggression from any nation controlled by communism.

    On Jan. 5, 1957,(18) President Dwight D. Eisenhower 
addressed a joint session of the House and Senate to request 
authorization to deal with aggression in the Middle 
East.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 224-27, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. The message was 
        referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
19. See Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6, supra, for House and Senate approval of the 
        requested resolution, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The President: Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Members of 
    Congress, first may I express to you my deep appreciation of your 
    courtesy. . . .
        The action which I propose would have the following features:
        It would, first of all, authorize the United States to 
    cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the 
    general area of the Middle East in the development of economic 
    strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence.
        It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to 
    undertake in the

[[Page 1833]]

    same region programs of military assistance and cooperation with 
    any nation or group of nations which desires such aid.
        It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and 
    cooperation to include the employment of the armed forces of the 
    United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity and 
    political independence of such nations requesting such aid, against 
    overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international 
    communism.
        These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty 
    obligations of the United States, including the Charter of the 
    United Nations and with any action or recommendations of the United 
    Nations. They would also, if armed attack occurs, be subject to the 
    overriding authority of the United Nations Security Council in 
    accordance with the charter.
        The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the 
    President to employ, for economic and defensive military purposes, 
    sums available under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, 
    without regard to existing limitations.

Request for Authority to Protect the Pescadores and Formosa

Sec. 11.5 The House received a message from the President announcing 
    military activities by the People's Republic of China against 
    Formosa and the Pescadores and requesting a congressional 
    resolution to authorize a Presidential response.

    On Jan. 24, 1955,(1) the House received a written 
message, as follows, from President Dwight D. Eisenhower. 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 625, 626, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 8.3, 8.4, supra, for approval of the requested 
        resolution by the House and Senate, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker (3) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read, 
    referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be 
    printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To the Congress of the United States:

            The most important objective of our Nation's foreign policy 
        is to safeguard the security of the United States by 
        establishing and preserving a just and honorable peace. In the 
        Western Pacific, a situation is developing in the Formosa 
        Straits that seriously imperils the peace and our security.
            Since the end of Japanese hostilities in 1945, Formosa and 
        the Pescadores have been in the friendly hands of our loyal 
        ally, the Republic of China. We have recognized that it was 
        important that these islands should remain in friendly hands. . 
        . .
            What we are now seeking is primarily to clarify present 
        policy and to unite in its application. . . .
            For the reasons outlined in this message, I respectfully 
        request that the Congress take appropriate action to carry out 
        the recommendations contained herein.
                                         Dwight D. Eisenhower,
                                                The White House,
                                                 January 24, 1955.

[[Page 1834]]

Request for Neutrality Legislation

Sec. 11.6 The President addressed a joint session of the House and 
    Senate to explain that he had convened an extraordinary session to 
    permit Congress to act on neutrality legislation.

    On Sept. 21, 1939,(4) the President addressed a joint 
session of the House and Senate to explain that he had convened an 
extraordinary session to permit Congress to act on neutrality 
legislation. He specifically asked Congress to repeal embargo 
provisions, restrict American ships from entering war zones, prevent 
Americans from traveling on belligerent vessels or in danger areas, and 
require a foreign buyer to take transfer of title in the United States 
to commodities purchased by belligerents. He also requested that 
Congress prohibit war credits to belligerents, regulate collection of 
funds in the United States, and maintain a license system for import 
and export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 85 Cong. Rec. 9-12, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. See Sec. 9.1, supra, and Sec.  12.3, infra, for the congressional 
        response to this address (the Neutrality Act of 1939), and the 
        President's proclamation convening a special congressional 
        session, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement of Exchange of Destroyers for Bases

Sec. 11.7 The House received a written message from the President 
    announcing that the United States had acquired from Great Britain 
    the right to lease naval and air bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, 
    certain Caribbean Islands, and British Guiana. Notes between the 
    British Ambassador outlining the terms of the lease and the 
    American Secretary of State accepting the terms and announcing 
    transfer of Navy destroyers were also received.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(6) the House received a message from 
the President announcing that the United States had acquired from Great 
Britain the right to lease naval and air bases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 11354, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker (7) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read, 
    and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed, as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To the Congress of the United States:
            I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress, 
        notes ex

[[Page 1835]]

        changed between the British Ambassador at Washington and the 
        Secretary of State on September 2, 1940, under which this 
        Government has acquired the right to lease naval and air bases 
        in Newfoundland, and in the islands of Bermuda, the Bahamas, 
        Jamaica, Santa Lucia, Trinidad, and Antigua, and in British 
        Guiana; also a copy of an opinion of the Attorney General, 
        dated August 27, 1940, regarding my authority to consummate 
        this arrangement. . . .
            This is not inconsistent in any sense with our status of 
        peace. Still less is it a threat against any nation. It is an 
        epochal and far-reaching act of preparation for continental 
        defense in the face of grave danger. . . .
            The value to the Western Hemisphere of these outposts of 
        security is beyond calculation. . . .(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 8. A Sept. 2, 1940, letter from the British Ambassador to 
        Washington, and the Sept. 2, 1940, response of the Secretary of 
        State, Cordell Hull, are omitted. The British Ambassador 
        outlined the terms of the 99-year rent-free lease. The 
        Secretary of State declared that the Government of the United 
        States ``gladly accepts the proposals'' and as consideration 
        for the plan ``will immediately transfer to His Majesty's 
        Government 50 United States Navy destroyers. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Franklin D. Roosevelt,
                                                The White House,
                                                September 3, 1940.

    An opinion of the Attorney General outlining Presidential authority 
to acquire British offshore naval and air bases and transfer destroyers 
to Britain accompanied the President's message.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 3.2, supra, for the text of this opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement of Arrival of American Forces in Iceland

Sec. 11.8 The House received a written message from the President 
    announcing the arrival in Iceland of forces of the United States 
    Navy to supplement and eventually replace British forces.

    On July 7, 1941,(10) the House received a message from 
the President (H. Doc. No. 307) announcing the arrival in Iceland of 
United States Navy forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 5868, 5869, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker (11) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read, 
    and together with the accompanying papers, referred to the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To the Congress of the United States:
            I am transmitting herewith for the information of the 
        Congress a message I received from the Prime Minister of 
        Iceland on July 1 and the reply I addressed on the same day to 
        the Prime Minister of Iceland in response to this message.
            In accordance with the understanding so reached, forces of 
        the United States Navy have today arrived in Iceland in order 
        to supplement, and eventually to replace, the British forces 
        which have until now been stationed in Iceland in order to 
        insure the adequate defense of that country.

[[Page 1836]]

            As I stated in my message to the Congress of September 3 
        last regarding the acquisition of certain naval and air bases 
        from Great Britain in exchange for certain over-age destroyers, 
        considerations of safety from overseas attack are fundamental. 
        . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 11.7, supra, for the message of Sept. 3, 1940, announcing 
        acquisition of British territory for naval and air bases and 
        transfer of American destroyers to Great Britain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            This Government will insure the adequate defense of Iceland 
        with full recognition of the independence of Iceland as a 
        sovereign state.
            In my message to the Prime Minister of Iceland I have given 
        the people of Iceland the assurance that the American forces 
        sent there would in no way interfere with the internal and 
        domestic affairs of that country. . . .

                                        Franklin D. Roosevelt,
                                                The White House,
                                                     July 7, 1941.

    Messages between the Prime Minister and President accompanied the 
President's message to the Congress.

Announcement of Deployment of Marines to Lebanon

Sec. 11.9 The House received a written message in which the President 
    announced that he had dispatched American Marines to Lebanon to 
    preserve that nation's independence and protect Americans.

    On July 15, 1958,(13) a message was received from the 
President, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 13865, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker (14) laid before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States, which was read and 
    referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be 
    printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

        To the Congress of the United States:

            On July 14, 1958, I received an urgent request from the 
        President of the Republic of Lebanon that some United States 
        forces be stationed in Lebanon. . . .

            United States forces are being sent to Lebanon to protect 
        American lives and by their presence to assist the Government 
        of Lebanon in the preservation of Lebanon's territorial 
        integrity and independence, which have been deemed vital to 
        United States national interests and world peace. . . .

            It is clear that the events which have been occurring in 
        Lebanon represent indirect aggression from without, and that 
        such aggression endangers the independence and integrity of 
        Lebanon. . . .

            Our Government has acted in response to an appeal for help 
        from a small and peaceful nation which has long had ties of 
        closest friendship with the United States. . . .

                                         Dwight D. Eisenhower,
                                                The White House,
                                                    July 15, 1958.

[[Page 1837]]



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                             B. WAR POWERS
 
Sec. 12. Presidential Proclamations

    The precedents in this section include Presidential proclamations 
which relate to national security matters and appear in the 
Congressional Record.                          -------------------

National Emergency Regarding Korea

Sec. 12.1 During the conflict in Korea, the President proclaimed a 
    national emergency which required strengthening of defenses to 
    repel threats to the national security and fulfill responsibilities 
    to the United Nations.

    On Dec. 21, 1950,(15) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, inserted in the Record the following proclamation made 
by the President on Dec. 16, 1950:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. A7844, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in 
    the Record, I include the following text of President. Truman's 
    proclamation of the existence of a national emergency, issued 
    today, taken from the New York Times of December 17, 1950:

                         Text of Emergency Proclamation

            Whereas recent events in Korea and elsewhere constitute a 
        grave threat to the peace of the world and imperil the efforts 
        of this country and those of the United Nations to prevent 
        aggression and armed conflict; and
            Whereas world conquest by Communist imperialism is the goal 
        of the forces of aggression that have been loosed upon the 
        world . . .
            Now, therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United 
        States of America, do proclaim the existence of a national 
        emergency, which requires that the military, naval, air, and 
        civilian defenses of this country be strengthened as speedily 
        as possible to the end that we may be able to repel any and all 
        threats against our national security. . . .
            In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
        the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
            Done at the city of Washington this 16th day of December in 
        the year of our Lord 1950, and of the independence of the 
        United States of America the one hundred and seventy-fifth.
                                                   Harry S Truman.

        By the President:

            Dean Acheson,
            Secretary of State.

Embargo on Trade With Cuba

Sec. 12.2 A Presidential proclamation relating to an embargo of all 
    trade with Cuba was inserted in the Congressional Record in the 
    Senate.

    On Sept. 20, 1962,(16) the following proclamation was 
inserted in the Record in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 20034, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1838]]

         Embargo on All Trade With Cuba by the President of the United 
                       States of America--A Proclamation

        Whereas the eighth meeting of consultation of Ministers of 
    Foreign Affairs, serving as organ of consultation in application of 
    the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, in its final 
    act resolved that the present Government of Cuba is incompatible 
    with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system; 
    and, in light of the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet communism 
    with which the Government of Cuba is publicly alined, urged the 
    member states to take those steps that they may consider 
    appropriate for their individual and collective self-defense.  . . 
    .
        . . . Now, therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the 
    United States of America, acting under the authority of section 
    620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 445), as 
    amended, do--
        1. Hereby proclaim an embargo upon trade between the United 
    States and Cuba in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this 
    proclamation.
        2. Hereby prohibit, effective 12:01 a.m., eastern standard 
    time, February 7, 1962, the importation in the United States of all 
    goods of Cuban origin . . .

            Done at the city of Washington this third day of February 
        in the year of our Lord 1962, and of the Independence of the 
        United States of America the 186th.
                                                  John F. Kennedy.

        By the President:
                                                      Dean Rusk,
                                               Secretary of State.

Extraordinary Session (Neutrality Legislation)

Sec. 12.3 A Presidential proclamation convening an extraordinary 
    session of Congress to act on neutrality legislation was inserted 
    in the Congressional Record.

    On Sept. 21, 1939,(17) the following proclamation 
convening the Congress in extraordinary session was read to the 
House:(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 85 Cong. Rec. 7, 8, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. This proclamation was read in the Senate, id. at p. 3.
            See Sec. Sec. 9.1, 11.6, supra, for a discussion of the 
        Neutrality Act of 1939 and the President's message requesting 
        neutrality legislation, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(19) The Clerk will read the 
    proclamation of the President of the United States convening this 
    extraordinary session of the Seventy-sixth Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

      Convening the Congress in Extra Session by the President of the 
                          United States of America

                               a proclamation

            Whereas public interests require that the Congress of the 
        United States should be convened in extraordinary session at 12 
        o'clock noon on Thursday, the 21st day of September, 1939, to 
        receive such communication as may be made by the Executive: 
        Now, therefore,

[[Page 1839]]

            I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of 
        America, do hereby proclaim and declare that an extraordinary 
        occasion requires the Congress of the United States to convene 
        in extraordinary session at the Capitol in the City of 
        Washington on Thursday, the 21st day of September, 1939, at 12 
        o'clock noon, of which all persons who shall at that time be 
        entitled to act as Members thereof are hereby required to take 
        notice.
            In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
        to be affixed the great seal of the United States.
            Done at the city of Washington this 13th day of September, 
        in the year of our Lord 1939, and of the independence of the 
        United States of America the one hundred and sixty-fourth.
            [seal]
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.

            By the President:
              Cordell Hull,
                Secretary of State.

War Between Germany and Foreign Nations

Sec. 12.4 A Presidential proclamation relating to a state of war 
    between Germany and France, Poland, the United Kingdom, India, 
    Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, 
    authorized by the Neutrality Act of 1939, was inserted in the 
    Record.

    On Nov. 3, 1939,(1) the following Presidential 
proclamation relating to a state of war between Germany and several 
nations as authorized by the Neutrality Act of 1939,(2) was 
placed in the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 85 Cong. Rec. A787, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. See Sec. 9.1, supra, for a discussion of the Neutrality Act of 
        1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alben W.] Barkley [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, under 
    permission granted on November 3, 1939, page 1358, I wish to insert 
    in the Congressional Record two proclamations issued by the 
    President of the United States, as provided under House Joint 
    Resolution 306, passed at the extra session of Congress, relating 
    to neutrality, as follows:
                                            Department of State,
                                                   November, 1939.

          Proclamation of a State of War Between Germany and France; 
         Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, New 
                     Zealand, and the Union of South Africa
    By the President of the United States:

                                 a proclamation

        Whereas section 1 of the joint resolution of Congress approved 
    November 4, 1939, provides in part as follows:
        ``That whenever the President, or the Congress by concurrent 
    resolution, shall find that there exists a state of war between 
    foreign states, and that it is necessary to promote the security or 
    preserve the peace of the United States

[[Page 1840]]

    or to protect the lives of citizens of the United States, the 
    President shall issue a proclamation naming the states involved; 
    and he shall, from time to time, by proclamation, name other states 
    as and when they may become involved in the war.'' . . .
        Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the 
    United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the 
    authority conferred on me by the said joint resolution, do hereby 
    proclaim that a state of war unhappily exists between Germany and 
    France, Poland, and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, 
    New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, and that it is 
    necessary to promote the security and preserve the peace of the 
    United States and to protect the lives of citizens of the United 
    States. . . .
        And I do hereby revoke my proclamations Nos. 2349, 2354, and 
    2360 issued on September 5, 8, and 10, 1939, respectively, in 
    regard to the export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to 
    France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, 
    and New Zealand, to the Union of South Africa, and to Canada. . . .

            Done at the city of Washington this fourth day of November, 
        in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and 
        of the independence of the United States of America the one 
        hundred and sixty-fourth.
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.

            By the President:
              Cordell Hull,
                Secretary of State.

Use of American Ports by Belligerent Nations

Sec. 12.5 A Presidential proclamation relating to use of ports or 
    territorial waters of the United States by submarines of foreign 
    belligerent nations, authorized by the Neutrality Act of 1939, was 
    inserted in the Record.

    On Nov. 3, 1939,(3) the following Presidential 
proclamation relating to use of ports or territorial waters of the 
United States by submarines of foreign belligerent states was inserted 
in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 85 Cong. Rec. A787, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Sec. 9.1, supra, for a discussion of the Neutrality Act 
        of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas section 11 of the joint resolution approved November 4, 
    1939, provides:
        ``Whenever, during any war in which the United States is 
    neutral, the President shall find that special restrictions placed 
    on the use of the ports and territorial waters of the United States 
    by the submarines or armed merchant vessels of a foreign state, 
    will serve to maintain peace between the United States and foreign 
    states, or to protect the commercial interests of the United States 
    and its citizens, or to promote the security of the United States, 
    and shall make proclamation thereof, it shall thereafter be 
    unlawful for any such submarine or armed merchant vessel to enter a 
    port or the territorial waters of the United States or to depart 
    therefrom, except under such conditions and subject to such 
    limitations as the President may prescribe. . . .
        Whereas there exists a state of war between Germany [and other 
    nations]; and

[[Page 1841]]

        Whereas the United States of America is neutral in such war;
        Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the 
    United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the 
    authority vested in me by the foregoing provision of section 11 of 
    the joint resolution approved November 4, 1939, do by this 
    proclamation find that special restrictions placed on the use of 
    the ports and territorial waters of the United States, exclusive of 
    the Canal Zone, by the submarines of a foreign belligerent state, 
    both commercial submarines and submarines which are ships of war, 
    will serve to maintain peace between the United States and foreign 
    states, to protect the commercial interests of the United States 
    and its citizens, and to promote the security of the United States;
        And I do further declare and proclaim that it shall hereafter 
    be unlawful for any submarine of [specified nations] to enter ports 
    or territorial waters of the United States. . . .
        Done at the city of Washington this fourth day of November in 
    the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and of the 
    Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and 
    sixty-fourth.
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.

        By the President:

            Cordell Hull,
               Secretary of Stale.


 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 13. In General


    The precedents in sections 15-18, infra, relate to the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate bills to raise 
revenue.(4) Article I, section 7, clause 1, provides that, 
``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments 
as on other Bills.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1480-1501; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 314-322; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2278, for 
        earlier precedents.
 5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 99 (1973).
            See also Constitution of the United States of America: 
        Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess. 125, 126 (1973), for discussion of this provision. And 
        see Sec. Sec. 19, 20, infra, for a discussion of Senate 
        authority to amend revenue bills and make appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because questions relating to the prerogative of the House to 
originate revenue legislation (6) involve interpretation of 
the Constitution (7) rather than House

[[Page 1842]]

rules, they are decided by the House rather than the 
Chair.(~8~) A question alleging that the Senate has invaded 
this prerogative is privileged (9) under Rule 
IX,(10) and may be raised at any time when the House is in 
possession of the bill and related papers in question.(11) 
The question may be raised pending the motion to call up a conference 
report on a bill (12) and may be committed to conference if 
raised prior to conference.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For one view on what is comprehended by the phrase ``bills for 
        raising revenue,'' see J. Story, Commentaries on the 
        Constitution of the United States Sec. 880, vol. 1, Boston 
        (1833).
 7. See, for example, the discussion and cases cited in Sec. 19.2, 
        infra.
 8. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1490. See also Sec. 19.1, infra, for an 
        analogous Senate precedent.
 9. Sec. 14.1, infra.
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 661, 662 (1973).
11. Sec. 14.2, infra.
12. Id.
13. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Senate bill or joint resolution (14) which the House 
determines infringes upon its prerogatives may be returned to the 
Senate. When such a measure is received by, or is in possession of the 
House, a Member may rise to a question of privilege and introduce a 
resolution. Such resolution normally declares that in the opinion of 
the House the Senate measure contravenes or infringes upon the House 
prerogative and directs that the measure be returned to the Senate with 
a message communicating the resolution. After debate the resolution may 
be approved,(15) tabled, (16) or referred to 
committee.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. There is precedent for the proposition that a Senate concurrent 
        resolution may also be held to infringe upon the prerogative of 
        the House, notwithstanding the fact that such a resolution does 
        not have the force of law. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 319.
15. See Sec. 15, infra, for illustrations of approval.
16. See Sec. 16.1, infra, for a discussion of tabling such a 
        resolution.
17. See Sec. 17.1, infra, for an illustration of referral to committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On several occasions, the House has chosen to pass a House bill 
instead of a pending Senate measure where the attention of the House 
was called to the impropriety of a revenue measure being included in a 
Senate bill.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.3, infra which illustrate this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a Senate bill or joint resolution which arguably infringes 
upon the House prerogative has been referred to committee, the 
committee may refuse to act on it and may report out its own bill in 
lieu of the Senate measure.(l9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5, infra, which illustrate this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The latter two procedures, vacating proceedings whereby the Senate 
measure had passed the House and massaging a similar House bill to the 
Senate, and reporting a House bill out of com

[[Page 1843]]

mittee, effectively resolve issues relating to the prerogative of the 
House, because courts do not look behind the bill number. 
Notwithstanding the fact that a House revenue measure may have been 
substantially changed by Senate amendments, a bill with a House number 
will not be challenged in court or on the House floor on the ground 
that it infringes upon the prerogative of the House to originate bills 
for raising revenue.(20) But the House will assert its 
prerogative and return a House bill (not raising revenue) with a Senate 
revenue amendment to the Senate.~(2~1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Hubbard v Lowe, 226 F 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1915) which is discussed at 
        Sec. Sec. 19.2, 20.4, infra.
21. See Sec. 15.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 14. Consideration of Objections

Infringement of House Prerogative as Privileged Matter

Sec. 14.1 Infringement by the Senate on the constitutional prerogative 
    of the House to initiate revenue measures may be raised in the 
    House as a matter of privilege.

    On May 3, 1971,(1) infringement by the Senate of the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to initiate revenue measures 
(art. I, Sec. 7) was raised in the House as a matter of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 12991, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 414) which involves the privileges of the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House, and ask for its immediate consideration.

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 860) relating to 
        the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in the opinion of 
        this House contravenes the first clause of the seventh section 
        of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, 
        and is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and 
        that the said bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with 
        a message communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker: (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Mills: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may we have a brief explanation of the 
    reason for the action that is proposed?
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to explain why I have 
    offered this resolution. It is because the privileges of the House 
    are actually being violated by title IV of the bill S. 860. That 
    title includes an amendment of the Tariff Schedules of the United 
    States,

[[Page 1844]]

    and all bills which include such amendments must originate in the 
    House.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 15.6, 19.5, infra, for House and Senate disposition 
        of this matter, respectively.

Timeliness of Objection to Alleged Senate Infringement of House 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prerogatives

Sec. 14.2 A question of constitutional privilege relating to the sole 
    power of the House to originate revenue measures and alleging that 
    the Senate, by its amendment to a House bill, has violated article 
    I, section 7 of the Constitution, may be raised at any time when 
    the House is in possession of the papers; and the question has been 
    presented pending the reading of a conference report.

    On June 20, 1968,(4) a Member, H.R. Gross, of Iowa, 
raised a question of constitutional privilege when a conference report 
was called up.

 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970, 90th Cong. 2d sess.

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 15414) to continue the existing 
    excise tax rates on communication services and on automobiles, and 
    to apply more generally the provisions relating to payments of 
    estimated tax by corporations, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    of the report.

