Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14 - Chapter 13. Powers and Prerogatives of the House

[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:

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:

[[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

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

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.