[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropriations]
[Â§ 3. Reappropriations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5007-5025]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 3. Reappropriations

    A House rule states:

        No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be 
    received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating 
    unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision 
    shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations 
    for public works on which work has commenced.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XXI clause 5 (renumbered as clause 6 beginning with the 94th 
        Congress), House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).

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

[[Page 5008]]

    The rule is not applicable when the reappropriation language is 
identical to legislative authorization language enacted subsequent to 
the adoption of the rule, since the law is a more recent expression of 
the will of the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 3.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedents in this section must be compared with those carried 
in Chapter 26, infra, discussing transfer of funds affecting other 
appropriations, wherein provisions which sought to authorize the 
transfer of previously appropriated funds into new accounts for a 
different purpose have been ruled out as legislation changing existing 
law in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI. Section 139(c) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, later incorporated into the 
standing rules as clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI in 1953, sought 
to preclude reappropriations of unexpended balances, which were 
understood to be legislative methods (1) for making an appropriation 
available after the period in which it may be obligated has expired, or 
(2) for transferring to a given appropriation an amount not needed in 
another appropriation.(10) Prior to 1946, provisions which 
reappropriated in a direct manner unexpended balances and continued 
their availability for the same purpose for an extended period of time 
were not prohibited by Rule XXI because those provisions did not 
contain direct language changing existing law by conferring new 
authority (see, e.g., 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3592; 7 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 1152), and this doctrine was extended even to include 
reappropriations for different purposes than those for which originally 
appropriated, if the new purposes were authorized by law (see, e.g., 7 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158; Sec. 3.14, infra). Other precedents, 
however, indicate that prior to 1946, propositions to make an 
appropriation payable from funds already appropriated for a different 
purpose have been ruled out as legislation (see e.g., 7 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 1466). Indeed, on Dec. 14, 1921, Speaker Frederick H. 
Gillett, of Massachusetts, stated that ``there are several decisions in 
print which are contradictory. There are decisions both ways.'' (7 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158). In light of more recent precedents 
contained in

[[Page 5009]]

Chapter 26, infra, however, it would appear that the Chair may properly 
rule out as legislation in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI provisions on 
a general appropriation bill which confer new authority to expend 
previously appropriated funds for a new purpose or for unauthorized 
projects by inclusion of language permitting or mandating transfers 
between accounts. Both that chapter and this section indicate that the 
Chair has on occasion relied upon both clause 2 and clause 5 of Rule 
XXI to rule out provisions which sought to authorize the transfer of 
previously appropriated funds into new accounts. Despite the conferral 
of Rule X clause 1(b)(3) in the 93d Congress of jurisdiction over 
``transfers of unexpended balances'' upon the Committee on 
Appropriations, that committee remains restricted by clause 5 (now 
clause 6) of Rule XXI from including reappropriations of unexpended 
balances of appropriations in general appropriation bills, and only 
transfers between accounts in the same general appropriation bill are 
permitted (see Ch. 26, infra, discussion of transfer of funds within 
the same bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, e.g., summary of hearings, Joint Committee on the Organization 
        of Congress, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 824, June 19, 1945 
        (hearing on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The return of an unexpended balance to the Treasury is in 
order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 4 Hinds' precedents 
        Sec. 3594.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 3.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing 
    reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations is in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), and therefore not in 
    order.

    On July 11, 1955,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The 
following provision of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 10232, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See also, for example, 
        106 Cong. Rec. 6862, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1960; 101 
        Cong. Rec. 8534, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
    the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1956. . . .

    An amendment was offered as indicated below:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten:

        On page 1, line 3, strike out the word ``appropriated'' and 
    substitute the word ``reappropriated.''
        Page 1, line 4, strike out the words ``not otherwise'' and 
    substitute the word ``heretofore.''

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

        That the following sums are reappropriated, out of any money in 
    the Treas

[[Page 5010]]

    ury heretofore appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1956.

    A point of order was made as follows:

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. He attempts to appropriate money heretofore 
    appropriated . . . and it goes beyond the scope of the present 
    legislation.
        Mr. [James L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that a rule was had on this bill on legislation 
    included in it. It is my understanding that money now in the 
    Treasury to the credit of the foreign-aid program is not all 
    expended.
        The Chairman: (13) The legislation under 
    consideration is not here under a special rule. If the gentleman 
    does not care to be heard, the Chair is ready to rule on the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Rule XXI, clause 5, is very plain. It provides 
    that--

            No general appropriation or amendment thereto shall be 
        received or considered if it contains a provision 
        reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.