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Resolution Offered by Mr. Gross--Privilege of the House

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of 
    the House and offer a resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1222

            Resolved, That Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 15414, 
        in the opinion of the House, contravene the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States, and are an infringement of the privileges of 
        this House, and that the said bill, with amendments be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is 
    recognized for 1 hour. (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 16.1, infra, for a precedent relating to this point of 
        order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         

[[Page 1845]]



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 15. Return of Senate Legislation

Bill Amending Silver Purchase Act

Sec. 15.1 The House by voice vote returned to the Senate a Senate bill 
    which proposed to amend the Silver Purchase Act, on the ground that 
    the bill affected the revenue and therefore was an infringement of 
    the prerogatives of the House.

    On Jan. 15, 1936,(7) the House agreed to a resolution 
returning S. 3260 to the Senate, on the ground that it affected 
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 80 Cong. Rec. 448, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege of the House and offer the following 
    resolution.

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             House, Resolution 396

            Resolved, That the bill (S. 3260) to amend Public Law No. 
        438, Seventy-third Congress, entitled ``An act to authorize the 
        Secretary of the Treasury to purchase silver, issue silver 
        certificates, and for other purposes'', in the opinion of this 
        House contravenes that clause of the Constitution of the United 
        States requiring revenue bills to originate in the House of 
        Representatives, and is an infringement of the prerogatives of 
        this House, and that said bill be respectfully returned to the 
        Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

        The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.

Bill Amending Tariff Act of 1930

Sec. 15.2 The House by voice vote returned a Senate bill purporting to 
    amend the Tariff Act of 1930, on the ground that it invaded the 
    prerogatives of the House.

    On Jan. 29, 1936,(8) the House returned S. 1421 to the 
Senate on the ground that it invaded the prerogatives of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 80 Cong. Rec. 1183, 1184, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the House and present a resolution and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                            House of Resolution 406

            Resolved, That the bill (S. 1421) to amend subsection (a) 
        of section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the opinion of 
        this House, contravenes that clause of the Constitution of the 
        United States requiring revenue bills to originate in the House 
        of Representatives, and is an infringement on the prerogatives 
        of the House, and that said bill be respectfully returned to 
        the Senate with 3 message communicating this resolution.

[[Page 1846]]

        The Speaker:(9) The question is on agreeing to the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.

Bill Exempting Olympic Game Receipts From Taxation

Sec. 15.3 The House by voice vote returned a Senate bill which exempted 
    from taxation receipts from the operation of the Olympic games, on 
    the ground that it invaded prerogatives of the House.

    On Feb. 21, 1936,(10) the House agreed to a resolution 
returning S. 3410 to the Senate on the ground that it infringed upon 
House prerogatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 2583, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House and present a resolution 
    for immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                             House, Resolution 425

            Resolved, That the bill (S. 3410) to exempt from taxation 
        receipts from the operation of Olympic games if donated to the 
        State of California, the city of Los Angeles, and the county of 
        Los Angeles, in the opinion of this House contravenes that 
        clause of the Constitution of the United States requiring 
        revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives, and 
        is an infringement of the prerogative of this House, and that 
        said bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker:(11) The question is on agreeing to the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.
        On motion of Mr. Cooper of Tennessee, a motion to reconsider 
    the vote by which the resolution was agreed to was laid on the 
    table.

Measure to Redetermine Sugar Quota

Sec. 15.4 On the ground that it infringed upon the prerogative of the 
    House to originate bills for raising revenue, the House ordered the 
    return of a Senate joint resolution authorizing the President to 
    make a redetermination of the Cuban sugar quota for 1960 [which 
    involved a tariff as well as an incentive payment].

    On July 2, 1960,(12) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Resolution 598, returning to the Senate Senate Joint Resolution 
217 which, notwithstanding the provision of the Quota Act of 1948, as 
amended, authorized the President to determine the quota for Cuba under 
that act for the bal

[[Page 1847]]

ance of the calendar year 1960 in such amounts as he found to be in the 
national interest. The joint resolution was returned because it 
infringed upon the prerogative of the House to originate bills for 
raising revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 15818, 15819, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a resolution based on the privileges of the House and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 598

            That Senate Joint Resolution 217 in the opinion of this 
        House contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of 
        the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and 
        is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and that 
        the said resolution be respectfully returned to the Senate with 
        a message communicating this resolution.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Haleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. McCormack: I yield.
        Mr. Halleck: Will the gentleman explain the resolution?
        Mr. McCormack: This resolution has the effect of sending back 
    to the Senate the Senate resolution in relation to the sugar 
    legislation. It states that the House respectfully declines to 
    receive it on the ground that it involves revenue or affects 
    revenue; and, under the Constitution, such legislation should 
    originate in the House of Representatives.
        The Speaker: (13) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Raising Duty on Fishery Products

Sec. 15.5 A Senate-passed bill authorizing the President to raise the 
    duty on fishery products was held to be an infringement of the 
    privilege of the House, and was returned to the Senate.

    On May 20, 1965,(14) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Resolution 397, returning S.1734 to the Senate, on the ground 
that it infringed the privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 11149, 11150, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a 
    question of the privileges of the House, send a resolution to the 
    desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 397

            Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1734) to conserve 
        and protect domestic fishery resources in the opinion of this 
        House contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of 
        the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and 
        is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and that 
        the said bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a 
        message communicating this resolution.

[[Page 1848]]

        The Speaker:(15) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The objectionable portion of S. 1734 stated:

        That when the Secretary of the Interior determines that the 
    fishing vessels of a country are being used in the conduct of 
    fishing operations in a manner or in such circumstances which 
    diminish the effectiveness of domestic fishery conservation 
    programs, the President. . . may increase the duty on any fishery 
    product in any form from such country for such time as he deems 
    necessary to a rate not more than 50% above the rate existing on 
    July 1, 1934.'' ( Emphasis supplied.)

Bill Amending Tariff Schedules

Sec. 15.6 The Senate having passed a bill relating to the Trust 
    Territory of the Pacific Islands containing one title amending the 
    tariff schedules of the United States, the House held that the 
    Senate's action constituted a violation of article I, section 7 of 
    the Constitution, and adopted a resolution returning the bill to 
    the Senate.

    On May 3, 1971, (16) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Resolution 414, returning S. 860 to the Senate because it 
contravened article I, section 7 of the Constitution and infringed upon 
the privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 12991, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 414) which involves the privileges of the 
    House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 860) relating to 
        the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in the opinion of 
        this House contravenes the first clause of the seventh section 
        of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, 
        and is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and 
        that the said bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with 
        a message communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker: (17) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Mills: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may we have a brief explanation of the 
    reason for the action that is proposed?

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to explain why I have 
    offered this resolution. It is because the privileges of the House 
    are actually being violated by title IV of the bill S. 860. That 
    title includes an amendment of the Tariff Schedules of the United 
    States,

[[Page 1849]]

    and all bills which include such amendments must originate in the 
    House. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 19.5, infra, for Senate disposition of this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Amending Firearms Act

Sec. 15.7 The House returned a Senate bill to amend the National 
    Firearms Act, on the ground that it contravened the constitutional 
    prerogative of the House to originate bills to raise revenue.

    On Mar. 30, 1937,(19) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Resolution 170, returning S. 1905 to the Senate because the 
Senate bill contravened the constitutional prerogative of the House 
under article I, section 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 2930, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution for immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 170

            Resolved, That the bill (S. 1905) to amend the National 
        Firearms Act, passed June 26, 1934, in the opinion of this 
        House contravenes that clause of the Constitution of the United 
        States requiring revenue bills to originate in the House of 
        Representatives and is an infringement of the prerogatives of 
        this House, and that said bill be respectfully returned to the 
        Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

        The resolution was agreed to.

Substitute Adding Tax to House Bill

Sec. 15.8 The House held that a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute imposing an additional tax, offered to a House bill to 
    amend the Railroad Retirement Act, was an infringement upon the 
    privileges of the House; and the House bill, as amended, was 
    returned to the Senate.

    On Sept. 14, 1965,(20) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Resolution 578, returning H.R. 3157 to the Senate because Senate 
amendments to that bill contravened the constitutional prerogative of 
the House to originate revenue bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 23632, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the House and offer a resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 578

            Resolved, That the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        added by the Senate to the House bill (H.R. 3157) to amend the 
        Railroad Retire

[[Page 1850]]

        ment Act of 1937 in the opinion of this House contravenes the 
        first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
        Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the 
        privileges of this House, and that the said bill, with the 
        amendments, be respectfully returned to the Senate with a 
        message communicating this resolution.

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



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 16. Tabling Objection to Infringement

Senate Surtax Amendment

Sec. 16.1 The Senate having amended a House bill relating to excise tax 
    rates by adding a general surtax on income, the House during 
    consideration of the conference report refused to hold that the 
    Senate's action constituted a violation of article I, section 7 of 
    the Constitution, and laid on the table a resolution raising the 
    matter as a question of the privileges of the House.

    On June 20, 1968,(1) the House by a vote of yeas 257, 
nays 162, not voting 14, tabled House Resolution 1222 which sought to 
return to the Senate H.R. 15414 (a bill relating to excise tax rates) 
along with Senate amendments which added a surtax on income. The 
resolution was based on a contention that the Senate amendments 
contravened the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate 
revenue bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970-78, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 15414) to continue the existing 
    excise tax rates on communication services and on automobiles, and 
    to apply more generally the provisions relating to payments of 
    estimated tax by corporations, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 14.2, supra, for a further discussion of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Resolution Offered by Mr. Gross--Privilege of the House

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question 
    of privilege of the House and offer a resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1222

            Resolved, That Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 15414, 
        in the

[[Page 1851]]

        opinion of the House, contravene the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States, and are an infringement of the privileges of 
        this House, and that the said bill, with amendments, be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .

       Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968--Conference Report

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] 
    has the floor.
        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before us, 
    H.R. 15414, represents one of the most direct attempts in the 
    history of the Republic to cut away and destroy one of the most 
    fundamental privileges and rights of this House--the right, the 
    responsibility, and the duty, under the Constitution, to initiate 
    revenue measures.
        Section 7 of article I of the Constitution conferred this 
    privilege on the Members of this body, and there are numerous 
    precedents upholding the right of the House--and the House alone--
    to originate revenue bills.
        For example, in 1807 the House refused to agree to Senate 
    amendments that greatly enlarged the scope of a revenue bill. The 
    record of the debate in the House on that day shows that John 
    Randolph of Virginia, assailed the Senate amendments because they 
    went far beyond merely amending the details of the bill as passed 
    by the House.
        Randolph believed, and rightly so, that under the Constitution 
    the Senate had no power to amend a money bill by varying the 
    objects of that bill.
        I do not claim, of course, that the Senate has no power 
    whatsoever to amend a revenue bill of the House. But I do say it 
    cannot, under the guise of an amendment, propose new revenue 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. Mills: . . . If the Members of the House will turn to the 
    Constitution to refresh their recollection of article I, section 7, 
    clause 1, they will observe that it reads 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.

        There have been several instances where the question of the 
    constitutionality involving this issue has been argued before the 
    Supreme Court and where the Court has rendered decisions. Let me go 
    back in history for two instances--and in these cases not as far 
    back as the gentleman from Iowa went for his precedents in support 
    of his argument.
        I would like to point out how the Supreme Court has ruled on 
    this matter. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 143, in 
    1911, the court held that the substitution of a corporate tax by 
    the Senate for an inheritance tax passed by the House was 
    constitutional. . . .
        In another case also the Supreme Court upheld an amendment by 
    the Senate of a tax bill. In this case the Senate added a section 
    imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure 
    yachts. The Supreme Court in this case, Rainey v. United States, 
    232 U.S. 310 (1914), decided that the

[[Page 1852]]

    amendment did not contravene article I, section 7, clause 1 of the 
    Constitution. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution offered by 
    the gentleman from Iowa on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Arkansas.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, on that question I demand the yeas and 
    nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boggs: Am I correct in understanding that a vote ``yea'' is 
    in favor of the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, 
    which would mean we would go back to orderly debate on this 
    conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. The motion 
    is to lay the resolution on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 162, not 
    voting 14 . . . .
        So the motion to table the resolution was agreed to. . . .
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I renew my request that the statement 
    of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the 
    report.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 17. Referring Objection to Committee

Senate Authorization to Use Securities Proceeds as Debt Transaction

Sec. 17.1 The House agreed to refer to the Committee on the Judiciary a 
    resolution which alleged that a Senate joint resolution 
    ``authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to use as a public-debt 
    transaction certain proceeds of securities hereafter issued under 
    authority of the Second Liberty Loan Act . . . to effectuate [an 
    Anglo-American debt agreement]'' infringed upon the constitutional 
    powers of the House in the matter of revenue.

    On May 14, 1946,(5) the House by voice vote agreed to a 
motion to refer to the Committee on the Judiciary a resolution alleging 
that Senate Joint Resolution 138 infringed upon the constitutional 
prerogative of the House to originate revenue-raising bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 5000-12, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    present

[[Page 1853]]

    a question of the privilege of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: (6~) The gentleman from Minnesota is 
    recognized. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, the question of the privilege of the 
    House is set forth in a resolution, which I send to the Clerk's 
    desk; and on that I ask for recognition.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolution offered by Mr. Knutson:

        ``Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 138, authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to use as a public-debt transaction 
    certain proceeds of securities hereafter issued under authority of 
    the Second Liberty Loan Act, as amended, to effectuate a certain 
    debt agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom of 
    Great Britain, extending the purposes for which securities may be 
    issued under that act and requiring payments of interest to the 
    United States to be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous 
    receipts, is a bill to raise revenue within the meaning and intent 
    of article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United States 
    requiring all such bills to originate in the House of 
    Representatives;

            ``That Senate Joint Resolution 138 therefore is an 
        infringement of the prerogatives and privileges of this House 
        and that said bill be taken from the Speaker's table and 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.

        Mr. Knutson: . . . In this case the Senate has not proposed or 
    concurred in amendments to a revenue measure, but on the contrary 
    it has initiated a bill the sole purpose of which is the raising of 
    revenue through the issuance of bonds or notes of the United 
    States. . . .
        . . . The rates of duty on goods imported from Great Britain in 
    the future will be fixed in an amount which the State Department 
    determines to be consistent with the terms of the financial 
    agreement which this bill brings into existence.
        The Senate report, on page 17, says:

            The proposed credit is to enable Britain to participate in 
        world trade without currency and trade discrimination, while 
        she reconverts her industries to peacetime production and 
        resumes her place in world trade.

        Tariff duties are, in their very nature, trade discriminations.
        The bill amends the Second Liberty Loan Act by adding to and 
    expanding the purposes for which securities may be issued under the 
    authority of that act. It does not merely refer to similar 
    authority contained in some other act of Congress but explicitly 
    authorizes bonds to be issued under authority of that act and 
    expressly extends the scope of that act to include such bonds. The 
    purposes for which bonds may be issued, and the authority for 
    issuing them are strictly revenue matters.

    Responding to Mr. Knutson, Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
cited 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1490, in which the House rejected a 
motion to return to the Senate a bill fixing the maximum amount of 
United States notes and providing for issuance of an

[[Page 1854]]

additional amount in circulation in national banks. Mr. McCormack 
inserted a memorandum supporting his position that the pending bill did 
not infringe upon the prerogatives of the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 5004, 5005, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Memorandum

        Senate Joint Resolution 138, ``to implement further the 
    purposes of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act by authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to carry out an agreement with the United 
    Kingdom, and for other purposes,'' has originated in the Senate. 
    The question arises, therefore, whether there is reasonable ground 
    for sustaining a question of privilege which might be raised under 
    article I, section 7, clause l of the Constitution which states: 
    ``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.'' An examination of the judicial 
    decisions, congressional decisions, and precedents in the form of 
    similar bills leads to the conclusion that there is not sufficient 
    basis for sustaining a question of privilege.
        . . . [I]t appears to be clear that a bill to raise funds 
    through the sale of Government obligations does not violate the 
    privilege of the House as set forth in article I, section 7, clause 
    1 of the Constitution. Even if it should be concluded, however, 
    that a bill to raise funds by selling Government bonds violates the 
    privilege of the House, it would be necessary for the House to 
    reach the additional conclusion that Senate Joint Resolution 138 
    does provide for the raising of funds through the sale of 
    Government obligations. Such a conclusion would be illogical. Under 
    the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, the Secretary of the 
    Treasury is already authorized for certain purposes to issue public 
    debt obligations of the United States up to a specified maximum. 
    Senate Joint Resolution 138 merely instructs the Secretary of the 
    Treasury how to use funds which he is already authorized to raise 
    under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended. The resolution would 
    not increase the limit of public-debt issues, it would not 
    authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue any securities not 
    already provided for by the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, 
    and it would not vary in any way the type of security which may be 
    issued at the present time under existing law. . . .
        Senate Joint Resolution 138 is not a bill providing for the 
    raising of revenue within the meaning of article I, section 7, 
    clause 1, of the Constitution. But even if it did provide for the 
    raising of revenue it would fall within the class of legislation 
    where revenue-raising provisions are only incidental to broader 
    general purposes.(8)~ The primary purpose of Senate 
    Joint Resolution 138 is to authorize the execution of the financial 
    agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom dated 
    December 6, 1945. It is, accordingly,

[[Page 1855]]

    legislation to make effective agreements between the two 
    Governments regarding exchange controls, monetary policies, import 
    controls, participation in the International Monetary Fund and the 
    International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and 
    participation in efforts to bring into being an international trade 
    organization for the purpose of eliminating restrictive practices 
    detrimental to world trade.. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 13, supra, for discussion of the distinction between bills 
        which primarily raise revenue and would therefore infringe on 
        the prerogative if they originated in the Senate, and those 
        which incidentally raise revenue and do not so infringe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In view of the fact that Senate Joint Resolution 138 authorizes 
    the expenditure of funds by the Secretary of the Treasury, an 
    examination has also been made of the practice of Congress with 
    respect to appropriation bills. This purpose is stated in Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives (4th ed. 1945), as 
    follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This passage appears on p. 20 of the 1959 edition of Cannon's 
        Procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Under immemorial custom the general appropriation bills (as 
    distinguished from special bills appropriating for single, specific 
    purposes) originate in the House of Representatives and there has 
    been no deviation from that practice since the establishment of the 
    Constitution.''. . .
        He also states that: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. This passage appears on p. 22 of the 1959 edition of Cannon's 
        Procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [B]ills providing special appropriations for specific purposes 
    are not general appropriation bills. . . .''
        It is clear, therefore, that a resolution appropriating funds 
    for the extension of a line of credit to the United Kingdom is not 
    a general appropriation and can originate either in the House or in 
    the Senate. . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        Thc Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McCormack moves to refer the resolution to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary.

        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The unnumbered House resolution was not 
reported back to the House. Senate Joint Resolution 138, after referral 
to the Committee on Banking and Currency, eventually was passed by the 
House and approved by the President.


 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 18. Action on House Bill in Lieu of Senate Bill

Floor Approval

Sec. 18.1 The House amended a Senate bill to insert provisions of a 
    similar House-passed bill which included a tax provision, but 
    subsequently vacated proceedings whereby the House bill had been 
    laid on the table and the Senate bill approved, passed the House 
    bill again, and messaged it to the Senate.

[[Page 1856]]

    On May 4, 1959,(11) the House by unanimous consent 
vacated the proceedings whereby the House had tabled H.R. 5610, then 
amended and passed the bill again, and messaged it to the Senate. The 
proceedings whereby a Senate bill, S. 226, had been amended by the 
House to strike out Senate language and insert in lieu thereof the 
language of H.R. 5610, were vacated by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 7310-13, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings whereby the bill H.R. 5610 was laid on 
    the table, the amendment agreed to, the bill engrossed and read a 
    third time, and passed, be vacated for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (12~) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Bennett of Michigan: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, will the chairman of our committee explain the 
    purpose of this request?
        Mr. Harris: The purpose of this unanimous consent request is 
    that the bill H.R. 5610 be reconsidered, after the vacating of the 
    proceedings of the House of last week in connection therewith, for 
    the purpose of agreeing to an amendment.
        Mr. Bennett of Michigan: I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas [Mr. Harris]?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause and insert an amendment, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Members of 
    the House, I have asked unanimous consent that the proceedings 
    whereby the bill H.R. 5610 was laid on the table, the amendment 
    agreed to, the bill engrossed and read a third time and passed, be 
    vacated, for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The unanimous consent request was agreed to, and I have offered 
    an amendment, which has just been read.
        The amendment to the bill H.R. 5610 which I have just offered 
    strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts the 
    provisions of the bill that passed the Senate last week.
        You will recall that H.R. 5610, to amend the Railroad 
    Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the 
    Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, was considered in the House 
    last Wednesday. A substitute was offered by the distinguished 
    gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Staggers]. The substitute was 
    practically the same bill that was considered and passed by the 
    other body, with the ex

[[Page 1857]]

    ception of one amendment, which had to do with section 4. Under 
    this amendment pensions and annuities under this act or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 will not be considered as income 
    for the purposes of section 522 of title 38 of the United States 
    Code. The Senate had considered that amendment, which is not out of 
    line with other provisions of law in other matters of this kind. So 
    that is the matter that is before us now.
        The necessity for this action is that last week after the House 
    had taken the action it did, we, as usual, when we have a bill from 
    the other body on the same subject on the Speaker's table, asked 
    that that bill be taken from the Speaker's desk, that all after the 
    enacting clause be stricken out, and that the House-passed bill be 
    inserted. That was the usual procedure we followed, and I made the 
    request after the House had taken its action last week. It later 
    developed that that was not the correct action that should have 
    been taken because there are tax provisions in this legislation. 
    The Constitution provides, as you know, that all legislation 
    relating directly to tax measures, revenues, must originate in the 
    House of Representatives. Therefore, this action to vacate that 
    proceeding is in order to comply with the constitutional provision 
    by passing this legislation in order to accomplish what the House 
    intended last week after it considered this matter rather 
    extensively.
        Mr. [Kenneth A.] Roberts [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    amendment to section 20 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 made 
    by section 4 of the amendment provides that payments under such act 
    shall not be considered as income for purposes of section 522 of 
    title 38, United States Code. Under that section, pension for non-
    service-connected permanent and total disability is not paid to a 
    veteran whose annual income exceeds $1,400 if he has no dependents 
    or $2,700 if he has one or more dependents. Under existing law, 
    certain items are disregarded in determining whether a veteran has 
    exceeded the income limitations, and the amendment will add to the 
    list of such items payments under the Railroad Retirement Act of 
    1937.
        The cost of this amendment is negligible.
        The amendment was sponsored in the other body by Senator Hill, 
    of Alabama. I was happy to sponsor it in the House.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby S. 226, an act to amend the Railroad Retirement 
    Act of 1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad 
    Unemployment Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits, 
    and for other purposes, as amended, was read a third time, and 
    passed, be vacated, and the bill be indefinitely postponed.

[[Page 1858]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Apr. 29, 1959, while the House had under 
consideration H.R. 5610, the Senate messaged to the House S. 226, a 
measure differing in only one respect from the House bill as it had 
been amended on the floor. After passage of H.R. 5610, a motion was 
adopted to strike out all after the enacting clause in S. 226 and 
insert the language of the House bill; the House bill was then laid on 
the table. The following day, shortly before the Senate bill was to be 
messaged to the Senate, a question was raised as to the 
constitutionality of the Senate-passed bill because it included a tax 
feature, and the delivery of the message to the Senate was stopped. The 
proceedings of the House on May 4, 1959, were necessitated by the 
requirement under the Constitution that all bills raising revenue 
originate in the House. Following the amendment of the House bill and 
the indefinite postponement of the Senate bill, the House bill, H. R. 
5610, was messaged to the Senate on May 5, 1959.

Sec. 18.2 The House, after it had amended a Senate bill to insert 
    provisions of a similar House passed bill which included a revenue-
    raising title, vacated the proceedings whereby the House bill had 
    been laid on the table, passed the bill again, and messaged it to 
    the Senate.

    On Dec. 7, 1970,(13) the House by unanimous consent 
vacated the proceedings whereby the House had tabled H.R. 19504, then 
passed the bill again, and messaged it to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 40096, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the bill (H.R. 
    19504) to authorize appropriations for the construction of certain 
    highways in accordance with title 23, United States Code, and for 
    other purposes, was read a third time, passed, and the motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table and the bill then laid on the table, 
    be vacated.
        The Speaker: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, I am at a loss to understand why this request is being 
    made. What is the reason therefor?
        Mr. Fallon: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman from Iowa, 
    we should not have vacated the House number and substituted the 
    Senate bill, since title III of the bill is a revenue measure and 
    must originate in the House.

[[Page 1859]]

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Maryland?
        There was no objection.
        The engrossed House bill (H.R. 19504) was ordered to be read a 
    third time, was read the third time, and passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The House did not ask for the return to the 
House of the amended Senate bill, S. 4418. That bill never emerged from 
conference. It was the House measure which was finally enacted as 
Public Law No. 91-605.

Sec. 18.3 The House vacated the proceedings by which it added a 
    revenue-raising amendment to a pending Senate bill, preferring to 
    postpone further consideration of the Senate bill while sending a 
    House bill, containing the revenue provision, to the Senate.

    On May 11, 1970,(15) the House agreed to amend S. 2694, 
amending the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 
1958 and the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955, by 
striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the language of H.R. 17138, a similar measure which, unlike the 
Senate bill, included a provision (title V) to impose new taxes. The 
House bill, H.R. 17138, was tabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 14951-60, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on the District of Columbia be 
    discharged from further consideration of S. 2694, to amend the 
    District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 and 
    the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955 to increase 
    salaries, and for other purposes, a Senate bill similar to that 
    passed by the House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                    S. 2694

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

         Title I.--Salary Increases for District of Columbia Policemen 
                                  and Firemen
                               * * * * *

        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 1860]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fuqua: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause of S. 2694 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        language of H.R. 17138, as passed, as follows:

         Title I.--Salary Increases for District of Columbia Policemen 
                                  and Firemen
                               * * * * *

         Title V.--Amendments to the District of Columbia Revenue Laws

            Sec. 501. Section 3 of title VI of the District of Columbia 
        Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-
        1567b(a)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 3. Imposition of Tax.--In the case of a taxable year 
        beginning after December 31, 1969, there is hereby imposed on 
        the taxable income of every resident a tax determined in 
        accordance with the following table: . . .''

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read 
    the third time, and passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        A similar House bill (H.R. 17138) was laid on the table.

    On May 12, 1970,(17) the House vacated the proceedings 
whereby H.R. 17138 was tabled and subsequently passed the House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 15145-50, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby the bill (H.R. 17138) to amend the District of 
    Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1968, and the District 
    of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955 to increase salaries, and 
    for other purposes, was read a third time and passed and laid on 
    the table be vacated.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Florida?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 
    immediate consideration of the engrossed bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Florida?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the engrossed bill. . . .

    It then vacated the proceedings of May 11, 1970, whereby S. 2694, 
as amended by insertion of the language of the House bill, was 
approved, and indefinitely postponed further action on the Senate bill.

        Vacating Proceedings on S. 2694, Salary Increases for District 
                  of Columbia Teachers, Policemen, and Firemen

        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby the House considered, amended, and passed the 
    bill of the Senate (S. 2694) to amend the District of Columbia 
    Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 and the District of 
    Columbia Teacher's Salary Act of 1955 to increase salaries, and for 
    other purposes, be vacated and that further proceedings on that 
    bill be indefinitely postponed.

[[Page 1861]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Florida?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: S. 2694 as passed by the Senate did not 
contain a revenue provision. Title V of the House passed bill (H.R. 
17138) did, however, contain a provision amending the D.C. revenue laws 
to impose new taxes on D.C. residents. S. 2694 was amended on May 10 to 
include the provisions of the House-passed bill. On the morning of May 
12, before the Senate bill had been messaged back to the Senate, it was 
discovered that the House amendment to the Senate bill contained the 
revenue feature, which constituted a violation of article I, section 7 
of the Constitution (requiring bills for raising revenue to originate 
in the House). For this reason, the House vacated the proceedings of 
May 11 and messaged the House bill to the Senate.

Committee Decision

Sec. 18.4 The Committee on Ways and Means, having voted not to 
    recommend to the House the return of a Senate bill decreasing the 
    debt limit as infringing on the prerogatives of the House, reported 
    out a House bill on the same subject, which passed the House and 
    Senate and became a public law.

    On June 6, 1946,(18) the Committee on Ways and Means, 
after deciding not to recommend that the House return to the Senate a 
Senate bill which had been referred to it, and which sought to decrease 
the debt limit, reported out a bill (H.R. 2404) on the same subject, 
which passed the House and Senate and became Public Law No. 79-28 (59 
Stat. 47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 6436, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
    Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

            S. 1760. An act to decrease the debt limit of the United 
        States from $300,000,000,000 to $275,000,000,000; to the 
        Committee on Ways and Means.

Sec. 18.5 Where the Senate had passed a bill which possibly infringed 
    upon the House's constitutional prerogative to originate revenue 
    legislation--a bill to authorize the President to extend certain 
    privileges and immunities (including exemptions from customs duties 
    and importation taxes) to the Organization of African Unity--the 
    House passed an identical

[[Page 1862]]

    bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means.

    On Nov. 6, 1973,(19) the House by a vote of yeas 340, 
nays 39, not voting 54, approved H.R. 8219, a bill identical to a 
Senate-passed bill which arguably infringed upon the constitutional 
prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 36006-08, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert C.] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8219) to amend the 
    International Organizations Immunities Act to authorize the 
    President to extend certain privileges and immunities to the 
    Organization of African Unity.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 8219

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288-288f) 
        is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 12. The provisions of this title may be extended to 
        the Organization of African Unity in the same manner, to the 
        same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as they may be 
        extended to a public international organization in which the 
        United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the 
        authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation 
        or making an appropriation for such participation.''

        The Speaker: (1) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the pending bill, as reported to 
    the House by the Committee on Ways and Means, is to provide the 
    President with authority to extend to the Organization of African 
    Unity and its office, officials, and employees in the United States 
    those privileges and immunities specified in the International 
    Organizations Immunities Act.
        Under the bill, at the discretion of the President the 
    Organization of African Unity--OAU--may be designated by the 
    President as an international organization for purposes of the 
    International Organizations Immunities Act. Upon such a designation 
    the organization, to the extent so provided by the President, will 
    be exempt from customs duties on property imported for the 
    activities in which it engages, from income taxes, from withholding 
    taxes on wages, and from excise taxes on services and facilities. 
    In addition, the employees of the international organization, to 
    the extent not nationals of the United States, may not be subject 
    to U.S. income tax on the income they receive from OAU. OAU is an 
    organization composed of 41 member states, representing all the 
    independent African nations--except the Republic of

[[Page 1863]]

    South Africa--and acts to further the goals of political and 
    economic development of Africa. It presently has a mission in New 
    York. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) that the House suspend the rules and pass 
    the bill H.R. 8219.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John R.] Rarick [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    340, nays 39, not voting 54, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although it did not directly ``raise'' 
revenue, the Senate bill clearly ``affected'' revenue, because it 
granted an immunity from taxation.



                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 19. Senate Action on Revenue Legislation

    In addition to its mandate that the House originate all revenue 
bills, article I, section 7 of the Constitution (2) 
authorizes the Senate to propose or concur with amendments as on other 
bills. Senate authority to amend revenue bills is broad, but not 
unlimited. A principle frequently applied is that the Senate may 
substitute one kind of tax for a tax that the House has proposed, but 
may not impose a tax if one had not originally been proposed by the 
House. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a Senate amendment which 
substituted a corporate tax in place of an inheritance tax which had 
been proposed in the original House version did not contravene the 
constitutional provision; for the bill had properly originated in the 
House as a revenue-raising measure and the Senate amendment could 
constitutionally be added thereto.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See annotation following article I, section 7, House Rules and 
        Manual.
 3. Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). See also Rainey v 
        United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a similar case, the House without debate and by voice vote held 
that a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute infringed upon 
the House prerogative and returned the bill, as amended, to the 
Senate.(4) In this case, the substitute, which was offered 
to a House bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act, sought to impose 
a tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 15.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, as a further application of the above principle,

[[Page 1864]]

the House tabled a resolution to return to the Senate a House excise 
tax bill, which the Senate had amended by provision for a general 
surtax.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 16.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the issue has been raised, the Senate has generally respected 
the House prerogative. Thus, the Senate rejected a committee amendment 
changing a definition in the Internal Revenue Code which was added to a 
Senate bill granting independence to the Philippine 
Islands.(6)~ On another occasion, the Senate sustained a 
point of order that a Senate amendment affecting the Revenue Act, 
offered to a House bill directed to administrative purposes rather than 
raising revenue, infringed on the prerogative.(7) Moreover, 
after the House returned a Senate bill to the Senate on the ground that 
certain tariff schedule amendments infringed upon the House 
prerogative, the Senate deleted the amendments.(8) And the 
Senate has deleted amendments to the Internal Revenur Code that 
appeared in a Senate bill.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 19.3, infra.
 7. See Sec. 19.4, infra.
 8. See Sec. 19.5, infra.
 9. See Sec. 19.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Issue Submitted to Senate

Sec. 19.1 Because it requires interpretation of the Constitution rather 
    than the rules of the Senate, an issue as to whether a Senate 
    amendment to a House bill infringes upon the prerogative of the 
    House to originate bills raising revenue is decided by the Senate, 
    not the Chair.

    On Mar. 28, 1935,(10) a question of order as to the 
propriety of a Senate amendment to a House bill was submitted to the 
Senate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 4583, 4584, 4586, 4587, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 6339-49, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 31, 1939, 
        for submission of a similar issue to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6359) to 
    repeal certain provisions relating to publicity of certain 
    statements of income.
        The Vice President: (12) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by Mr. La Follette is after line 5 insert 
    a new section reading as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 11 of the Revenuc Act of 1934, relating 
        to the normal tax on individuals, is amended bv striking out 
        ``4 percent'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``6 percent.''

[[Page 1865]]

            (b) Section 12(b) of the Revenue Act of 1934, relating to 
        rates of surtax, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Rates of surtax: There shall be levied, collected, 
        and paid for each taxable year upon the surtax net income of 
        every individual a surtax as follows:
            ``Upon a surtax net income of $4,000 there shall be no 
        surtax; upon surtax net incomes in excess of $4,000 and not in 
        excess of $8,000, 6 percent of such excess. . . .''

        Mr. [Pat] Harrison [of Mississippi]: Mr. President, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the Senator from 
    Wisconsin. I do not think I formally made it yesterday, because the 
    Senator from Wisconsin said he desired to make a brief statement. 
    He made that statement yesterday afternoon, and I now make the 
    point of order that the pending bill is not, in a strict sense, a 
    revenue bill, and that for the Senate to attach a tax proposal to 
    the bill at this time would be contrary to that provision of the 
    ConstitutiOII requiring all bills for raising revenue to originate 
    in the House of Representatives. . . .
        The Vice President: The point of order is well taken. The Chair 
    is ready to rule.
        The present occupant of the chair has at no time declined to 
    construe the rules of the Senate; and if this were a matter of the 
    rules of the Senate, he would not hesitate for a moment to express 
    his opinion about it and make a ruling.
        It seems to the Chair, however, that this is purely a 
    constitutional question; and under the rulings and under the 
    precedents for more than a hundred years, where constitutional 
    questions are involved as to the right of the Senate to act, the 
    Chair has universally submitted the question to the Senate.
        The Chair thinks the logic of that rule is correct, the 
    reasoning of it is good, because the Chair might undertake to 
    interpret the Constitution when a majority of the Senators would 
    have a different viewpoint. So the Chair is going to follow a long 
    line of precedents and submit to the Senate the question whether or 
    not it is constitutional for the Senate to propose this amendment; 
    and it occurs to the Chair that the only question involved is, Is 
    this a bill to raise revenue?
        So the Chair is going to submit to the Senate of the United 
    States the question as to whether or not the Senate, under the 
    Constitution, has a right to propose this amendment.
        Mr. [William E.] Borah [of Idaho]: Mr. President, must that 
    question be determined without debate?
        Mr. [Huey P.] Long [of Louisiana]: No: it is subject to debate.

        The Vice President: The point of order has been made by the 
    Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Harrison] to the amendment of the 
    Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette]. The question before the 
    Senate is whether or not the point of order shall be sustained. 
    That question is debatable.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also Sec. 19.4, infra, for further debate on this question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In connection with his ruling on the point of order made by the 
    Senator from Mississippi, the Chair asks unanimous consent to 
    insert in the Record some decisions and precedents prepared by the 
    parliamentary clerk. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
        The matter referred to is as follows:

[[Page 1866]]

          [From the Constitution of the United States, as revised and 
                                annotated, 1924]

                  Article I Section 7, Clause 1, Revenue Bills

            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.
            ``All bills for raising revenue.''
            ``The construction of this limitation is practically 
        settled by the uniform action of Congress confining it to bills 
        to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and it has not 
        been understood to extend to bills for purposes which 
        incidentally create revenue.''
            U.S. v. Norton (91 U.S. 566) [1875].
            Twin City Bank v. Nebeker (167 U.S. 196) [1897].
            Millard v. Roberts (202 U.S. 429) [1906].

      Questions Involving Constitutionality of Bills are Submitted to 
                                   Senate

                          Wednesday, January 16, 1924

        The Senate, in a call of the calendar under rule VIII, reached 
    the bill (S. 120) to provide for a tax on motor vehicle fuels sold 
    within the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
        Mr. McKellar made a point of order against the bill on the 
    ground that it was a revenue measure and that under the 
    Constitution of the United States all revenue-raising measures must 
    originate in the House of Representatives, and that the bill had no 
    place on the Senate Calendar.
        The question was argued, and Mr. Lenroot made the contention 
    that it was not the function of the Chair to pass upon the question 
    of whether bills are or are not in violation of the Constitution.
        After further argument, the President pro tempore (Albert B. 
    Cummins, of Iowa) made the following ruling:
        ``The Chair is of the opinion that he has no authority to 
    declare a proposed act unconstitutional. The only precedent which 
    the Chair has been able to find since the question arose was 
    presented to the Senate in 1830, and the Vice President then in the 
    chair ruled in accordance with the suggestion which the Chair has 
    just made, holding that it was a question which must be submitted 
    to the Senate and one which could not be ruled upon by the Chair, 
    which entirely concurs with the views of the present occupant of 
    the chair in the matter. The question before the Senate, therefore, 
    is, Shall the point of order which is made by the Senator from 
    Tennessee [Mr. McKellar], which is that the bill now under 
    consideration is unconstitutional and should have originated in the 
    House of Representatives, be sustained? [Putting the question.] The 
    ayes have it, and the point of order is sustained. The bill will be 
    indefinitely postponed.''

                        January 22, 1925 (14)

        The Senate had under consideration the bill (S. 3674) 
    reclassifying the salaries of postmasters and employees of the 
    Postal Service, readjusting their salaries and compensation on an 
    equitable basis, increasing postal rates to provide for such 
    readjustment, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The incident of Jan. 22, 1925, is discussed at 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pending debate,

[[Page 1867]]

        Mr. Swanson raised a question of order, viz, that that portion 
    of the bill dealing with increased postal rates proposed to raise 
    revenue, and, under the Constitution, must originate in the House 
    of Representatives, and was therefore in contravention of the 
    Constitution.
        The Presiding Officer (Mr. Jones of Washington) held that the 
    Chair had no authority to pass upon the constitutionality of a 
    bill, and submitted to the Senate the question, Shall the point of 
    order be sustained?
        On the following day the Senate, by a vote of 29 yeas to 50 
    nays, overruled the point of order.
        The bill was subsequently passed and transmitted to the House 
    of Representatives. On February 3 the House returned the bill to 
    the Senate with the statement that it contravened the first clause 
    of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution and 
    was an infringement of the privileges of the House.
        The message and bill were referred to the Committee on Post 
    Offices and Post Roads, and no further action taken. A House bill, 
    H.R. 11444, of an identical title, was subsequently passed by both 
    Houses and became a law. . . .

                         March 2, 1931 (15)

        Mr. Capper moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
    of the bill (S. 5818) to regulate commerce between the United 
    States and foreign countries in crude petroleum and all products of 
    petroleum, including fuel oil, and to limit the importation 
    thereof, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The incident of Mar. 2, 1931, is discussed at 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashurst made the point of order that the bill was a 
    revenueraising measure, and, under the Constitution, should 
    originate in the House of Representatives.
        The Vice President submitted the point of order to the Senate.
        Mr. Capper's motion was subsequently laid on the table, and the 
    point of order was not passed upon.

                               December 17, 1932

        The Senate had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7233) to 
    enable the people of the Philippine Islands to adopt a constitution 
    and provide a government for the Philippine Islands, to provide for 
    the independence of the same, and for other purposes.
        Mr. Dickinson offered an amendment imposing on imports of pearl 
    buttons or shells, in excess of 800,000 gross in a year, the same 
    rates of duty imposed on like articles imported from foreign 
    countries.
        Mr. Walsh of Montana raised a question of order, viz, that the 
    amendment proposed to raise revenue and could not, under the 
    Constitution, originate with the Senate.
        The Vice President submitted to the Senate the question, Is the 
    point of order well taken? and
        It was determined in the affirmative.

        Subsequently, Mr. Dickinson stated that the amendment above 
    indicated was identical, except as to the commodity, with the 
    language in the bill dealing with sugar and coconut oil; when
        The President pro tempore ruled that in view of the language 
    contained

[[Page 1868]]

    in the House text, the amendment was in order.

    After debate, and other proceedings, the following occurred: 
(l6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 4613, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harrison: Mr. President, I ask for a vote on the point of 
    order raised by me.
        The Presiding Officer: (17) The question is, Shall 
    the Senate sustain the point of order raised by the Senator from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Harrison] against the amendment proposed by the 
    Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette] on the ground that it 
    contravenes the constitutional provision? [Putting the question.] 
    The ``ayes'' have it, and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Harry S Truman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Jurisdiction of Bill Incidentally Producing Revenue

Sec. 19.2 The Presiding Officer of the Senate held that the Senate 
    Committee on Banking and Currency did not exceed its jurisdiction 
    in reporting an original bill with a revenue-producing measure to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code therein, because that measure was 
    incidental to the main purpose Of the bill, making equity capital 
    and long-term credit more readily available for small business 
    concerns.

    On June 9, 1958, (18) the Presiding Officer, William 
Proxmire, of Wisconsin, held that the Senate Committee on Banking and 
Currency did not exceed its jurisdiction in reporting S. 3651 with a 
revenue producing measure to amend the Internal Revenue Code, because 
that measure was incidental to the main purpose of the bill. 
(19~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings at 104 Cong. Rec. 10522-25, 85th Cong. 2cl 
        Sess.
19. Id. at pp. 10524, 10525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Williams [of Delaware]: Mr. President, I should 
    like to have the attention of the chairman of the committee. The 
    text of the bill, beginning on page 50, line 10, and extending to 
    page 52, through line 17, embraces a proposed amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code. I am wondering if the committee did not make 
    a mistake when it placed this provision in the bill, because, in 
    the first place, measures of such nature should be considered by 
    the Senate Finance Committee. Secondly, revenue measures should 
    originate in the House. . . .
        Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that, under 
    paragraph (d) of rule XXV, the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    may not deal with any revenue-producing measure. . . .
        I next invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that in 
    this bill the attempt is not made to amend an ordinary House bill; 
    nor even a bill which deals with a revenue-raising provision; nor a 
    bill which had been reported by the Committee on Finance; nor one

[[Page 1869]]

    which had been considered by the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
    House. What is attempted is an amendment of the Revenue Code on a 
    Senate bill which has been considered only by the Banking and 
    Currency Committee. I shall make the point of order that the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency has exceeded its jurisdiction, 
    and this section of the bill should be stricken. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. President the 
    distinguished Senator from Delaware has raised a very important 
    question. He has raised two questions, in fact. He has raised the 
    question of a possible violation of the rule of the Senate with 
    respect to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency in reporting the pending bill. He has also raised the 
    constitutional question as to whether a bill carrying tax 
    provisions must originate in the House of Representatives.
        I should like to have the attention of the Parliamentarian 
    while I am speaking on this point. The question first came up in 
    1955, when the Committee on Public Works was considering the 
    interstate highway bill.
        At that time I consulted the Parliamentarian as to whether the 
    Committee on Public Works could report a bill which would raise 
    revenue for the purpose of defraying the cost of the highway 
    program, particularly the standard interstate program. The 
    Parliamentarian called my attention to a decision [Hubbard v Lowe 
    226 F 135 (S.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916)] in the 
    so-called Cotton Futures Act, which held that a bill which had 
    originated in the Senate, but which had a revenue item added to it 
    in the House of Representatives.
        The Supreme Court held that that act was not valid, because 
    they could not go behind the number of the bill. Even though in 
    that instance the revenue feature was added by the House of 
    Representatives, the Supreme Court held that the origin of the bill 
    was determined by the number it carried. That bill carried a Senate 
    number. So the Supreme Court invalidated the Cotton Futures Act 
    because section 7 of the Constitution provides that all bills for 
    raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
        On the basis of that Supreme Court ruling, which the 
    Parliamentarian called to my attention, the Committee on Public 
    Works decided that it should not risk the validity of the highway 
    bill by reporting revenue features. In fact, in 1956, when the 
    question of a highway act again was before the Senate, because the 
    House had failed to pass a highway bill in 1955, the Committee on 
    Public Works decided it would defer to the action of the House, and 
    wait until a bill could come over from the House carrying revenue 
    features or carrying a House bill number, so that we would not run 
    into danger. The Committee on Public Works did not want to risk 
    invalidating the proposed legislation by placing a Senate number on 
    a bill which included revenue features.
        Under that decision of the Supreme Court, cited to me by the 
    Parliamentarian, I cannot understand why members of the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency would want to risk the fate of this bill by 
    having it continue to carry tax provisions. The Senator from 
    Delaware [Mr. Williams] has already pointed them out. For emphasis, 
    I invite the committee's attention to the

[[Page 1870]]

    fact that section 308 specifically refers to the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954 and then, in parentheses, reads: ``relating to 
    deduction of losses.''It amends section 165 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code relating to the deduction of losses.
        Further, in section 308, subparagraph (c), there is an 
    amendment of section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code, ``elating to 
    dividends received by corporations''
        In other words, the language of the bill before us very clearly 
    changes the Revenue Code, by changing the provisions which raise 
    revenue and the provisions relating to deductions. Certainly it 
    must be considered a bill to raise revenue or a bill to change the 
    code relating to revenue. Based on the opinions which the 
    Parliamentarian gave in 1955 and 1956, I do not see how this bill, 
    S. 3651, could carry those provisions and still be considered a 
    valid bill. . . .
        Mr. Williams.  Mr. President, before I raise the question of 
    constitutionality, my first point of order is that the committee 
    exceeded its jurisdiction. It had no authority at all to report a 
    bill dealing with the Revenue Code. Therefore, I make the point of 
    order against that section of the bill on that basis.
        The question is, Does the Senate Committee on Banking and 
    Currency have jurisdiction to report measures relating to the 
    Revenue Code? If they have such jurisdiction, other committees 
    likewise have the jurisdiction to report similar bills.
        I confine my point of order, first, to that phase of the 
    question. . .
        Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, in 
    regard to the point of order, it is my position and that of the 
    committee that the revenue provision of the bill is strictly of a 
    subsidiary and incidental nature to the main purpose of the bill 
    itself; that this is a very common practice; and that the point of 
    order is invalid.
        The. Presiding Officer: The Chair has been informed by the 
    Parliamentarian that in the case of Millard v. Roberts (202 U.S. 
    429) decided in 1906, the Supreme Court of the United States made a 
    decision which has a bearing on the present situation.
        In that case, a bill which had originated in the Senate 
    provided for the construction of a Union Station in the District of 
    Columbia, and contained a small incidental tax provision. The 
    constitutionality of the bill was attacked on the ground that 
    revenue bills must originate in the House.
        The Court, after citing the case of Twin City Bank v. Nebeker 
    (167 U.S. 203) [1897], which quoted Mr. Justice Story as holding 
    that ``revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense 
    of the word, and are not bills for other purposes, which may 
    incidentally create revenue,'' said, ``here was no purpose, by the 
    act or any of its provisions, to raise revenue to be applied in 
    meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government.''
        That situation applies to the bill in question. The Committee 
    on Banking and Currency has jurisdiction over the pending bill and 
    may report some provisions incidental to carrying out the main 
    purposes of the bill.

        There are numerous precedents for the establishment of the 
    Small Business Administration and the method of its financing, 
    against which no point of

[[Page 1871]]

    order was made when bills establishing those corporations or 
    administrations similar in their financing were under consideration 
    in the Senate.
        This is the opinion of the Parliamentarian as given to the 
    Chair. The Chair makes it his own opinion and, therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 19.6, infra, for a discussion of withdrawing revenue 
        amendments from this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Senate Bill as Infringement

Sec. 19.3 The Senate rejected a committee amendment to a Senate bill 
    granting independence to the Philippines, on the ground that the 
    amendment invaded the prerogative of the House to originate bills 
    to raise revenue.

    On May 31, 1939,(21) the Senate by a vote of yeas 8, 
nays 54, decided that a committee amendment to S. 2390 was out of order 
because it invaded the prerogative of the House to originate bills to 
raise revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 84 Cong. Rec. 6331, 6339, 6348-50, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Millard E.] Tydings [of Maryland]: Mr. President, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of Senate bill 
    2390, to amend an act entitled ``An act to provide for the complete 
    independence of the Philippine Islands, to provide for the adoption 
    of a constitution and a form of government for the Philippine 
    Islands, and for other purposes.'' . . .
        The next amendment was, on page 19, after line 23, to insert a 
    new paragraph, as follows:

            ``(f) Subsection (a)(1) of section 2470 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code (I.R.C., ch. 21, sec. 2470(a)(1)), is hereby 
        amended by striking out the comma after the words `coconut 
        oil,' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: `(except 
        coconut oil rendered unfit for use as food or for any but 
        mechanical or manufacturing purposes as provided in paragraph 
        1732 of the Tariff Act of 1930), and upon the first domestic 
        processing of.' ''

        Mr. [Tom T.] Connally [of Texas]: Mr. President, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Presiding Officer: (22) The Senator from Texas 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Edwin C. Johnson (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Connally: I make the point of order that the amendment 
    proposed is a revenue measure, and, under the Constitution, must 
    originate in the House of Representatives. If the Chair desires 
    argument, I can make an argument; but it is so patent that I feel 
    no argument is necessary.
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair will state to the Senator from 
    Texas that the present occupant of the chair is always delighted to 
    hear arguments from the Senator from Texas, but, under the long-
    established usage, practice and precedents of the Senate, a 
    constitutional point is not decided by the Chair, but is submitted 
    to the Senate, and the present occupant of the chair will follow 
    that practice. . . .(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 19.1, supra, for a discussion of authorities supporting 
        the principle that the Senate and not the Chair decides the 
        constitutional question relating to the prerogative of the 
        House.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1872]]

        Mr. [Hiram W.] Johnson of California: Mr. President, I wish to 
    fortify, if I can, the position of the Senator from Arizona. . . .
        The latest edition of the Constitution of the United States of 
    America, annotated--oh, it is a presumptuous thing to be referring 
    to the Constitution here--contains notes under the various 
    headings. I will read the notes for what they are worth. I shall 
    not attempt to comment upon them in any way, shape, form, or 
    manner. Other Senators can understand them as well as I can, 
    although they may understand them differently:

            Sec. 7. 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.

        The note says:

            All bills for raising revenue: The construction of this 
        limitation is practically settled by the uniform action of 
        Congress confining it to bills to levy taxes in the strict 
        sense of the word, and it has not been understood to extend to 
        bills having some other legitimate and well defined general 
        purpose but which incidentally create revenue.

        Under that particular text the following cases are cited: 
    United States v. Norton (91 U.S. 566) [1875], Twin City National 
    Bank v. Nebeker (167 U.S. 196) [1897], Millard v. Roberts (202 U.S. 
    429) [1906].

            Amendments by Senate: It has been held within the power of 
        the Senate to remove from a revenue collection bill originating 
        in the House a plan of inheritance taxation and substitute 
        therefor a corporation tax.

        The following cases are cited: Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (220 
    U.S. 107) [1911], Rainey v. United States (232 U.S. 310) [1914].
        That is all.
        Mr. Connally: Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to 
    read the decisions cited by the Senator from California; but there 
    is no difficulty in that regard. As I understand the rule and the 
    precedents, the language of the Constitution provides that all 
    bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House. However, 
    the Senate, of course, may amend them. When a revenue bill comes to 
    the Senate, the Senate is at liberty, if it desires, to adopt a new 
    tax which is not even contained in the House bill, because it has 
    complete legislative powers, except for the prohibition that it 
    shall not originate the bill.
        If the doctrine asserted by Senators on the floor is sound, 
    then the Senate need never pay attention to the constitutional 
    provision about revenue measures, because when any bill comes over 
    from the House a Senator may offer on the floor of the Senate an 
    amendment cutting down the taxation, as this bill does, and say 
    that it does not raise any revenue, and is therefore in order. The 
    bill immediately becomes subject to amendment, and another Senator 
    may offer an amendment raising the revenue, or adding a new tax, 
    thus rendering absolutely nugatory the constitutional provision.
        There was a reason for the constitutional provision that 
    revenue bills

[[Page 1873]]

    should originate in the House. The theory was that the Members of 
    the House of Representatives are representatives of the people, and 
    that Senators are representatives of the States, formerly being 
    elected by the legislatures of the States. The old theory, upon 
    which the Revolution itself was founded, was that taxation without 
    representation was cause for revolution. Therefore, the makers of 
    the Constitution wisely provided that no tax should be laid upon 
    the backs of the people unless their Representatives in the House 
    of Representatives should propose the bill seeking to levy the tax; 
    but the Constitution says that when that bill comes to the Senate 
    the Senate may amend it, or change it, or do what it pleases with 
    it, once the House has opened the door.
        We have before us a bill which did not even originate in the 
    House. The whole bill originated in the Senate. It is now proposed 
    to take off a tax. It does not make any difference whether the bill 
    raises or lowers the tax; it is still a revenue measure. It still 
    relates to the revenue. I could offer in a moment an amendment 
    raising the tax, instead of repealing the 3-cent tax, as is 
    proposed. I could offer an amendment to make it 5 cents. Such an 
    amendment would be in order. Then we should unquestionably have a 
    bill raising revenue.

        Mr. President, we ought not to adopt the pending amendment. I 
    think everyone ought to know that it is violative of the spirit of 
    comity, good will, and respect for the prerogatives of the two 
    Houses. We ought not to add a revenue measure by a committee 
    amendment. . . .
        The Presiding Officer: To the committee amendment the Senator 
    from Texas raised the point of order that the committee amendment 
    is itself a revenue measure and may not originate in the Senate. 
    The question now occurs, Is the committee amendment in order? Those 
    Senators who think it is in order will vote ``aye''; those who 
    think the point of order is well taken will vote ``no.''
        Mr. [Alben W.] Barkley [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Barkley: Is not the question whether the point of order is 
    well taken, on which those who believe it well taken will vote 
    ``aye''?
        The Presiding Officer: The present occupant of the chair will 
    say that he entertains the same idea as that of the Senator from 
    Kentucky, but he submitted the question to the Parliamentarian, and 
    the Parliamentarian advised the occupant of the chair that the 
    better practice is to submit the question, ``Is the committee 
    amendment in order?'' Therefore, so that it may be understood, the 
    Chair will repeat the question, Is the committee amendment in 
    order? Those who think it is in order will vote ``aye,'' and those 
    who think it is not in order will vote ``no''. [Putting the 
    question.] By the sound, the ``noes'' appear to have it.
        Mr. [Carl] Hayden [of Arizona]: Mr. President, I ask for a 
    division.
        Mr. Harrison, Mr. Barkley, and Mr. La Follette called for the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 8, nays 54, as follows: . . .

[[Page 1874]]

        So the Senate decided the committee amendment to be out of 
    order.

Amendment to House Bill as Infringement

Sec. 19.4 The Senate sustained a point of order that a Senate amendment 
    to a House bill to repeal certain provisions relating to publicity 
    of certain statements of income invaded the constitutional 
    prerogative of the House to originate revenue-raising bills.

    On Mar. 28, 1935,(2) the Senate by voice vote sustained 
a point of order that a Senate amendment to H.R. 6359 invaded the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue-raising 
bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 4583-87, 4613, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6359) to 
    repeal certain provisions relating to publicity of certain 
    statements of income.
        The Vice President:(3) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by Mr. La Follette is after line 5 insert 
    a new section reading as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 11 of the Revenue Act of 1934, relating 
        to the normal tax on individuals, is amended by striking out 
        ``4 percent'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``6 percent.''
            (b) Section 12(b) of the Revenue Act of 1934, relating to 
        rates of surtax, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Rates of surtax: There shall be levied, collected, 
        and paid for each taxable year upon the surtax net income of 
        every individual a surtax as follows:
            ``Upon a surtax net income of $4,000 there shall be no 
        surtax; upon surtax net incomes in excess of $4,000 and not in 
        excess of $8,000, 6 percent of such excess. . . .''

        Mr. [Pat] Harrison [of Mississippi]: Mr. President, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the Senator from 
    Wisconsin. I do not think I normally made it yesterday, because the 
    Senator from Wisconsin said he desired to make a brief statement. 
    He made that statement yesterday afternoon, and I now make the 
    point of order that the pending bill is not, in a strict sense, a 
    revenue bill, and that for the Senate to attach a tax proposal to 
    the bill at this time would be contrary to that provision of the 
    Constitution requiring all bills for raising revenue to originate 
    in the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. President, I was of the opinion that perhaps the question 
    was so clear upon its face that it would require no argument to 
    convince anyone that we would be violating precedents and not 
    acting in accordance with the Constitution if we should attempt to 
    write a revenue amendment upon a bill which seeks merely to repeal 
    the ``pink slip'' provision of the law.
        It will be noted that the title of House bill 6359 is ``To 
    repeal certain provisions relating to publicity of certain 
    statements of income.'' Those provisions deal solely with 
    administrative purposes and features of the existing

[[Page 1875]]

    law; in no way, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination, can 
    they be construed to affect the raising of revenue.
        Mr. Story, in section 880 of his works on the Constitution, 
    makes this statement with reference to the constitutional 
    provision:

            What bills are properly ``bills for raising revenue'', in 
        the sense of the Constitution, has been matter of some 
        discussion. A learned commentator supposes that every bill 
        which indirectly or consequently may raise revenue is, within 
        the sense of the Constitution, a revenue bill. He therefore 
        thinks that the bills for establishing the post office and the 
        mint, and regulating the value of foreign coin, belong to this 
        class, and ought not to have originated--as in fact they did--
        in the Senate. But the principal construction of the 
        Constitution has been against his opinion. And, indeed, the 
        history of the origin of the power already suggested abundantly 
        proves that it has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the 
        strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to 
        extend to bills for other purposes, which may incidentally 
        create revenue. No one supposes that a bill to sell any of the 
        public lands, or to sell public stock, is a bill to raise 
        revenue, in the sense of the Constitution. Much less would a 
        bill be so deemed which merely regulated the value of foreign 
        or domestic coins, or authorized a discharge of insolvent 
        debtors upon assignments of their estates to the United States, 
        giving a priority of payment to the United States in cases of 
        insolvency, although all of them might incidentally bring 
        revenue into the Treasury.

        In one of the most important cases decided by the courts of the 
    United States, the case of Twin City Bank v. Nebeker (167 U.S. 202) 
    [1897], the court said:

            The case is not one that requires either an extended 
        examination of precedents, or a full discussion as to the 
        meaning of the words in the Constitution, ``bills for raising 
        revenue.'' What bills belong to that class is a question of 
        such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not 
        to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible 
        phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to 
        say that an act of Congress providing a national currency 
        secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States and which, in 
        the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses 
        attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes 
        in circulation of the banking associations organized under the 
        statute, is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution 
        declares must orginate in the House of Representatives. Mr. 
        Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of 
        the Constitution and the history of the origin of the 
        constitutional provision in question proves that revenue bills 
        are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and 
        are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create 
        revenue (1 Story on Constitution, sec. 880). The main purpose 
        that Congress had in view was to provide a national currency 
        based upon United States bonds, and to that end it was deemed 
        wise to impose the tax in question.

        Throughout the decisions the same construction of the 
    constitutional provision has been given by the courts.
        I desire to cite a few precedents relative to what has been 
    done with reference to bills which originated in the House which 
    were not revenue bills, upon which some revenue amendment was 
    tacked by the Senate, and the House later refused to accept the 
    amendment, returning the bill to the Senate.

[[Page 1876]]

        In the Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, February, March 
    1917, the Senate added an amendment to the naval appropriation bill 
    (H.R. 20632) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow 
    certain sums on the credit of the United States and to prepare and 
    issue bonds therefor (proposed by Mr. Swanson).
        The House, on March 2, 1917, returned the bill and amendment to 
    the Senate with the statement that it contravened the first clause 
    of section 7 of article I of the Constitution and was an 
    infringement of the privileges of the House.
        The Senate subsequently reconsidered the vote on the passage 
    and engrossment of the bill and amendments, and a motion was agreed 
    to whereby the amendment providing for the bond issue was stricken 
    from the bill. . . .
        On June 30, 1864,(4) the bill (H.R. 549) further to 
    regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out of the 
    national forces was passed by the Senate with an amendment, among 
    others, providing for a 5-percent duty on incomes. The House 
    ordered the bill returned to the Senate with the statement that the 
    amendment in question contravened the first clause of section 7 of 
    article I of the Constitution and was an infringement of the 
    privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. This instance is discussed at 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate on the same day reconsidered the bill and eliminated 
    the objectionable amendment.
        Mr. President, so it goes on down the line. I submit that the 
    bill now before us, which deals solely with the repeal of an 
    administrative provision of law, namely, the pink-slip provision, 
    affects in no way the revenues of the Government.
        Mr. Justice Story and the courts say a bill must go further 
    than incidentally to affect the revenues of the Government and must 
    deal directly with the revenues before the Senate may take 
    cognizance to the extent of adding revenue provisions.
        It seems to me it is without question that the Senate ought to 
    sustain the point of order, if submitted, or, if the Chair desires 
    to rule without submitting the question to the Senate, he should 
    sustain the point of order. Certainly the Senate of the United 
    States ought not to assume, in view of the provision of the 
    Constitution to which I have invited attention, the privilege and 
    the right of writing a revenue bill in this way.
        Sooner or later at the present session of Congress we may be 
    forced to consider a revenue bill which might have a tendency to 
    increase taxes or to extend the application of those taxes which by 
    operation of law would otherwise lapse on June 30. Certainly, when 
    that time comes the House ought to be given its privilege and 
    right, which it has always exercised, to construct its own revenue 
    bill without the Senate assuming in the beginning to write a 
    revenue bill and send it to the House. I think the House would have 
    just cause to feel it was an abuse of their privilege, and, so far 
    as I am concerned, I am not willing to go that far. Therefore, I 
    have made the point of order. . . .
        The Vice President: The point of order is well taken. The Chair 
    is ready to rule.

[[Page 1877]]

        The present occupant of the chair has at no time declined to 
    construe the rules of the Senate; and if this were a matter of the 
    rules of the Senate, he would not hesitate for a moment to express 
    his opinion about it and make a ruling. . . .(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 19.1, supra, for the full text of the ruling regarding the 
        submission of the question for decision by the Senate on 
        constitutional issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The . . . Chair is going to follow a long line of precedents 
    and submit to the Senate the question whether or not it is 
    constitutional for the Senate to propose this amendment; and it 
    occurs to the Chair that the only question involved is, Is this a 
    bill to raise revenue? . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Borah [of Idaho]: Mr. President, must that 
    question be determined without debate?
        Mr. [Huey P.] Long [of Louisiana]: No; it is subject to debate.

    After debate, and other proceedings, the following occurred:

        Mr. Harrison: Mr. President, I ask for a vote on the point of 
    order raised by me.
        The Presiding Officer: (6) The question is, Shall 
    the Senate sustain the point of order raised by the Senator from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Harrison] against the amendment proposed by the 
    Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette] on the ground that it 
    contravenes the constitutional provision? [Putting the question.] 
    The ``ayes'' have it, and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Harry S Truman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Tariff Schedule Amendments

Sec. 19.5 After the House returned a Senate bill containing a provision 
    which infringed upon the constitutional power of the House to 
    originate revenue measures, the Senate, by unanimous consent, 
    reconsidered the vote by which the bill had passed, adopted an 
    amendment deleting the objectionable provision, and then passed the 
    bill as so amended.

        On May 4, 1971,(7) the Senate reconsidered the vote 
    on S. 860, deleted title 4, a tariff schedule which contravened the 
    prerogatives of the House, and passed the bill as so amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 13273, 92d Cong 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I ask 
    that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 
    860.
        The President pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from 
    the House of Representatives that the bill of the Senate (S. 860) 
    relating to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in the 
    opinion of this House contravenes the first clause of the seventh 
    section of the first article of the Constitution of the United 
    States, and is an infringement of the privileges of this House, and 
    that the said bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a 
    message communicating this resolution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 15.6, supra, for House disposition of this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    Senate re

[[Page 1878]]

    consider the vote by which S. 860 was passed, together with third 
    reading.
        The President Pro Tempore: (9~) Is there objection? 
    Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill is open to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Allen J. Ellender (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment 
    to strike title 4 of the bill.
        The President Pro Tempore: The amendment will be stated.
        The amendment was read, as follows:

            Beginning on page 15, line 1, strike all language through 
        line 10, page 17.

        The President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment of the Senator from Montana (Mr. Mansfield).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The President Pro Tempore: The bill is open to further 
    amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the 
    question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
        The bill (S. 860) was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
    reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Withdrawal of Internal Revenue Code Amendments

Sec. 19.6 Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, incorporated in a 
    Senate bill designed to make equity capital and long-term credit 
    more readily available for small business concerns, were on motion 
    deleted from the bill during debate.

        On June 9, 1958,(10) the Chairman of the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency, J. William Fulbright, of Arkansas, moved 
    to delete proposed amendments to the Internal Revenue Code from S. 
    3651, a bill to make equity capital and long-term credit more 
    readily available for small business concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 104 Cong. Rec. 10525-27, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 19.2, 
        supra, for a precedent relating to committee jurisdiction of 
        this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Williams [of Delaware]: I now make the point of 
    order on the ground that it is not constitutional for the Senate to 
    originate revenue measures. Certainly this point of order should be 
    sustained. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

        The clerk proceeded to call the roll. . . .
        The Presiding Officer:(11) A quorum is present. The 
    Senator from Delaware has raised a point of order that the bill is 
    not constitutional in its tax provision at page 50. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William Proxmire (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Does the Senator from Delaware wish to make an 
    observation?
        Mr. Williams: I understand the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency has decided that it will withdraw the disputed section of 
    the bill, and strike it out. With that understanding I withdraw my 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Homer E.] Capehart [of Indiana]: Mr. President, will the 
    Senator yield?
        Mr. Williams: I yield.
        Mr. Capehart: As I understand, the Senator from Delaware is 
    withdrawing his point of order, with the under

[[Page 1879]]

    standing that the complete section will be taken out. . . .
        Mr. Williams: Mr. President, I withdraw the point of order. . . 
    .
        The Presiding Officer: Will the Senator from Arkansas inform 
    the Chair how much of the language he wishes to have stricken? . . 
    .
        Mr. Fulbright: All the tax provisions which are involved in 
    this matter are included in section 308, beginning at page 50, and 
    continuing to section 309. That is the part which, as the manager 
    of the bill, I ask to have stricken.
        Mr. [Joseph S.] Clark [of Pennsylvania]: And that the 
    subsequent sections be renumbered.
        Mr. Fulbright: Yes. . . .
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fulbright] to strike out 
    section 308, beginning in line 10, on page 50, and down to and 
    including line 17, on page 52.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The portion of the bill, relating to the 
Internal Revenue Code, which was stricken by the Senate, was as 
follows:

                               Tax Provisions

        Sec. 308. (a) Section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 
    (relating to deduction for losses) is amended by adding at the end 
    of subsection (h) the following new paragraphs:
        ``(3) For special rule for losses on stock in a small business 
    investment company, see section 1242.
        ``(4) For special rule for losses of a small business 
    investment company, see section 1243.''
        (b) Subchapter P of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections:
        ``Sec. 1242. Losses on small business investment company stock.
        ``In the case of a taxpayer if--
        ``(1) A loss is on stock in a small business investment company 
    operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and
        ``(2) Such loss would (but for this section) be treated as a 
    loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset, then such loss 
    shall be treated as a loss from the sale or exchange of an asset 
    which is not a capital asset.
        ``Sec. 1243. Loss of small business investment company.
        ``In the case of a small business investment company, if--
        ``(1) A loss is on convertible debentures (including stock 
    received pursuant to the conversion privilege) acquired pursuant to 
    section 304 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and
        ``(2) Such loss would (but for this section) be treated as a 
    loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset, then such loss 
    shall be treated as a loss from the sale or exchange of an asset 
    which is not a capital asset.''
        (c) Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating 
    to dividends received by corporations) is amended as follows:
        (1) by striking from subsection (a) the following language ``In 
    the case of a corporation'' and inserting in lieu thereof the 
    following language ``In the case of a corporation (other than a 
    small business investment company operating under the Small 
    Business Investment Act of 1958)''.

[[Page 1880]]

        (2) By adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c) Small business investment company. In the case of a small 
    business investment company, there shall be allowed as a deduction 
    an amount equal to 100 percent of the amount received as dividends 
    (other than dividends described in paragraph (1) of section 244, 
    relating to dividends on preferred stock of a public utility) from 
    a domestic corporation which is subject to taxation under this 
    chapter.''
        (d) Section 246(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 
    (relating to limitation on aggregate amount of deductions for 
    dividends received) is amended by striking ``243'' wherever 
    appearing and inserting in lieu thereof ``243 (a) and (b)''.



 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                D. CONGRESS AND THE BUDGET; IMPOUNDMENT
 
Sec. 21. In General; Congressional Budget Act


    Concern about escalating federal spending immediately after World 
War II resulted in enactment of a budget procedure in the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946. Under this procedure, the House Committee 
on Ways and Means and Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate 
Committee on Finance and Committee on Appropriations or their sub

[[Page 1889]]

committees were required to meet jointly, report out a legislative 
budget, and submit a concurrent resolution adopting the 
budget.(8) This procedure was designed to coordinate revenue 
with expenditures and thereby more readily identify and limit 
deficits.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 21.2, infra, for an illustration of this concurrent 
        resolution.
 9. For discussion of the role of Congress in the budget process, see, 
        Fenno, Richard F., Jr., The Power of the Purse, Little, Brown 
        and Co., Inc. (1966); Pressman, Jeffrey L., House v Senate, 
        Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. (1966); Wallace, Robert 
        Ash, Congressional Control of Federal Spending, Wayne State 
        University Press, Detroit, Mich. (1960).
            This section has been compiled by Norah Schwarz, J.D., and 
        has been drawn in part from a report of the House Committee on 
        the Budget entitled ``The Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
        Control Act of 1974: A General Explanation,'' November 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, until the adoption of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the Congress lacked a comprehensive 
uniform mechanism for establishing priorities among its budgetary goals 
and for determining national economic policy regarding the federal 
budget. Despite periodic efforts to centralize budget authority in 
appropriations committees, budget responsibility remained fragmented 
throughout the Congress. Both taxing and spending actions were taken 
over a period of many months and by way of many different legislative 
measures. The size of the budget, and whether it should be in surplus 
or deficit, were not subject to effective controls. The budget process 
was, in fact, merely the sum of dozens of isolated and usually 
unrelated actions. Backdoor spending--that is, spending outside the 
regular appropriation process--represented a significant percentage of 
all spending. And outlays (that is, actual expenditures) were not 
always controlled by Congress, since congressional budget actions often 
reached only to the authority to obligate funds, resulting in little 
direct relationship in some cases between congressional budget actions 
and actual expenditures in any given year.
    In 1972, the Congress established a Joint Study Committee on Budget 
Control and directed it to study:

            . . . [T]he procedures which should be adopted by the 
        Congress for the purpose of improving congressional control of 
        budget outlay and receipt totals, including procedures for 
        establishing and maintaining an overall view of each year's 
        budgetary outlays which is fully coordinated with an overall 
        view of anticipated revenues for that year.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pub. L. No. 92-599, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1890]]

    The joint committee issued its final report in April 
1973,(11) and legislation was introduced in both Houses to 
implement the report's recommendations, including the addition of anti-
impoundment procedures. Both Houses overwhelmingly approved the 
measure, which became known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''). The bill 
was signed into law July 12, 1974, as Public Law No. 93-344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 119 Cong. Rec. 13162, 13163, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 18, 
        1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Act

    The Act (12) consists of 10 titles which, for purposes 
of explanation, can be grouped into categories (to be discussed more 
fully below), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 31 USC Sec. Sec. 1301 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Title I and title II established new committees on the 
        budget in both the House and the Senate, and a Congressional 
        Budget Office designed to improve Congress' informational and 
        analytical resources with respect to the budgetary process.
            Title III and title IV set forth a timetable and new 
        procedures for various phases of the congressional budget 
        process. Title V provides for a new fiscal year.
            Title VI spells out the information to be included in the 
        President's budget submissions and amends section 201 of the 
        1921 Budget and Accounting Act to so provide. The procedures 
        for program review and evaluation are explained in title VII. 
        Title VIII provides for standardization of budget terminology 
        and availability of information to Congress, while title IX 
        sets out the effective date for various provisions of the Act.
            Title X establishes procedures for congressional review of 
        Presidential impoundment actions.

Budget Committees

    The Act establishes a new standing committee in each House known as 
the Committee on the Budget. The rules of the House were amended to 
provide for the Committee on the Budget and membership 
thereon.(13) The House Budget Committee was originally 
composed of 23 members: five from the Committee on Appropriations, five 
from the Committee on Ways and Means, 11 from other House standing 
committees and one member each from the majority and minority 
leadership.(14) Membership on this committee was increased 
to 25, pursuant to a resolution of the House (15) which 
provided for 13 members to be elected from other standing committees of 
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. This committee was established pursuant to the Act (Sec. 101) in 
        the 93d Congress effective July 12, 1974 (88 Stat. 299).
14. Rule X clause I(e)1, House Rules and Manual (1975).
15. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1891]]

Budget Timetable

    Title III of the Act (16) establishes a timetable for 
various phases of the congressional budget process, prescribing the 
actions to take place at each stage under the new procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 31 USC Sec. Sec. 1321 et seq.


                                                        Action to be
                   On or before                           completed

November 10.......................................  President submits
                                                     current services
                                                     budget.
15th day after Congress meets.....................  President submits
                                                     his budget.
March 15..........................................  Committees and joint
                                                     committees submit
                                                     reports to Budget
                                                     Committees.
April 1...........................................  Congressional Budget
                                                     Office submits
                                                     report to Budget
                                                     Committees.
April 15..........................................  Budget Committees
                                                     report first
                                                     concurrent
                                                     resolution on the
                                                     budget to their
                                                     Houses.
May 15............................................  Committees report
                                                     bills and
                                                     resolutions
                                                     authorizing new
                                                     budget authority.
May 15............................................  Congress completes
                                                     action on first
                                                     concurrent
                                                     resolution on the
                                                     budget.
7th day after Labor Day...........................  Congress completes
                                                     action on bills and
                                                     resolutions
                                                     providing new
                                                     budget authority
                                                     and new spending
                                                     authority.
September 15......................................  Congress completes
                                                     action on second
                                                     required concurrent
                                                     resolution on the
                                                     budget.
September 25......................................  Congress completes
                                                     action on
                                                     reconciliation bill
                                                     or resolution, or
                                                     both, implementing
                                                     second required
                                                     concurrent
                                                     resolution.
October 1.........................................  Fiscal year begins.


November 10: Current Services Budget

    The first element in the timetable is the President's submission by 
Nov. 10 of the current services budget which estimates the outlays 
needed to carry on existing programs and activities for the following 
fiscal year. Its purpose is to provide Congress with detailed 
information with which to begin analysis and preparation of the budget 
for the forthcoming year. Budget projections are then made by the 
Congressional Budget Office and the House and Senate Budget Committees 
based on the current fiscal year's levels. To facilitate evaluation of 
the President's projections, the Joint Economic Committee is required 
by the terms of the Act (17) to report to the budget 
committees on the estimates and economic assump

[[Page 1892]]

tions on the current services budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 15 USC Sec. 1024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15th Day After Convening: President Submits Budget

    The President's budget is due to be submitted 15 days after 
Congress convenes.(18) This date remains unchanged from 
previous practice. Shortly after its submission, the budget committees 
of both Houses begin hearings on the President's budget, the economic 
assumptions on which it is based, the national budget priorities, and 
the budget in general. Testimony is taken from Members of Congress, 
administration officials, representatives of national interest groups, 
and the general public, such as the committee deem fit.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 31 USC Sec. 1321.
19. 31 USC Sec. 1322(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 15: Committee Reports Submitted to Budget Committees

    A new aspect of the budget process is the requirement that each of 
the standing committees of the House and Senate submits its 
recommendations on the proposed budget as viewed by the particular 
committee. These views are given to the budget committees of the House 
or Senate and are due on Mar. 15, one month prior to the reporting date 
of the first concurrent resolution on the budget.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 31 USC  1322(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of these reports is to provide the budget committees 
with an early and comprehensive indication of spending plans for the 
coming fiscal year. The reports contain the views and estimates of the 
committees and joint committees on budgetary matters within their 
jurisdiction, and their estimates of new budget outlays to be 
authorized by legislation within their jurisdiction during the 
following fiscal year.

April 1: Congressional Budget Office Submits Report to Budget 
    Committees

    The Congressional Budget Office is required to submit its report to 
the budget committees on or before Apr. 1.(21) This report 
is primarily concerned with alternative budget levels and national 
budget priorities. It is the first of several required of the 
Congressional Budget Office. It is most significant, however, in that 
it is timed for use in the budget committees' deliberations on the 
first concurrent resolution on the budget, particularly with respect to 
committee discussions of national budget priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 31 USC Sec. 1321.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1893]]

April 15: First Concurrent Resolution Reported

    The budget committees must report the first concurrent resolution 
on the budget to Congress by Apr. 15.(1) This allows each 
House a maximum of one month for floor consideration, conferences, and 
the adoption of conference reports.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 31 USC Sec. 1321.
 2. 31 USC Sec. 1322(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first concurrent resolution on the budget provides estimates 
and preliminary budget targets for fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1. It 
must set forth: (1) the appropriate level of total budget outlays and 
of total new budget authority; (2) an estimate of budget outlays and an 
appropriate level of new budget authority in various categories; (3) 
the amount, if any, of appropriate budget surplus or deficit; and (4) 
the recommended level of federal revenues and the amount, if any, by 
which the aggregate level of federal revenues should be increased or 
decreased by bills and resolutions to be reported by the appropriate 
committees.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 31 USC Sec. 1322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report of the budget committee on the resolution compares its 
revenue estimates and outlay levels with the estimates and amounts in 
the President's budget. It also identifies recommended sources of 
revenues, makes five-year budget projections, and spells out the 
economic assumptions and objectives of the resolution.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 31 USC Sec. 1322(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act provides special procedures for House consideration of 
budget resolutions and conference reports on such resolutions. The Act 
also provides for important material to be included in the joint 
statement of managers accompanying the conference report. The joint 
statement must distribute the allocations of total budget authority and 
outlays contained in the resolution among the appropriate committees. 
For example, if the conference report allocates $7 billion in budget 
authority and $6 billion in outlays for the functional category 
``Community and Regional Development,'' the statement of managers must 
divide those amounts among the various committees with jurisdiction 
over programs and authorities covered by that functional category. Each 
committee to which an allocation is made must, in turn, further 
subdivide its allocation among its subcommittees or programs.

May 15: Reporting New Budget Authority; Completion of Action on First 
    Concurrent Resolution

    May 15 is the deadline for committees to report legislation au

[[Page 1894]]

thorizing new budget authority.(5) It is also the deadline 
for the adoption of the first budget resolution by 
Congress.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 31 USC Sec. 1352.
 6. 31 USC Sec. 1322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration of bills or resolutions authorizing new budget 
authority reported after May 15 is permitted in the House only if an 
emergency waiver reported by the Committee on Rules is 
adopted.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 31 USC Sec. 1352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Budget Act sets forth special procedures by which the House is 
to consider budget resolutions and conference reports relating thereto. 
Such resolutions are initially considered in the Committee of the 
Whole. General debate is limited to 10 hours, and motions to further 
limit debate are not debatable. Under the original statute, the 
resolution was read for amendment under the five-minute rule by 
sections.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 31 USC Sec. 1326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Committee of the Whole has reported the resolution to the 
House, the previous question is considered as ordered on the resolution 
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion. The 
only amendment in order under the Act prior to final passage is one 
effecting changes necessary to achieve mathematical 
consistency.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate on the conference report on the resolution is limited to 
five hours.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seventh Day After Labor Day; Action on Measures Providing New Budget or 
    Spending Authority

    The seventh day after Labor Day is the recommended deadline for 
completing action on regular budget authority and entitlement 
bills.(11) The only exception to this requirement is for 
appropriation bills whose consideration has been delayed because 
necessary authorizing legislation has not been timely 
enacted.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 31 USC Sec. 1330.
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Congressional Budget Office issues periodic reports on the 
status of measures providing new budget authority and revenue and debt 
legislation.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 31 USC Sec. 1329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 15, 25; Action on Second Concurrent Resolution

    Sept. 15 and 25 are the dates for the adoption of the second 
resolution and completion of the reconciliation process, the final 
legislative phase of the new budget process under the 
Act.(14~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 31 USC Sec. 1331.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1895]]

    The completion of reconciliation actions on Sept. 25 brings the 
budget timetable to within five days of the new fiscal year--Oct. 1.
    The importance of the timely completion of this phase of the budget 
process is underlined by the provision of the Act which states that 
Congress may not adjourn sine die unless such action is 
completed.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second resolution reflects changed economic circumstances, 
taking into consideration the spending authority exercised by Congress 
and the matters contained in the first resolution, namely the 
``target'' levels of budget authority and outlays, total revenues, and 
the public-debt limit. In addition, the committees with jurisdiction 
over the recommended changes are directed to determine and recommend 
such changes to the House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After adoption of the second resolution and completion of the 
reconciliation process, it is not in order in either House to consider 
any new spending legislation that would cause the aggregate levels of 
total budget authority or outlays adopted in that resolution to be 
exceeded, nor to consider a measure that would reduce total revenues 
below the levels in the resolution.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 31 USC Sec. 1332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be pointed out, however, that Congress may adopt a 
revision of its most recent resolution at any time during the fiscal 
year. In addition to the May and September resolutions, Congress may 
adopt at least one additional resolution each year, either in 
conjunction with a supplemental appropriations bill or in the event of 
sharp revisions in revenue or spending estimates brought on by major 
changes in the economy.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 11. Rept. No. 93-658, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Review and Evaluation

    The budget committees of the House and Senate are directed to study 
budget proposals, including program analysis and evaluation and time 
limits on program authorizations.(19) These committees also 
make continuing studies of ``off budget'' agencies and periodically 
report their findings and recommendations. An ``off budget'' agency is 
an agency of the federal government which is exempt from the 
President's budget under the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, section 
201.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 31 USC Sec. 1303.
20. 31 USC  11b.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1896]]

Impoundment Controls

    Impoundment control is a companion feature of the new budget 
control system. In the words of the House Committee on Rules' report on 
the budget reform legislation:

        One without the other would leave the Congress in a weak and 
    ineffective position. No matter how prudently Congress discharges 
    its appropriations responsibility, legislative decisions have no 
    meaning if they can be unilaterally abrogated by executive 
    impoundments. On the other hand, if Congress appropriates funds 
    without full awareness of the country's fiscal condition, its 
    actions may be used by the President to justify [his] withholding 
    of funds. By joining budget and impoundment control in a complete 
    overhaul of the budget process [the bill], seeks to assure that the 
    power of appropriation assigned to the Congress is responsibly and 
    effectively exercised.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. H. Rept. No. 93-658, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impoundment is a term used to describe situations wherein the 
executive branch declines to enter into obligations or commitments for 
the full amount of funds appropriated therefor by 
Congress.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Levinson and Mills, Budget Reform and Impoundment Control, 27 Vand. 
        L. Rev. 615 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute recognizes two types of impoundment actions by the 
executive branch: rescissions and deferrals.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 31 USC Sec. Sec. 1400 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rescissions must be proposed by the President whenever he 
determines that (1) all or part of any budget authority will not be 
needed to carry out the full objectives of a particular program; (2) 
budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal reasons; or (3) all or 
part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be 
reserved from obligation for that year. In such cases, the President is 
to submit a special message to the Congress requesting rescission of 
the budget authority, explaining fully the circumstances and reasons 
for the proposed action. Unless both Houses of the Congress complete 
action on a rescission bill within 45 days of the President's 
submission, the budget authority must be made available for 
obligation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 31 USC Sec. 1402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deferrals must be proposed by the President whenever any executive 
action or inaction effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure 
of budget authority. In such cases, the President is to submit a 
special message to the Congress recommending the deferral of that 
budget authority. The President is required to make such budget 
authority available for obligation if either House passes an 
``impoundment resolution'' disapproving the proposed

[[Page 1897]]

deferral at any time after receipt of the special 
message.~(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 31 USC Sec. 1403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rescission and deferral messages are also to be transmitted to the 
Comptroller General who must review each message and advise the 
Congress of the facts surrounding the action and its probable effects. 
In the case of deferrals, he must state whether the deferral is, in his 
view, in accordance with existing statutory authority.'' 
~(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 31 USC Sec. 1404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If budget authority is not made available for obligation by the 
President as required by the impoundment control provisions, the 
Comptroller General is authorized to bring a civil action to bring 
about compliance. However, such action may not be brought until 25 days 
after the Comptroller General files an explanatory statement with the 
House and Senate.~(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 31 USC Sec. 1406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Backdoor'' Spending

    Under the Act new procedures were established for the enactment of 
contract and borrowing authority in order to promote a more 
comprehensive and consistent control over spending actions. The Act 
states that effective January 1976, new contract authority and 
borrowing authority legislation, to be in order for consideration in 
either House, must contain a provision that such new authority is to be 
effective only to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
appropriations acts. In this manner, the Act prohibits the 
consideration of bills obligating certain types of new government 
spending in advance of the appropriations process. The Speaker has 
ruled, however, that such prohibition may be waived by a resolution 
reported as privileged from the Committee on Rules. The Speaker's 
ruling, on Mar. 20, 1975,~(7). was based on the fact that 
the provisions of the Act in question were intended to state a rule of 
proceeding, and could therefore be waived or changed by the House at 
any time pursuant to its constitutional authority to ``determine the 
Rules of its Proceedings.~(8) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 7677, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1975 (ruling by 
        Speaker Carl Albert [Okla.]).
 8. U.S. Const. art. I, section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of the Act described above do not apply to contract 
or borrowing authority in effect prior to January 1976, unless 
specifically implemented earlier, pursuant to section 906 of the 
Act.~(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 31 USC Sec. 1351.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1898]]

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946

Sec. 21.1 The House and Senate agreed to a provision of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946 which authorized certain House and 
    Senate committees to meet jointly, report out a legislative budget, 
    and submit a concurrent resolution adopting the budget. This 
    provision was repealed by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1970.

    On July 25, 1946, the House by voice vote agreed to 
~(10) and on July 26, 1946, the Senate by voice vote 
concurred in,~(11) a House substitute to S. 2177, the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 138 of the substitute 
directed certain Senate and House committees to meet jointly, report 
out a legislative budget, and submit a concurrent resolution adopting 
the budget. The text of the provision follows:~(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 10047, 10051-53, 10075, 10077-80, 10104, 79th Cong. 
        2d Sess.
11. Id. at p. 10152. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 6442 (text of section 130, 
        the budget provision of the Senate bill), and 6577, 6578 
        (vote), 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 7, and June 10, 1946, 
        respectively.
12. This excerpt is taken from 60 Stat. 812, 832, 833 (Pub. L. No. 79-
        601). It was codified as 2 USC Sec. 190e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

                                Short Title

        That (a) this Act, divided into titles and sections according 
    to the following table of contents, may be cited as the 
    ``Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946'': . . .

                             Legislative Budget

        Sec. 138. (a) The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee 
    on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
    Committee on Finance and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
    Senate, or duly authorized subcommittees thereof, are authorized 
    and directed to meet jointly at the beginning of each regular 
    session of Congress and after study and consultation, giving due 
    consideration to the budget recommendations of the President, 
    report to their respective Houses a legislative budget for the 
    ensuing fiscal year, including the estimated over-all Federal 
    receipts and expenditures for such year. Such report shall contain 
    a recommendation for the maximum amount to be appropriated for 
    expenditure in such year which shall include such an amount to be 
    reserved for deficiencies as may be deemed necessary by such 
    committees. If the estimated receipts exceed the estimated 
    expenditures, such report shall contain a recommendation for a 
    reduction in the public debt. Such report shall be made by February 
    15.
        (b) The report shall be accompanied by a concurrent resolution 
    adopting such budget, and fixing the maximum

[[Page 1899]]

    amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year. If the 
    estimated expenditures exceed the estimated receipts, the 
    concurrent resolution shall include a section substantially as 
    follows: ``That it is the sense of the Congress that the public 
    debt shall be increased in an amount equal to the amount by which 
    the estimated expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year exceed the 
    estimated receipts, such amount being $    .''

    Section 138 was repealed by approval of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970.~(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Stat. 1140, 1172 [see 2 USC Sec. 242 (b) (1970)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 21.2 Pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the 
    Senate and House agreed to a concurrent resolution expressing the 
    judgment of Congress regarding levels of revenues and expenditures 
    for the fiscal year 1949.

    On Feb. 18, 1948, the Senate by voice vote,~(14) and on 
Feb. 27, 1948, the House by a vote of 315 yeas, 36 nays, 79 not 
voting,~(15) agreed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 42, 
expressing the sense of Congress as to the amount of revenues and 
expenditures for fiscal year 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 1398, 1399, 1408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 1875, 1885-87. The House agreed to this concurrent 
        resolution after rejecting by a vote of 73 yeas, 276 nays, not 
        voting 81, a motion to recommit it to the Joint Committee on 
        the Legislative Budget with instructions to strike out 
        expenditures of $37.2 billion and insert in lieu thereof $36.7 
        billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That it is the judgment of the Congress, based upon 
    presently available information, that revenues during the period of 
    the fiscal year 1949 will approximate $47,300,000,000 and that 
    expenditures during such fiscal year should not exceed 
    $37,200,000,000, of which latter amount not more than 
    $26,600,000,000 would be in consequence of appropriations hereafter 
    made available for obligation in such fiscal year.

    Senate Concurrent Resolution 42 was considered under a special 
order of the Committee on Rules (H. Res. 485), which provided for 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole and waiver of all points of 
order. After general debate, which was confined to the concurrent 
resolution and limited to two hours, the concurrent resolution was 
considered as having been read for amendment.

[[Page 1900]]



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                   E. RELATIONS WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH
 
Sec. 22. In General; Confirmation of Nomination for Vice President


    Amendment 25, section 2, of the Constitution (16) 
provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 282c (1973).

        Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice 
    President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall 
    take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress.


                          -------------------Gerald R. Ford

Sec. 22.1 After adopting a rule which waived the three-day layover 
    requirement for committee reports and provided for Committee of the 
    Whole consideration under general debate, the House agreed to a 
    resolution confirming the nomination of House Minority Leader 
    Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, as Vice President of the United 
    States, pursuant to the 25th amendment, and then received a message 
    announcing the Senate's confirmation of the nomination.

    On Dec. 6, 1973,(17) after adopting House Resolution 738 
(the rule for consideration which waived the three-day layover 
requirement), the House by voice vote agreed to House Resolution 735, 
confirming the nomination of Mr. Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President, 
pursuant to the 25th amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 39812, 39813, 39899, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 738 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 738

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 27(d) (4) of rule XI 
        (18) to the contrary notwithstanding, that the House 
        resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
        State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. 
        Res. 735) confirming the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the 
        State of Michigan, to be Vice President of the United States. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution 
        and shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the resolution to the House,

[[Page 1901]]

        and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        resolution to final passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(d)(4) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman from New York is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of that hour to 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) pending which I now 
    yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes in order consideration of 
    House Resolution 735, a simple resolution providing for the 
    confirmation of the Honorable Gerald R. Ford of the State of 
    Michigan to be Vice President of the United States. The resolution 
    provides for 6 hours of general debate. It also provides that 
    points of order against clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of 
    the House of Representatives be waived. That simply means that we 
    are waiving the 3-day rule.
        Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of House Resolution 738 in order 
    that we may discuss and debate House Resolution 735. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    389, nays 15, not voting 29, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution 
    (H. Res. 735) confirming the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the 
    State of Michigan, to be Vice President of the United States.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.
        Mr. [Edward] Hutchinson [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time.
        The Chairman: (1) Under the rule the Committee 
    rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Patman, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming the 
    nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice 
    President of the United States, pursuant to House Resolution 738, 
    he reported the resolution back to the House.
        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

[[Page 1902]]

        The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    387, nays 35, not voting 11, as follows: . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. President Nixon's nomination was referred to the Committee on the 
        Judiciary, chaired by Mr. Rodino, on Oct. 13, 1973 (119 Cong. 
        Rec. 34032, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.). That committee reported out 
        H. Res. 735 (H. Rept. No. 93-695) on Dec. 4, 1973 (119 Cong. 
        Rec. 39419, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.).
            See also 120 Cong. Rec. 41516, 41517, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Dec. 19, 1974, for House approval, 287 yeas to 128 nays, of H. 
        Res. 1511, confirming the nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller 
        to be Vice President, and 120 Cong. Rec. 38936, 93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 10, 1974, for Senate approval, 90 yeas to 7 nays, 
        of this nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following this action, the House received a message from the Senate 
announcing that body's confirmation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 39900, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A further message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its 
    clerks, announced that the Senate did, on November 27, 1973, 
    pursuant to section 2 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution of 
    the United States, confirm the nomination of the Honorable Gerald 
    R. Ford of Michigan to be Vice President of the United 
    States.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See 119 Cong. Rec. 38225. 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 27, 1973, for 
        Senate confirmation by a vote of 92 yeas, 3 nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buckley v Valeo; Effect on Congressional Appointment Authority

Sec. 22.2 Parliamentarian's Note: In reviewing the Federal Election 
    Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-443, 83 Stat. 
    1263), the United States Supreme Court held that the procedure for 
    appointing members of the Federal Election Commission by the 
    Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate 
    violated article II, section 2, clause 2, the Appointments Clause, 
    which provides that the President shall nominate, and with the 
    advice and consent of the Senate, appoint all ``Officers of the 
    United States.'' In reaching this holding, the Court found that 
    members of the commission were ``Officers of the United States'' 
    whom only the President could nominate and, with the advice and 
    consent of the Senate, appoint. This finding was based on the fact 
    that the Federal Election Commission was granted not only 
    investigatory and information-gathering functions

[[Page 1903]]

    which may constitutionally be exercised by Congress, but also 
    rulemaking and enforcement powers which have been delegated to 
    other branches of government. The Speaker and President pro tempore 
    may appoint members to commissions whose authority is restricted to 
    investigation and information-gathering. Buckley v Valeo, 424 U.S. 
    1 (1976).



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                   E. RELATIONS WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH
 
Sec. 23. Executive Reorganization Plans

    The President was, prior to 1973, authorized to reorganize an 
agency or agencies of the executive department if he submitted a plan 
to each House of Congress. A provision contained in a reorganization 
plan could take effect only if the plan was transmitted before Apr. 1, 
1973,(5) since the authority of the President to transmit 
reorganization plans had not been extended beyond that date. A 
reorganization could be ordered to promote better execution of laws; 
reduce expenditures; increase efficiency; group, coordinate, and 
consolidate agencies; reduce the number of agencies by consolidation; 
and eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort.~(6) 
These purposes could be achieved by transferring all or part of an 
agency or the function thereof to another agency; abolishing all or 
part of the functions of an agency; consolidating or coordinating the 
whole or part of an agency with another agency or the same agency; 
authorizing an officer to delegate any of his functions; or abolishing 
the whole or part of an agency which did not have or would not, as a 
consequence of the reorganization, have any functions.(7) 
Under this statute a reorganization plan could not create, abolish, or 
transfer an executive department or consolidate two or more executive 
departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 5 USC Sec. 903, 5 USC Sec. 905(b). Reorganization authority was 
        again extended, with certain procedural changes, in the 95th 
        Congress. Pub. L. No. 95-17.
 6. 5 USC Sec. 901.
 7. 5 USC Sec. 903. See also 5 USC Sec. 904, for other provisions of, 
        and 5 USC Sec. 905, for limitations on, reorganization plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A reorganization plan accompanied by a declaration that the 
reorganization was necessary to accomplish a recognized purpose must be 
delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each House while in 
session.(8) A plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 5 USC Sec. 903(a), (b), 5 USC Sec. 905(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1904]]

submitted before Apr. 1, 1973, would become effective at the end of the 
first period of 60 calendar days of continuous congressional session 
after the transmittal date unless, during that period, either House 
passed a resolution stating in substance that it did not favor the 
plan.(9)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 5 USC Sec. 906. The form of the resolution is outlined in 5 USC 
        Sec. 909.
            Congress could accelerate the effective date; see 
        Sec. Sec. 23.33, 23.34, infra, for a discussion of House and 
        Senate approval of a joint resolution to accelerate a 
        reorganization plan establishing the Department of Health, 
        Education, and Welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and House of 
Representatives and with full recognition of the constitutional right 
of either House to change its rules,(10) Congress provided 
for the form of resolutions disapproving reorganization 
plans,(11) reference of such resolutions to 
committees,(12~) discharge of committees considering such 
resolution after 20 days,(13) as well as procedure after 
report or discharge of committee and debate on such 
resolutions.(14) The procedure after reporting or discharge 
of the committee and procedure for debate is clearly stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 USC Sec. 908.
11. 5 USC Sec. 909.
12. 5 USC Sec. 910.
13. 5 USC Sec. 911.
14. 5 USC Sec. 912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) When the committee has reported, or has been discharged 
    from further consideration of, a resolution with respect to a 
    reorganization plan, it is at any time thereafter in order (even 
    though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) 
    to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The 
    motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to 
    the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to 
    reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed 
    to.
        (b) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not more than 
    10 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and 
    those opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is 
    not debatable. An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the 
    resolution is not in order, and it is not in order to move to 
    reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or 
    disagreed to.

    Congress a]so provided that motions to postpone relating to such 
resolutions, or to proceed to other business, should be decided without 
debate.(15~) Appeals from decisions of the Chair applying 
House or Senate rules to the consideration of resolutions disapproving 
reorganization plans were also to be decided without 
debate.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 5 USC Sec. 913.
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the precedents in this section discuss substantive as

[[Page 1905]]

pects of Presidential reorganization plans.(17) Congress may 
also reorganize executive agencies by statute.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The exceptions are Sec. Sec. 23.33-23.36, infra. See also Ch. 24, 
        infra, for a discussion of certain procedural matters relating 
        to resolutions of disapproval generally and House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 1013 (1975) for a compilation of statutory 
        ``legislative veto'' provisions. Sec. 23.1, infra, discusses 
        the procedure for consideration of the Presidential 
        reorganization plan which consolidated a number of programs 
        into one agency, ACTION.
18. See House Committee on Government Operations, Reorganization by 
        Plan and by Statute, 1946-1956 (May 1957) for examples of both 
        kinds of reorganization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statutes authorizing the President to promulgate reorganization 
plans were approved in 1939,(1) 1945,(2) 
1949,(3) and 1966.(4) Amendments to the major 
reorganization acts were approved in 1953,(5) 
1957,(6) 1961,(7) 1964,(8) 
1965,(9) 1969,(10) and 1971.(11) In 
addition to the above legislation, title I of the War Powers Act of 
1941,(12) granted the President emergency reorganization 
powers to make such redistribution of functions among executive 
agencies as he deemed necessary during World War II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 53 Stat. 561, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 76-19).
 2. 59 Stat. 613, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 79-263).
 3. 63 Stat. 203, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 81-109).
 4. 80 Stat. 378, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 89-554). Note: Title 
        5 of the United States Code includes reorganization plans.
 5. 67 Stat. 4, 83d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 83-3).
 6. 71 Stat. 611, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 85-286).
 7. 75 Stat. 41, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 87-18).
 8. 78 Stat. 240, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. (Pub. L. No. 88-351).
 9. 79 Stat. 135, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 89-43).
10. 83 Stat. 6, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 91-5). See also Pub. 
        L. No. 95-17.
11. 85 Stat. 574, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 92-179).
12. 55 Stat. 838, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 77-
        354).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION

Sec. 23.1 The House by yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan to consolidate a 
    number of volunteer programs into one agency, ACTION.

    On May 25, 1971,(13) the House under the procedures 
prescribed by the Reorganization Act of 1966, rejected by a vote of 
yeas 131, nays 224, not voting 77, House Resolution 411, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 1 (consolidating a number of volunteer pro

[[Page 1906]]

grams into one agency, ACTION, and transmitted by the President on Mar. 
24, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 16803, 16804, 16832 16833, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, Chet 
Holifield, of California, moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of the resolution disapproving 
the plan and proceedings ensued as indicated below:

        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 411) 
    disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1, transmitted to the Congress 
    by the President on March 24, 1971; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the resolution may 
    continue not to exceed 3 hours, the time to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the gentleman from New York ( Mr. Horton) and myself. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    House Resolution 411, with Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana] in the 
    chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        By unanimous consent, the first reading of the resolution was 
    dispensed with.
        The Chairman: Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Holifield) will be recognized for 
    1\1/2\ hours, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will be 
    recognized for 1\1/2\ hours.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

    Mr. Holifield described the plan in the Committee of the Whole:

        Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 411 is a resolution to 
    disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1971 submitted to the 
    Congress by President Nixon on March 24. Both the plan and the 
    resolution were referred to the Committee on Government Operations 
    under the rules of the House. The committee has reported back the 
    resolution with a recommendation that it not be approved. This is 
    in effect an endorsement of the plan itself which we hope will be 
    supported by the House. The vote, however, will be on the 
    resolution itself. Those who favor the plan should vote ``no'' on 
    the resolution. Those who oppose the plan should vote ``aye'' on 
    the resolution.
        The President proposes in the reorganization plan to create a 
    new agency called Action to which would be transferred:
        First, Volunteers in Service to America, now in the Office of 
    Economic Opportunity;

[[Page 1907]]

        Second, auxiliary and special volunteer programs, now in the 
    Office of Economic Opportunity;
        Third, Foster Grandparents, now in the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare;
        Fourth, the retired senior volunteer program, now in the 
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
        Fifth, the Service Corps of Retired Executives and Active Corps 
    of Executives, both now in the Small Business Administration.
        The President intends later to transfer the Peace Corps to the 
    new agency by executive order and to similarly transfer the Office 
    of Volunteer Action.
        The President advised in his message that he also intends to 
    submit legislation to Congress to transfer the Teacher Corps from 
    HEW to Action.

    Following this description and debate the Clerk read the 
resolution; the Committee of the Whole agreed to rise with the 
recommendation that the resolution of disapproval not be agreed to:

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 411

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not favor 
        the Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 transmitted to the Congress 
        by the President on March 24, 1971.

        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the resolution be not agreed to.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Brademas, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration House Resolution 411, to disapprove 
    Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1971, had directed him to report the 
    resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    resolution be not agreed to.
        The Clerk reported the resolution;
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the 
    Members of the House, is it true that a vote ``aye'' on the 
    resolution is a vote against Reorganization Plan No. 1, and that a 
    vote of ``nay'' is a vote to approve the President's reorganization 
    plan?

    The inquiry having been answered in the affirmative, the vote was 
taken:

        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 131, nays 224, not 
    voting 77, as follows: . . .
        So the resolution was rejected.

Sec. 23.2 The Senate by yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan to consolidate a 
    number of

[[Page 1908]]

    volunteer programs into one agency, ACTION.

    On June 3, 1971,(15) the Senate by a vote of yeas 29, 
nays 54, rejected Senate Resolution 108, disapproving Reorganization 
Plan No. 1, consolidating a number of volunteer programs into one 
agency, ACTION, submitted by the President on Mar. 24,1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 17801-04, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 117 Cong. 
        Rec. 17645-72, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 2, 1971, for debate on 
        this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of the Budget

Sec. 23.3 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to 
    reorganization of the Bureau of the Budget.

    On May 13, 1970,(16) the House by a vote of yeas 164, 
nays 193, not voting 73, rejected House Resolution 960, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 2, relating to the Bureau of the Budget 
(transmitted by the President on Mar. 12, 1970), after the Committee of 
the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that the Committee rise and 
report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it 
be agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 15297, 15298, 15331, 15332, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. The name of the Bureau of the Budget has been changed to the Office 
        of Management and Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of Internal Revenue and Department of the Treasury

Sec. 23.4 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan relating to the Bureau of Internal 
    Revenue and Department of the Treasury.

    On Jan. 30, 1952,(18) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 494 disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1, relating 
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Department of the Treasury 
(transmitted by the President on Jan. 14, 1952), after the Committee of 
the Whole approved a motion to rise and report the resolution back to 
the House with the recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 642, 643, 671, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of Narcotics

Sec. 23.5 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    creation of a new Bureau of Narcotics in the Department of Justice.

    On Apr. 2, 1968,(19) the House by a vote of yeas 190, 
nays 200,

[[Page 1909]]

present 2, and not voting 41, rejected House Resolution 1101 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1, creating a new Bureau of 
Narcotics in the Department of Justice (transmitted by the President on 
Feb. 7, 1968), after the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved 
a motion that the Committee rise and report the resolution back to the 
House with the recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 8601, 8628, 8629, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Aeronautics Board

Sec. 23.6 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Civil Aeronautics Board.

    On June 20, 1961,(20) the House by a vote of yeas 178, 
nays 213, not voting 46, rejected House Resolution 304 disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 3, relating to the Civil Aeronautics Board 
(transmitted by the President on May 3, 1961), after the Committee of 
the Whole approved a motion that the Committee rise and report the 
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it not be 
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 10839-44, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Community Relations Service

Sec. 23.7 The House by yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    transfer of the Community Relations Service from the Department of 
    Commerce to the Department of Justice.

    On Apr. 20, 1966,(1) the House by a vote of yeas 163, 
nays 220, not voting 49, rejected House Resolution 756 disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 1, relating to the transfer of the Community 
Relations Service from the Department of Commerce to the Department of 
Justice (transmitted by the President on Feb. 10, 1966), after the 
Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion to rise and 
report the resolution to the House with the recommendation that it not 
be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 8498-516, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Departments of Agriculture and Interior

Sec. 23.8 The House agreed to a resolution disapproving a Presidential 
    reorganization plan relating to the Department of Agriculture and 
    Department of the Interior.

[[Page 1910]]

    On July 7, 1959,~(2) the House by a vote of yeas 266, 
nays 124, not voting 44, agreed to House Resolution 295, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 1, transferring from the Department of the 
Interior to the Department of Agriculture functions relating to 
minerals and forest lands. The plan had been transmitted by the 
President on May 22, 1959. This House action followed approval by the 
Committee of the Whole of a motion to report the resolution back to the 
House with the recommendation that it pass.~(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 12856, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 12740-46, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force

Sec. 23.9 The House as in Committee of the Whole by voice vote agreed 
    to a resolution disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan 
    relating to the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force.

    On July 5, 1956,~(4) the House as in Committee of the 
Whole agreed to House Resolution 534, disapproving Reorganization Plan 
No. 1, relating to new offices in the Departments of the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force, transmitted by the President on May 16, 1956. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Commerce

Sec. 23.10 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan relating to the Department of 
    Commerce.

    On May 18, 1950,~(5) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 546, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5, 
transferring all functions of all other officers of the Department of 
Commerce to the Secretary (with the exception of hearings examiners 
employed by the Department of Commerce, Civil Aeronautics Board, Inland 
Waterways Corporation, and the Advisory Board of the Inland Waterways 
Corporation), after the Committee of the Whole approved a motion to 
rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it not be agreed to.~(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 7266-74, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Reorganization Plan No. 5 was transmitted by the President on Mar. 
        13, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Labor

Sec. 23.11 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution

[[Page 1911]]

    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Department of Labor.

    On Aug. 11, 1949,~(7) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 301, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2, 
transferring the Bureau of Employment Security, Veterans' Placement 
Service Board, and Federal Advisory Council to the Department of Labor 
(transmitted by the President on June 20, 1949), after the Committee of 
the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that the Committee rise and 
report back to the House with a recommendation that the resolution not 
pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 11296-314, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.12 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan relating to the Department of 
    Labor.

    On May 18, 1950,~(8) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 522, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, 
centralizing authority for all Department of Labor functions in the 
Secretary of Labor (transmitted by the President on Mar. 13, 1950) 
after the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that 
the Committee rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 7241, 7266, 81st Cong. 2nd Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Urban Affairs and Housing

Sec. 23.13 The House by yea and nay vote agreed to a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

    On Feb. 21, 1962,~(9) the House by a vote of 264 yeas, 
150 nays, 1 present, 20 not voting, agreed to House Resolution 530, 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1, establishing a Department of 
Urban Affairs and Housing (transmitted by the President on Jan. 30, 
1962). The Committee of the Whole had recommended that the resolution 
not be agreed to.~(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 2630-80, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. 
10. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was approved on 
        Sept. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 667 (Pub. L. No. 89-174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Government

Sec. 23.14 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan

[[Page 1912]]

    relating to the District of Columbia government.

    On Aug. 9, 1967,~(11) the House by a vote of yeas 160, 
nays 244, not voting 28, rejected House Resolution 512, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 3, relating to the Government, of the District 
of Columbia (transmitted by the President on June 1, 1967), after the 
Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that the 
Committee rise and report back to the House with the recommendation 
that the resolution not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 21941-76, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Office of the President; Federal Agencies

Sec. 23.15 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a concurrent 
    resolution disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating 
    to the Executive Office of the President, Federal Security Agency, 
    Federal Works Agency, and Federal Loan Agency.

    On May 3, 1939,~(12) the House by a vote of yeas 128, 
nays 265, present 2, and not voting 35, rejected House Concurrent 
Resolution 19, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1, relating to the 
Executive Office of the President, Federal Security Agency, Federal 
Works Agency, and Federal Loan Agency (transmitted by the President on 
Apr. 25, 1939), after the Committee of the Whole approved a motion to 
rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 5085, 5086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Protection Agency

Sec. 23.16 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan establishing the Environmental 
    Protection Agency.

    On Sept. 28, 1970,(13) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 1209, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 3, 
establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (transmitted by the 
President on July 9, 1970), after the Committee of the Whole by voice 
vote approved a motion to rise and report the resolution back to the 
House with the recommendation that it be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 33871-84,91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Communications Commission

Sec. 23.17 The House by yea and nay vote agreed to a resolu

[[Page 1913]]

    tion disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to 
    the Federal Communications Commission.

    On June 15, 1961,(14) the House by a vote of yeas 323, 
nays 77, not voting 36, agreed to House Resolution 303 disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 2, relating to the Federal Communications 
Commission (transmitted by the President on Apr. 27, 1961), after the 
Committee of the Whole approved a motion that the Committee rise and 
report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it 
be agreed to.(l5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 10448-62, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. See Sec. 23.18, infra, for Senate disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.18 The House having agreed to a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan relating to the Federal 
    Communications Commission, the Senate Committee on Government 
    Operations ordered reported, without recommendation, a resolution 
    to the same effect.

    On June 16, 1961,(16) the Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Government Operations, John L. McClellan, of Arkansas, 
made an announcement regarding Senate disposition of a Presidential 
reorganization plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 10628, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McClellan: Mr. President, on June 13, 1961, the Committee 
    on Government Operations, in executive session, ordered reported, 
    without recommendation, S. Res. 142, expressing disapproval of 
    Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961.
        Under section 6 of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended, 
    a reorganization plan may not become effective if a resolution of 
    disapproval is adopted by a simple majority of either House. On 
    June 15, 1961, the House of Representatives adopted House 
    Resolution 303, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
    1961.(17) Since this action results in the final 
    disposition of the matter, it is no longer necessary either for the 
    Committee on Government Operations to file a report on S. Res. 142, 
    or for the Senate to take any further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 23.17, supra, for House disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I call attention to the fact, however, that hearings on that 
    resolution have been held and will be available shortly for the 
    information of Members of the Senate. Legislation to enact certain 
    provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 2 is now pending before the 
    Senate Committee on Commerce--S. 2034--and the House Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce--H. R. 7333--and the House 
    committee has now completed hearings on H.R. 7333.
        I thought it proper to make this announcement in view of the 
    fact that the committee had voted to report the resolution as I 
    have indicated.

[[Page 1914]]

Federal Home Loan Bank Board

Sec. 23.19 The House by voice vote rejected a motion to discharge the 
    Committee on Government Operations from further consideration of a 
    resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, relating to the 
    Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(18) the House by voice vote rejected a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Government Operations from further 
consideration of House Resolution 335, disapproving Reorganization Plan 
No. 6, relating to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (transmitted by the 
President on June 12, 1961). The motion was offered by Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, who qualified as being in favor of the 
resolution.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548-54, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. See 63 Stat. 203, 207, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pub. L. No. 81-109, 
        Sec. 204b), for the requirement that the Member making the 
        motion to discharge must qualify as favoring the resolution of 
        disapproval. This provision was later codified as 5 USC 
        Sec. 911(b) (1970), 80 Stat. 397, Sept. 6, 1966 (Pub. L. No. 
        89-554).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Maritime Functions

Sec. 23.20 The House by yea and nay vote rejected a motion to discharge 
    the Committee on Government Operations from further consideration 
    of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan relating to 
    federal maritime functions.

    On July 20, 1961,(20) the House by a vote of yeas 184, 
nays 208, not voting 35, rejected a motion to discharge the Committee 
on Government Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 
336, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 7, relating to the Federal 
Maritime Administration, Federal Maritime Board, and the Federal 
Maritime Commission (1) (transmitted by the President on 
June 12, 1961). The motion was offered by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, who 
qualified as favoring the resolution of disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 13084-97, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. See Sec. 23.21, infra, for Senate disposition of this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.21 The Senate on a roll call vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to 
    maritime functions.

    On Aug. 10, 1961,(2) the Senate by a vote of yeas 35, 
nays 60, rejected Senate Resolution 186, dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 15460, 15461, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1915]]

approving Reorganization Plan No. 7, relating to the Federal Maritime 
Administration, Federal Maritime Board, and Federal Maritime 
Commission.(3)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 23.20, supra, for House disposition of this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

Sec. 23.22 The House as in Committee of the Whole agreed to a 
    resolution disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan creating 
    the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.

    On July 5, 1956,(4) the House as in Committee of the 
Whole by voice vote agreed to House Resolution 541, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 2, creating the Federal Savings and Loan 
Insurance Corporation (transmitted by the President on May 17, 1956).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, and United States 
    Employment Service

Sec. 23.23 The House by voice vote agreed to a concurrent resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, and United States 
    Employment Service.

    On June 10, 1947,(5) the House by voice vote agreed to 
House Concurrent Resolution 49, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2, 
relating to the Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, and 
United States Employment Service (transmitted by the President on May 
1, 1947), after the Committee of the Whole approved a motion to rise 
and report back to the House with the recommendation that it be agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 6722-40, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See appendix, infra, 
        which indicates that concurrence of both Houses was required to 
        disapprove reorganization plans prior to June 20, 1949, the 
        effective date of the relevant provision of the Congressional 
        Reorganization Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Trade Commission

Sec. 23.24 The House by yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Federal Trade Commission.

    On June 20, 1961,(6) the House by a vote of yeas 178, 
nays 221, not voting 38, rejected House Resolution 305, disapproving 
Reorga
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 10844-56, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1916]]

nization Plan No. 4, relating to the Federal Trade Commission 
(transmitted by the President on May 9, 1961), after the Committee of 
the Whole approved a motion that the Committee rise and report the 
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it not be 
agreed to.

Housing, Lending, and Insuring Agencies

Sec. 23.25 The House as in Committee of the Whole by voice vote agreed 
    to a concurrent resolution disapproving a Presidential 
    reorganization plan relating to housing, lending, and insuring 
    agencies.

    On June 18, 1947,(7) the House as in Committee of the 
Whole by voice vote agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 51, 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 3, relating to housing, lending, 
and insuring agencies, transmitted by the President on May 27, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See appendix, infra, which 
        indicates that concurrence of both Houses was required to 
        disapprove reorganization plans prior to June 20, 1949, the 
        effective date of the relevant provision of the Congressional 
        Reorganization Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Labor Relations Board

Sec. 23.26 The House by a yea and nay vote agreed to a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    National Labor Relations Board.

    On July 20, 1961,(8) the House by vote of yeas 231, nays 
179, present 2, not voting 25, agreed to House Resolution 328, 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5, relating to the National Labor 
Relations Board (transmitted by the President on May 24, 1961), after 
the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that the 
Committee rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it not be agreed to.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 13069-78, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. See Sec. 23.27, infra, for Senate disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.27 The Senate indefinitely postponed further consideration of a 
    resolution disapproving a reorganization plan relating to the 
    National Labor Relations Board, after the House agreed to a 
    resolution of disapproval (thereby terminating the plan).

[[Page 1917]]

    On July 20, 1961,(10) the Senate indefinitely postponed 
Calendar No. 545, Senate Resolution 158, disapproving Reorganization 
Plan No. 5, relating to the National Labor Relations Board (transmitted 
by the President on May 24, 1961), after the House agreed to disapprove 
the plan.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 13027, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See Sec. 23.26, supra, for House disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Sec. 23.28 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan creating the National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

    On Sept. 28, 1970,(12) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 1210 disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 4, creating 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the 
Department of Commerce (transmitted by the President on July 9, 1970), 
after the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion that 
the Committee rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 33885-96, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of Science

Sec. 23.29 The House by voice vote rejected a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan relating to the Office of Science 
    after the Committee of the Whole adversely reported the measure.

    On May 16, 1962,(13) the House by voice vote rejected 
House Resolution 595, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 
establishing the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive 
Office of the President (transmitted by the President on Mar. 29, 
1962), after the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved a motion 
to rise and report the resolution back to the House with the 
recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 8468-73, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Sec. 23.30 The House by a yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential plan reorganizing the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation.

[[Page 1918]]

    On Mar. 14, 1951,(14) the House by a vote of yeas 200, 
nays 198, not voting 35,(15) failed to agree to House 
Resolution 142, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 11, relating to 
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (transmitted to the Congress on 
Feb. 19, 1951), after the Committee of the Whole by voice vote approved 
a motion that the Committee rise and report the resolution back to the 
House with the recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 2409-18, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Parliamentarian's Note: Under 5 USC Sec. Sec. 1332-1334 an 
        affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized membership of 
        the House was required to adopt a resolution disapproving a 
        Presidential reorganization plan. This requirement was deleted 
        on Sept. 4, 1957, by approval of 71 Stat. 611 (Pub. L. No. 85-
        286).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securities and Exchange Commission

Sec. 23.31 The House by yea and nay vote rejected a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    On June 15, 1961,(16) the House by a vote of yeas 176, 
nays 212, not voting 48, rejected House Resolution 302, disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 1, relating to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (transmitted by the President on Apr. 27, 1961), after the 
Committee of the Whole approved a motion to rise and report the 
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it not be 
agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 10463-71, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. See Sec. 23.32, infra, for Senate disposition of this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.32 The Senate by roll call vote agreed to a resolution 
    disapproving a Presidential reorganization plan relating to the 
    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    On June 21, 1961,(18) the Senate by a vote of yeas 52, 
nays 38, agreed to Senate Resolution 148, disapproving Reorganization 
Plan No. 1, relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(transmitted by the President on Apr. 27, 1961).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 11003, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. See Sec. 23.31, supra, for House disposition of this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceleration of Effective Date for Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare Reorganization Plan

Sec. 23.33 Instead of following the procedure prescribed by the

[[Page 1919]]

    Reorganization Act of 1949 to vote on a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan, the House approved a House joint 
    resolution effectuating a plan to create the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare 10 days after enactment of the joint 
    resolution, rather than 60 days after submission of the plan as 
    provided in the act.

    On Mar. 13, 1953,(20) the House agreed to House Joint 
Resolution 223, effectuating Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1, 
creating the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from the 
Federal Security Agency, 10 days after enactment of the joint 
resolution. Approval of this joint resolution did not follow the 
procedures prescribed by the Reorganization Plan of 1946, which 
provided that a Presidential reorganization plan would become effective 
60 days after its submission to Congress unless either House agreed to 
a resolution disapproving the plan. The following House joint 
resolution and amendment were approved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 99 Cong. Rec. 2086-2113, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 
    1 of 1953, submitted to the Congress on March 12, 1953, shall take 
    effect 10 days after the date of the enactment of this joint 
    resolution and its approval by the President, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949 as amended, except 
    that section 9 of such act shall apply to such reorganization plan 
    and to the reorganization made thereby. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [William C.] Lantaff [of Florida]: 
    Page 1, line 4, after the numbers ``1953'' insert the words 
    ``except the words in section 7 thereof which read: `The Secretary 
    may from time to time establish central administrative services in 
    the field of procurement, budgeting, accounting, personnel, 
    library, legal, and services and activities common to the several 
    agencies of the Department'.'' . . .
        The Speaker: (1) Under the rule the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, and was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 291, nays 86, 
    answered ``present'' 3, not voting 51, as follows:
        So the House joint resolution was passed.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The report on this joint resolution is H. Rept. No. 166. See 
        Sec. 23.34, infra, for Senate approval of this joint 
        resolution.
            See Pub. Res. No. 75, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (H.J. Res. 551) 
        for a joint resolution providing that Reorganization Plan No. 
        5, relating to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
        the Department of Labor and transmitted by the President on May 
        22, 1940, should take effect on the 10th day after enactment of 
        the joint resolution. The joint resolution was approved on June 
        4, 1940.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1920]]

    House Joint Resolution 223, was considered under the following rule 
(H. Res. 179): (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 2086, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of House Joint Resolution 223, providing that Reorganization Plan 
    Numbered 1 of 1953 shall take effect 10 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this joint resolution. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the joint resolution, and shall continue not 
    to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
    Operations, the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under 
    the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
    joint resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
    the joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.34 Instead of following the procedure prescribed in the 
    Reorganization Act of 1949, to vote on a resolution disapproving a 
    Presidential reorganization plan, the Senate approved a House joint 
    resolution effectuating a plan to create the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare 10 days after enactment of the joint 
    resolution rather than 60 days after submission of the plan as 
    provided in the act.

    On Mar. 30, 1953,(4) the Senate agreed to House Joint 
Resolution 223, as amended by the House,(5) creating the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from the Federal Security 
Agency.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 99 Cong. Rec. 2448-59, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. See Sec. 23.33, supra, for the text of the joint resolution and 
        amendment.
 6. The report on this resolution is S. Rept. No. 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponing Vote

Sec. 23.35 The House may postpone voting on a resolution to disapprove 
    a reorganiza

[[Page 1921]]

    tion plan by disagreeing to the highly privileged motion that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    consideration of such resolution.

    On June 8, 1961,(7) the House postponed voting on a 
resolution to disapprove a reorganization plan by disagreeing to the 
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for consideration of such resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order and 
    proper at this time to submit a highly privileged motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) If the matter to which 
    the gentleman refers is highly privileged, it would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Then, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 
    205(a) Public Law 109, the Reorganization Act of 1949, I submit a 
    motion. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I understand, there is a motion pending to call 
    up what is known as Reorganization Plan No. 2.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chair would state that the 
    gentleman from Iowa indicated he would submit such a motion, but it 
    has not been reported.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: The majority leader, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack], talked to me yesterday about 
    scheduling this matter for the consideration of the House of 
    Representatives and indicated to me that it would be scheduled in 
    due time upon agreement between the majority and the minority 
    Members. In view of this I would like to inquire whether or not we 
    could have any assurance from the leadership on the Democratic 
    side, including the acting majority leader and the chairman of the 
    Committee on Government Operations, as to when this matter might be 
    called, if this motion now does not prevail.

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the 
    gentleman, in the absence of the majority leader, I can only say 
    that I can give the assurance that the plan will be called up. It 
    is my understanding that the chairman of the committee has 
    indicated that he will confer with the majority leader on calling 
    it up next Thursday. In the absence of the majority leader I cannot 
    give a date positive, but I can give assurance that it will be 
    called up. . . .
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: If the pending motion is voted down, would it 
    still be in order at a subsequent date to call up a motion 
    rejecting plan No. 2 for another

[[Page 1922]]

    vote? I ask that because I am opposed to plan No. 2. The committee 
    has reported adversely in respect to plan No. 2. I am going to vote 
    against that plan and in support of the resolution of the 
    committee. But under my responsibility as the minority leader and 
    under my agreement with the majority leader, I do not see how I 
    could vote today unless, under the situation as it exists, that 
    vote today would be conclusive as to plan No. 2. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, under the 
    Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent date.
        Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken 
    today would not be final?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown: As I understand the parliamentary situation the 
    motion would be to take up the resolution of rejection; is that 
    correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to state that the 
    motion has not yet been reported; but the Chair understands that 
    the motion is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole House 
    for the consideration of it.
        Mr. Brown: If that should be defeated, of course, we would not 
    have the resolution of rejection before us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Brown: And therefore the vote would be simply on whether we 
    want to take it up today or take it up later?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Chair feels that this matter has probably gone far enough.
        The Clerk will report the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of H. Res. 303 introduced by Mr. Monagan 
        disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 transmitted to the 
        Congress by the President on April 27, 1961.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, if I vote to postpone 
    this; am I then on record as approving the plan?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course, that is not a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to lay this 
    motion on the table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would not be in order at this time.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The motion was rejected.~(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 23.17, supra, for a discussion of the House vote on this 
        plan to reorganize the Federal Communications Commission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1923]]

Priority of Consideration

Sec. 23.36 The House having agreed that consideration of the general 
    appropriation bill of 1951 take priority over all business except 
    conference reports, it was held that such agreement gave a higher 
    privilege to the appropriation bill than consideration of 
    resolutions disapproving reorganization plans of the President.

    On May 9, 1950,~(10) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that a unanimous-consent agreement 
that consideration of the general appropriation bill of 1951, a bill 
combining all appropriations measures, take priority of all business 
except conference reports, gave a higher priority to the appropriation 
bill than consideration of resolutions disapproving Presidential 
reorganization plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the House is not proceeding in the regular 
    order because under section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which 
    is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any 
    Member of the House is privileged, and this is a highly privileged 
    motion, to make the motion that the House proceed to the 
    consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the resolution disapproving 
    one of the reorganization plans?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12.~(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. This plan related to the National Labor Relations Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
    my remarks in connection with the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is glad to hear the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Hoffman: . . . [O]n the 3d of April the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked unanimous consent ``that time for 
    general debate be equally divided, one-half to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half by myself [Mr. 
    Cannon]; that debate be confined to the bill and that following the 
    reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours of 
    general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent 
    chapter, one-half to be con

[[Page 1924]]

    trolled by the chairman and one-half by the ranking minority member 
    of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter.''
        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon] cites page 4835 of the 
    daily Record of April 5, which reads as follows:

            Mr. Cannon. I ask unanimous consent that the general 
        appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have right-of-way 
        over all other privileged business under the rules until 
        disposition, with the exception of conference reports.

        Still later and on April 6, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon] asked unanimous consent that the Record be corrected. His 
    request was as follows--pages 4976-4977 of the daily Record:

            Mr. Cannon. Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the Record of 
        yesterday, the first column carrying the special order made by 
        the House last night reads that the general appropriation bill 
        shall be a special order privileged above all other business of 
        the House under the rule until disposition. The order made was 
        until final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the 
        Record and Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings 
        on the floor of the House yesterday.

        There was no objection. . . .
        Furthermore, while appropriation bills have a privileged 
    status, but under the subsequent rule of the House, adopted in the 
    reorganization bill, a motion to consider a resolution is highly 
    privileged. Certainly that has priority over this ordinary 
    privilege or special privilege which the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Cannon] secured.
        How can unanimous consent secured by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] on either the 3d, the 5th, or the 6th of 
    April, even though the corrected request states ``that the general 
    appropriation bill shall be a special order privileged above all 
    other business of the House under the rule until final 
    disposition,'' have priority over Public Law No. 109, Eighty-first 
    Congress, when, under title II, we find the following:

            Sec. 201. The following sections of this title are enacted 
        by the Congress:
            (a) As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
        they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
        respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure 
        to be followed in such House in the case of resolutions (as 
        defined in section 202); and such rules shall supersede other 
        rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; 
        and
            (b) With full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change such rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure in such House) at any time, in the same manner and to 
        the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House. 
        . . .
            Sec. 205. (a) When the committee has reported, or has been 
        discharged from further consideration of, a resolution with 
        respect to a reorganization plan, it shall at any time 
        thereafter be in order (even though a previous motion to the 
        same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the 
        consideration of such resolution. Such motion shall be highly 
        privileged and shall not be debatable. No amendment to such 
        motion shall be in order and it shall not be in order to move 
        to reconsider the vote by which such motion is agreed to or 
        disagreed to. . . . ~(12) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Subsequent material--several Congressional Record excerpts from the 
        debate on reorganization plan provisions of the Reorganization 
        Act of 1949, which indicate that the intent of the framers was 
        to ensure a congressional veto power over such plans--is 
        omitted here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1925]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the 
    substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that 
    someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a 
    disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes 
    precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by 
    the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very 
    serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that 
    it is well that he did so.
        The question involved is not a constitutional question but one 
    relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1949 which has been alluded to by the 
    gentleman from Michigan and other Members when addressing the Chair 
    on this point of order. The Chair calls attention to the language 
    of paragraph (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization 
    Act of 1949 which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the 
    constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as 
    relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner 
    and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such 
    House.''
        It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress 
    was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent 
    powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a 
    particular situation or to carry out its will.
        On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent 
    request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a 
    rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the 
    consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before 
    the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation. 
    The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was 
    ``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have 
    right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
        That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day, 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and 
    interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a 
    further unanimous-consent request.
        The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

            Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday, 
        the first column carrying the special order made by the House 
        last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a 
        special order privileged above all other business of the House 
        under the rule until disposition. The order made was until 
        final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
        Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the 
        floor of the House yesterday.

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection.

[[Page 1926]]

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair finish.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is in the process of making 
    a ruling.
        Mr. Rankin: That is the reason I want to propound the inquiry 
    right at this point.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
        Mr. Rankin: We for the first time this year have all the 
    appropriations in one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration 
    under the 5-minute rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the 
    Congress off entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? 
    So we do have a constitutional right to consider these propositions 
    without having them smothered in this way.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into 
    the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any Member, so 
    that the House is capable of carrying out its will whatever may be 
    the will of the majority of the House.
        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.
        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I understood the statement of the 
    gentleman from Missouri on April 6 was that the appropriation bill 
    would take precedence over all legislation and special orders until 
    entirely disposed of. Does that include conference reports?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A conference report is in a privileged 
    status in any event.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: They were specifically 
    exempted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: They were specifically exempted. In 
    relation to the observation made by the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman] that because other business has been brought up and 
    that therefore constitutes a violation of the unanimous-consent 
    request, the Chair, recognizing the logic of the argument, 
    disagrees with it because that action was done through the 
    sufferance of the Appropriations Committee and, in the opinion of 
    the Chair, does not constitute a violation in any way; therefore 
    does not obviate the meaning and effect of the unanimous-consent 
    request heretofore entered into, and which the Chair has referred 
    to.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 1927]]

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is the same as I 
    raised before; but, to keep the Record clear, I wish to make the 
    same point of order regarding House Resolution 522, House 
    Resolution 545, and House Resolution 546, that is, that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of each of those resolutions in the 
    order named, assuming, of course, that the ruling will be the same, 
    but making a record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will reaffirm his ruling in 
    relation to the several resolutions the gentleman has referred to.

[[Page 1929]]



 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
                                APPENDIX

  On Apr. 3, 1939, the President signed into law H.R. 4425 [Pub. L. No. 
76-19] which authorized the President to submit plans for 
reorganization of the executive branch of the government to the 
Congress. Section 5(a) of that law provided that such plans would 
become effective after expiration of 60 calendar days unless Congress, 
by concurrent resolution, disapproved such plan. This law was in effect 
until June 20, 1949, when the Reorganization Act of 1949, H.R. 2361 
[Pub. L. No. 109] was approved. Until that date, the concurrence of 
both Houses was required to disapprove plans. After that date, plans 
could be disapproved by agreeing to a simple resolution of disapproval 
by either House.

                                     Reorganization Plans From 1939 to 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Department or agency
     Reorganization Plan         Allowed to become effective            affected         Disapproval resolutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 of 1939...............  Yes (53 Stat. 1423).............  Executive Office of      H. Con. Res. 19--
                                                                 President, Federal       adverse report from
                                                                 Security Agency,         Select Committee on
                                                                 Federal Works Agency,    Government
                                                                 and lending agencies.    Organization;
                                                                                          disagreed to May
                                                                                          3,1939.
No. 2 of 1939...............  Yes (53 Stat. 1431).............  Department of State,     S. Con. Res. 16--
                                                                 Department of the        adverse report;
                                                                 Treasury, Department     disagreed to May 12,
                                                                 of Justice, Department   1939, in Senate.
                                                                 of the Interior,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Agriculture,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Commerce, and
                                                                 Executive Office of
                                                                 President.
No. 3 of 1940...............  Yes (54 Stat. 1231).............  Department of the        No action.
                                                                 Treasury, Department
                                                                 of the Interior,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Agriculture,
                                                                 Department of Labor,
                                                                 and Civil Aeronautics
                                                                 Authority.
No. 4 of 1940...............  Yes (54 Stat. 1234).............  Department of State,     H. Con. Res. 60--Select
                                                                 Department of the        Committee discharged
                                                                 Treasury, Department     by unanimous consent
                                                                 of Justice, Post         May 7, 1940; agreed to
                                                                 Office Department,       in House May 8, 1940.
                                                                 Department of the        S. Con. Res. 43--
                                                                 Interior, Department     reported adversely in
                                                                 of Commerce,             Senate; no Senate
                                                                 Department of Labor,     action.
                                                                 Maritime Commission,
                                                                 and Federal Security
                                                                 Agency.
No. 5 of 1940...............  Yes (54 Stat. 1238).............  Immigration and          H.J. Res. 551--passed
                                                                 Naturalization Service.  House May, 27, 1940.
                                                                                          Pub. Res. 76-75.

[[Page 1930]]


No. 1 of 1946...............  No..............................  Department of State,     H. Con. Res. 155--
                                                                 Office of Inter-         reported and agreed to
                                                                 American Affairs, U.S.   in House, June 28,
                                                                 High Commissioner to     1946; agreed to in
                                                                 the Philippine           Senate, July 15, 1946.
                                                                 Islands, Department of
                                                                 the Treasury,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Agriculture, Office of
                                                                 War Mobilization and
                                                                 Reconversion, National
                                                                 Housing Agency, and
                                                                 Federal Deposit
                                                                 Insurance Corporation..
No. 2 of 1946...............  Yes (60 Stat. 1095).............  Federal Security         H. Con. Res. 151--
                                                                 Agency, Department of    reported and agreed to
                                                                 Labor.                   in House, June 28,
                                                                                          1946; disagreed to in
                                                                                          Senate, July 15, 1946.
No. 3 of 1946...............  Yes (60 Stat. 1097).............  Department of the        H. Con. Res. 154--
                                                                 Treasury, U.S. Coast     reported and agreed to
                                                                 Guard, Bureau of         in House, June 28,
                                                                 Customs, Departments     1946; disagreed to in
                                                                 of War and Navy,         Senate, July 13, 1946.
                                                                 Department of the
                                                                 Interior, Department
                                                                 of Agriculture,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Commerce, National
                                                                 Labor Relations Board,
                                                                 Smithsonian
                                                                 Institution, and U.S.
                                                                 Employment Service.
No. 1 of 1947...............  Yes (61 Stat. 951; amended, 63    Alien Property           No action.
                               Stat. 399).                       Custodian, President,
                                                                 Office of Contract
                                                                 Settlement, Department
                                                                 of Justice, Bureau of
                                                                 Internal Revenue,
                                                                 Department of
                                                                 Agriculture, Federal
                                                                 Deposit Insurance
                                                                 Corporation, and War
                                                                 Assets Administration.
No. 2 of 1947...............  No..............................  Department of Labor,     H. Con. Res. 49--
                                                                 Federal Security         reported and agreed to
                                                                 Agency.                  in House, June 10,
                                                                                          1947; agreed to in
                                                                                          Senate, June 30, 1947.
No. 3 of 1947...............  Yes (61 Stat. 954)..............  Housing and Home         H. Con. Res. 51--
                                                                 Finance Agency.          disapproval reported
                                                                                          June 12, 1947; agreed
                                                                                          to June 18, 1947;
                                                                                          disagreed to in
                                                                                          Senate, July 22, 1947.
No. 1 of 1948...............  No..............................  Department of Labor,     H. Con. Res. 131--
                                                                 Federal Security         reported Feb. 9, 1948;
                                                                 Agency.                  passed House Feb. 25,
                                                                                          1948; passed Senate
                                                                                          Mar. 16, 1948.
No. 1 of 1949...............  No..............................  Federal Security Agency  S. Res. 147
                                                                 (Department of           (disapproval)--passed
                                                                 Welfare).                Senate Aug. 16, 1949.

[[Page 1931]]


No. 2 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1065).............  Department of Labor,     H. Res. 301
                                                                 Federal Security         (disapproving)--report
                                                                 Agency, and Veteran's    ed--failed of passage
                                                                 Placement Service        Aug. 11, 1949; S. Res.
                                                                 Board.                   151--failed of passage
                                                                                          Aug. 17, 1949.
No. 3 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1066).............  Post Office Department.  No action.
No. 4 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1067).............  Executive Office of the  No action.
                                                                 President (National
                                                                 Security Council,
                                                                 National Security
                                                                 Resources Board).
No. 5 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1067).............  U.S. Civil Service       No action.
                                                                 Commission.
No. 6 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1069).............  Maritime Commission....  No action.
No. 7 of 1949...............  Yes (63 Stat. 1070).............  Federal Works Agency,    S. Res. 155--reported
                                                                 Department of Commerce   and failed of passage,
                                                                 (Public Roads            Aug. 17, 1949.
                                                                 Administration).
No. 8 of 1949...............  No..............................  National Military        Congress adjourned
                                                                 Establishment.           before plan became
                                                                                          effective.
No. 1 of 1950...............  No..............................  Department of the        S. Res. 246--agreed to
                                                                 Treasury.                May 11, 1950.
No. 2 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1261).............  Department of Justice..  No action.
No. 3 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1262).............  Department of the        No action.
                                                                 Interior.
No. 4 of 1950...............  No..............................  Department of            S. Res. 263--agreed to
                                                                 Agriculture.             May 18, 1950.
No. 5 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1263; amended, 68   Department of Commerce.  H. Res. 546--reported
                               Stat. 430).                                                and disagreed to May
                                                                                          18, 1950; S. Res. 259--
                                                                                          reported and disagreed
                                                                                          to May 23, 1950.
No. 6 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1263).............  Department of Labor....  H. Res. 522--reported
                                                                                          and disagreed to May
                                                                                          18, 1950.
No. 7 of 1950...............  No..............................  Interstate Commerce      H. Res. 545--reported;
                                                                 Commission.              no action in House; S.
                                                                                          Res. 253--reported and
                                                                                          agreed to May 17,
                                                                                          1950.
No. 8 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1264).............  Federal Trade            S. Res. 254--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and disagreed to May
                                                                                          22, 1950.
No. 9 of 1950...............  Yes (64 Stat. 1265).............  Federal Power            S. Res. 255--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and disagreed to May
                                                                                          22, 1950.
No. 10 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1265).............  Securities and Exchange  No action.
                                                                 Commission.
No. 11 of 1950..............  No..............................  Federal Communications   S. Res. 256--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and agreed to May 17,
                                                                                          1950.
No. 12 of 1950..............  No..............................  National Labor           H. Res. 516--reported;
                                                                 Relations Board.         no action; S. Res.
                                                                                          248--reported and
                                                                                          agreed to May 11,
                                                                                          1950.
No. 13 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1266).............  Civil Aeronautics Board  No action.
No. 14 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1267).............  Department of Labor....  No action.
No. 15 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1267).............  General Services         No action.
                                                                 Administration,
                                                                 Department of the
                                                                 Interior.

[[Page 1932]]


No. 16 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1268).............  General Services         No action.
                                                                 Administration,
                                                                 Federal Security
                                                                 Agency.
No. 17 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1269).............  General Services         S. Res. 271--reported
                                                                 Administration,          and disagreed to May
                                                                 Housing and Home         23, 1950.
                                                                 Finance Agency.
No. 18 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1270).............  General Services         H. Res. 539--reported;
                                                                 Administration.          no Action in House; S.
                                                                                          Res. 270--reported and
                                                                                          disagreed to May 23,
                                                                                          1950.
No. 19 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1271).............  Federal Security         No action.
                                                                 Agency, Department of
                                                                 Labor.
No. 20 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1272).............  Department of State,     No action.
                                                                 General Services
                                                                 Administration.
No. 21 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1273).............  U.S. Maritime            S. Res. 265--reported
                                                                 Commission, Department   and disagreed to May
                                                                 of Commerce.             19, 1950.
No. 22 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1277).............  Reconstruction Finance   S. Res. 299--reported
                                                                 Corp., Housing and       and disagreed to July
                                                                 Home Finance Agency.     6, 1950.
No. 23 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1279).............  Reconstruction Finance   No action.
                                                                 Corp., Housing and
                                                                 Home Finance Agency.
No. 24 of 1950..............  No..............................  Reconstruction Finance   H. Res. 648--reported
                                                                 Corp., Department of     and disagreed to June
                                                                 Commerce.                30, 1950; S. Res. 290--
                                                                                          reported and agreed to
                                                                                          July 6, 1950.
No. 25 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1280).............  National Security        No action.
                                                                 Resources Board.
No. 26 of 1950..............  Yes (64 Stat. 1280).............  Department of the        No action.
                                                                 Treasury.
No. 27 of 1950..............  No..............................  Federal Security Agency  H. Res. 647--reported
                                                                 (Department of Health,   and agreed to July 10,
                                                                 Education, and           1950; S. Res. 302--
                                                                 Welfare).                reported, no action.
No. 1 of 1951...............  Yes (65 Stat. 773)..............  Reconstruction Finance   H. Res. 142--reported
                                                                 Corp.                    and disagreed to Mar.
                                                                                          14, 1951; S. Res. 76--
                                                                                          reported and disagreed
                                                                                          to Apr. 13, 1951.
No. 1 of 1952...............  Yes (66 Stat. 823; amended, 69    Department of the        H. Res. 494--reported
                               Stat. 182).                       Treasury (Bureau of      and disagreed to Jan.
                                                                 Internal Revenue).       30, 1952; S. Res. 285--
                                                                                          reported and disagreed
                                                                                          to Mar. 13, 1952.
No. 2 of 1952...............  No..............................  Post Office Department.  S. Res. 317--reported;
                                                                                          Congress adjourned
                                                                                          July 7, 1952, before
                                                                                          plan became effective.
No. 3 of 1952...............  No..............................  Department of the        S. Res. 331--reported;
                                                                 Treasury (Bureau of      Congress adjourned
                                                                 Customs).                July 7, 1952, before
                                                                                          plan became effective.
No. 4 of 1952...............  No..............................  Department of Justice..  S. Res. 330--reported;
                                                                                          Congress adjourned
                                                                                          July 7, 1952, before
                                                                                          plan became effective.

[[Page 1933]]


No. 5 of 1952...............  Yes (66 Stat. 824; amended, 69    District of Columbia     No action.
                               Stat. 182).                       Government.
No. 1 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 631)..............  Federal Security         H.J. Res. 223--passed
                                                                 Agency, Department of    House Mar. 18, 1953;
                                                                 Health, Education,       passed Senate Mar. 30,
                                                                 Welfare.                 1953, Pub. L. No. 83-
                                                                                          13.
No. 2 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 633)..............  Department of            H. Res. 236--motion to
                                                                 Agriculture.             discharge not agreed
                                                                                          to June 3, 1953; S.
                                                                                          Res. 100--reported and
                                                                                          disagreed to June 27,
                                                                                          1953.
No. 3 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 634)..............  Office of Defense        No action.
                                                                 Mobilization (National
                                                                 Security Resources
                                                                 Board), Departments of
                                                                 Army, Navy, and Air
                                                                 Force, Department of
                                                                 the Interior, General
                                                                 Services
                                                                 Administration, and
                                                                 Department of Defense.
No. 4 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 636)..............  Department of Justice..  No action.
No. 5 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 637)..............  Export-Import Bank of    No action.
                                                                 Washington.
No. 6 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 638)..............  Department of Defense..  H. Res. 295--reported
                                                                                          and disagreed to June
                                                                                          27, 1953.
No. 7 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 639)..............  Foreign Operations       H. Res. 261--adverse
                                                                 Administration,          report; disagreed to
                                                                 Institute of Inter-      July 17, 1953.
                                                                 American Affairs, and
                                                                 Department of State.
No. 8 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 642; amended, 69    United States            H. Res. 262--adverse
                               Stat. 183).                       Information Agency,      report; disagreed to
                                                                 Department of State.     July 17, 1953.
No. 9 of 1953...............  Yes (67 Stat. 644)..............  Executive Office of the  H. Res. 263--adverse
                                                                 President (Council of    report; no action in
                                                                 Economic Advisers).      House.
No. l0 of 1953..............  Yes (67 Stat. 644)..............  Civil Aeronautics        H. Res. 264--adverse
                                                                 Board, Post Office       report; no action in
                                                                 Department.              House.
No. 1 of 1954...............  Yes (68 Stat. 1279).............  Foreign Claims           No action.
                                                                 Settlement Commission,
                                                                 War Claims Commission,
                                                                 International Claims
                                                                 Commission, and
                                                                 Department of State.
No. 2 of 1954...............  Yes (68 Stat. 1280).............  Reconstruction Finance   No action.
                                                                 Corp., Export-Import
                                                                 Bank of Washington,
                                                                 and Federal National
                                                                 Mortgage Association.
No. 1 of 1956...............  No..............................  Departments of Army,     H. Res. 534--reported
                                                                 Navy, and Air Force.     and agreed to July 5,
                                                                                          1956.

[[Page 1934]]


No. 2 of 1956...............  No..............................  Federal Savings and      H. Res. 541--reported
                                                                 Loan Insurance           and agreed to July 5,
                                                                 Corporation, Federal     1956.
                                                                 Home Loan Bank Board.
No. 1 of 1957...............  Yes (71 Stat. 647)..............  Reconstruction Finance   No action.
                                                                 Corp.
No. 1 of 1958...............  Yes (72 Stat. 1799; amended 72    Office of Civil and      No action.
                               Stat. 535, 72 Stat. 861; 75       Defense Mobilization.
                               Stat. 630 (1961); 75 Stat. 788
                               (1961))..
No. 1 of 1959...............  No..............................  Department of the        H. Res. 295--reported
                                                                 Interior, Department     and agreed to July 7,
                                                                 of Agriculture.          1959.
No. 1 of 1961...............  No..............................  Securities and Exchange  H. Res. 302--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and disagreed to June
                                                                                          15, 1961; S. Res. 148--
                                                                                          reported and agreed to
                                                                                          June 21, 1961.
No. 2 of 1961...............  No..............................  Federal Communications   H. Res. 303--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and agreed to June 15,
                                                                                          1961.
No. 3 of 1961...............  Yes (75 Stat. 837)..............  Civil Aeronautics Board  H. Res. 304--reported
                                                                                          and disagreed to June
                                                                                          20, 1961; S. Res. 143--
                                                                                          reported and disagreed
                                                                                          to June 29, 1961.
No. 4 of 1961...............  Yes (75 Stat. 837)..............  Federal Trade            H. Res. 305--reported
                                                                 Commission.              and disagreed to June
                                                                                          20, 1961; S. Res. 147--
                                                                                          reported and disagreed
                                                                                          to June 29, 1961.
No. 5 of 1961...............  No..............................  National Labor           H. Res. 328--reported
                                                                 Relations Board.         and agreed to July 20,
                                                                                          1961.
No. 6 of 1961...............  Yes (75 Stat. 838)..............  Federal Home Loan Bank   No action.
                                                                 Board.
No. 7 of 1961...............  Yes (75 Stat. 840)..............  Federal Maritime         H. Res. 336--motion to
                                                                 Commission.              discharge not agreed
                                                                                          to July 20, 1961.
No. 1 of 1962...............  No..............................  Housing and Home         H. Res. 530--adverse
                                                                 Finance Agency,          report; agreed to Feb.
                                                                 Federal National         21, 1962.
                                                                 Mortgage Association.
No. 2 of 1962...............  Yes (76 Stat. 1253).............  Office of Science and    H. Res. 595--adverse
                                                                 Technology, National     report; disagreed to
                                                                 Science Foundation.      May 16, 1962.
No. 1 of 1963...............  Yes (77 Stat. 869)..............  Secretary of the         H. Res. 372--reported;
                                                                 Interior,                no action in House.
                                                                 Administrator of
                                                                 General Services.
No. 1 of 1965...............  Yes (79 Stat. 1317).............  Bureau of Customs,       H. Res. 347--adverse
                                                                 Secretary of the         report; no action in
                                                                 Treasury.                House; S. Res. 102--
                                                                                          adverse report;
                                                                                          disagreed to in
                                                                                          Senate, May 24, 1965.

[[Page 1935]]


No. 2 of 1965...............  Yes (79 Stat. 1318).............  Weather Bureau (Chief),  No action.
                                                                 Coast and Geodetic
                                                                 Survey (Director),
                                                                 Secretary of Commerce,
                                                                 and Environmental
                                                                 Science Services
                                                                 Administration
                                                                 (Administrator).
No. 3 of 1965...............  Yes (79 Stat. 1320).............  Interstate Commerce      No action.
                                                                 Commission, Director
                                                                 of Locomotive
                                                                 Inspection.
No. 4 of 1965...............  Yes (79 Stat. 1321).............  National Housing         No action.
                                                                 Council, National
                                                                 Advisory Council on
                                                                 International Monetary
                                                                 and Financial
                                                                 Problems, Board of
                                                                 Foreign Service, Board
                                                                 of Examiners for the
                                                                 Foreign Service,
                                                                 Civilian-Military
                                                                 Liaison Commission,.
                                                                 Civil Service
                                                                 Commission, Advisory
                                                                 Council on Group
                                                                 Insurance, Small
                                                                 Business
                                                                 Administration, Loan
                                                                 Policy Board,
                                                                 Department of the
                                                                 Interior, Bonneville
                                                                 Power Advisory Board,
                                                                 Attorney General,
                                                                 Atomic Weapons Awards
                                                                 Board, and Department
                                                                 of Health, Education,
                                                                 and Welfare.
No. 5 of 1965...............  Yes (79 Stat. 1323).............  National Science         No action.
                                                                 Foundation.
No. 1 of 1966...............  Yes (80 Stat. 1607).............  Department of Commerce   H. Res. 756--adverse
                                                                 (Community Relations     report; disagreed to
                                                                 Service), Department     Apr. 20, 1966; S. Res.
                                                                 of Justice.              220--adverse report;
                                                                                          disagreed to Apr. 6,
                                                                                          1966.
No. 2 of 1966...............  Yes (80 Stat. 1608).............  Department of Health,    H. Res. 827--adverse
                                                                 Education, and           report; no action in
                                                                 Welfare, Secretary of    House.
                                                                 the Interior, Federal
                                                                 Water Pollution
                                                                 Control
                                                                 Administration, Water
                                                                 Pollution Control
                                                                 Advisory Board,
                                                                 Surgeon General,
                                                                 Assistant Secretary of
                                                                 the Interior, and
                                                                 Assistant Secretary of
                                                                 Health, Education, and
                                                                 Welfare.

[[Page 1936]]


No. 3 of 1966...............  Yes (80 Stat. 1610).............  Department of Health,    No action.
                                                                 Education, and
                                                                 Welfare, Public Health
                                                                 Service, Bureau of
                                                                 Medical Services,
                                                                 Bureau of State
                                                                 Services, National
                                                                 Institutes of Health,
                                                                 and Office of Surgeon
                                                                 General.
No. 4 of 1966...............  Yes (80 Stat. 1611).............  Board of Commissioners   No action.
                                                                 of the District of
                                                                 Columbia, Smithsonian
                                                                 Institute.
No. 5 of 1966...............  Yes (80 Stat. 1611).............  National Capital         No action.
                                                                 Regional Planning
                                                                 Council.
No. 1 of 1967...............  Yes (81 Stat. 947)..............  Secretary of Commerce,   No action.
                                                                 Secretary of
                                                                 Transportation.
No. 2 of 1967...............  No..............................  U.S. Tariff Commission,  H. Res. 405--adverse
                                                                 Chairman of the U.S.     report; no action in
                                                                 Tariff Commission.       House; S. Res. 114--
                                                                                          reported and agreed to
                                                                                          May 15, 1967.
No. 3 of 1967...............  Yes (81 Stat. 948)..............  District of Columbia     H. Res. 512--adverse
                                                                 (local self              report; disagreed to
                                                                 Government).             Aug. 9, 1967.
No. 1 of 1968...............  Yes (82 Stat. 1367).............  Attorney General,        H. Res. 1101--adverse
                                                                 Department of the        report; disagreed to
                                                                 Treasury, Department     Apr. 2, 1968.
                                                                 of Health, Education,
                                                                 and Welfare,
                                                                 Department of Justice
                                                                 (Bureau of Narcotics
                                                                 and Dangerous Drugs),
                                                                 and Bureau of
                                                                 Narcotics.
No. 2 of 1968...............  Yes (82 Stat. 1369).............  Secretary of             No action.
                                                                 Transportation,
                                                                 Department of Housing
                                                                 and Urban Development,
                                                                 and Urban Mass
                                                                 Transportation
                                                                 Administration.
No. 3 of 1968...............  Yes (82 Stat. 1370).............  Commissioner of the      No action.
                                                                 District of Columbia,
                                                                 District of Columbia
                                                                 Recreation Board.
No. 4 of 1968...............  Yes (82 Stat. 1371).............  Commissioner of the      No action.
                                                                 District of Columbia,
                                                                 District of Columbia
                                                                 Redevelopment Land
                                                                 Agency.
No. 1 of 1969...............  Yes (83 Stat. 859)..............  Interstate Commerce      No action.
                                                                 Commission.
No. 1 of 1970...............  Yes (84 Stat. 2083).............  Office of                H. Res. 841--reported;
                                                                 Telecommunications       no action in House.
                                                                 Policy, Director of
                                                                 Telecommunications,
                                                                 and Executive Office
                                                                 of the President.

[[Page 1937]]


No. 2 of 1970...............  Yes (84 Stat. 2085).............  Bureau of the Budget,    H. Res. 960--reported;
                                                                 Domestic Council,        disagreed to May 13,
                                                                 Office of Management     1970.
                                                                 and Budget, Executive
                                                                 Office of the
                                                                 President.
No. 3 of 1970...............  Yes (84 Stat. 2086).............  Council on               H. Res. 1209--adverse
                                                                 Environmental Quality,   report; disagreed to
                                                                 Department of            Sept. 28, 1970.
                                                                 Agriculture,
                                                                 Environmental
                                                                 Protection Agency,
                                                                 Department of the
                                                                 Interior, Department
                                                                 of Health, Education,
                                                                 and Welfare, Atomic
                                                                 Energy Commission, and
                                                                 Federal Aviation
                                                                 Council.
No. 4 of 1970...............  Yes (84 Stat. 2090).............  Department of Commerce,  H. Res. 1210--adverse
                                                                 National Oceanic and     report; disagreed to
                                                                 Atmospheric              Sept. 28, 1970; S.
                                                                 Administration,          Res. 433--reported and
                                                                 Department of the        disagreed to Oct. 1,
                                                                 Interior, Secretary of   1970.
                                                                 Defense, Environmental
                                                                 Science Service
                                                                 Administration and
                                                                 Bureau of Commercial
                                                                 Fisheries.
No. 1 of 1971...............  Yes (85 Stat. 819)..............  Executive Office of the  H. Res. 411--reported
                                                                 President, ACTION,       and disagreed to May
                                                                 Office of Economic       25, 1971.
                                                                 Opportunity,
                                                                 Department of Health,
                                                                 Education, and
                                                                 Welfare, and Small
                                                                 Business
                                                                 Administration.
No. 1 of 1973...............  Yes (87 Stat. 1089).............  Executive Office of the  No action.
                                                                 President, Office of
                                                                 Emergency
                                                                 Preparedness, National
                                                                 Science Foundation,
                                                                 Office of Science and
                                                                 Technology, and Civil
                                                                 Defense Advisory
                                                                 Council.
No. 2 of 1973...............  Yes (87 Stat. 1091).............  Bureau of Narcotics and  H. Res. 382--reported
                                                                 Dangerous Drugs, Drug    and disagreed to June
                                                                 Enforcement              7, 1973.
                                                                 Administration, Bureau
                                                                 of Customs, Department
                                                                 of the Treasury,
                                                                 Department of Justice,
                                                                 Office of Drug Abuse
                                                                 Law Enforcement, and
                                                                 Office of National
                                                                 Narcotics Intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--``Adverse report'' means adverse report on disapproval resolution, not on plan.