        It seems to the Chair that this language very plainly deals 
    with the amendment that has just been offered, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. Sec. 3.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill reappropriating 
    unexpended balances of funds previously appropriated was held in 
    violation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and not in 
    order for certain monitoring activities.

    On Aug. 20, 1951,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5215, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment 
was offered and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 10393, 10394, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 9, strike out lines 
    22 and 23 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``For an 
    additional amount, for monitoring activities, to be derived from 
    funds previously appropriated, $1,000,000.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        The appropriation is from ``funds previously appropriated'' and 
    therefore is tantamount to a reappropriation. Under amendments to 
    the rules of the House enacted in the Legislative Reorganization 
    Act of 1946, reappropriations are not in order on general 
    appropriation bills. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision in the gentleman's amendment providing that the 
    funds for monitoring activities are to be derived from funds 
    previously appropriated is a violation of the Reorga

[[Page 5011]]

    nization Act, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.3 In an appropriation bill a provision that ``the unexpended 
    balance of appropriations heretofore reserved for moving the 
    International Broadcasting Service to the District of Columbia or 
    its environs shall remain available for such purpose until December 
    31, 1954,'' was ruled out, being a reappropriation in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), the Chair also construing the 
    language to be legislation in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI.

    On Mar. 3, 1954,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Department 
appropriation. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 2600, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page 
    49, lines 11 to 14, I make a point of order against that language.
        The Chairman: (17) Will the gentleman explain his 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney: This would make available into another fiscal year 
    funds appropriated in the current year. There is no authority in 
    law for this.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio]: I concede the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 3.4 A provision in an appropriation bill permitting an 
    appropriation previously made in another act to be used for a new 
    purpose was conceded to be legislation.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1970, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
point of order against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 38541, 38542, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Members' Clerk Hire

        After June 1, 1970, but without increasing the aggregate basic 
    clerk hire monetary allowance to which each Member and the Resident 
    Commissioner from Puerto Rico is otherwise entitled by law, the 
    appropriation for ``Members' clerk hire'' may be used for 
    employment of a ``student congressional intern'' in accord with the 
    provisions of House Resolution 416, Eighty-ninth Congress.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on

[[Page 5012]]

    page 6, beginning with line 11 and through line 18, as being 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard in support of the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I thought I made the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the Committee 
    on Appropriations put this legislation in the bill for the purpose 
    of accommodating Members. It is subject to a point of order, and 
    the point of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas has conceded the point 
    of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 3.5 Where the bill providing an annual authorization for the Coast 
    Guard Reserve had not yet been enacted into law, an amendment to a 
    general appropriation bill containing funds for Coast Guard Reserve 
    training and providing that amounts equal to prior year 
    appropriations for that purpose should be transferred to that 
    appropriation was held to contain an unauthorized appropriation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and a reappropriation of unexpended 
    balances in violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6).

    On June 20, 1973,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1974 (H.R. 8760), Mr. George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, raised a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts. Proceedings were as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 4, after line 23, insert:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 20538, 20539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Reserve Training

            For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
        authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; and 
        supplies, equipment, and services; $25,000,000: Provided, That 
        amounts equal to the obligated balances against appropriations 
        for ``Reserve training'' for the two preceding years shall be 
        transferred to and merged with this appropriation, and such 
        merged appropriation shall be available as one fund, except for 
        accounting purposes of the Coast Guard, for payment of 
        obligations properly incurred against such prior year 
        appropriations and against this appropriation. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against 
    the amendment. The amendment, in my opinion, is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and the funds are not authorized by law, so I 
    make the point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 5013]]

        Clause 2, rule XXI, prohibits unauthorized items from being 
    included in amendments to a general appropriation bill, and also 
    clause 5, rule XXI, has a prohibition against the reappropriation 
    of unexpended balances of sums appropriated in prior years. The 
    amendment is subject to a point of order for these reasons and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Later Rule as Superseding Statute

Sec. 3.6 A provision in the mutual security appropriation bill 
    reappropriating unexpended balances was conceded to be a 
    reappropriation proscribed by Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), 
    notwithstanding a provision in the Mutual Security Act of 1955 
    (Sec. 548, adopted July 8, 1955, 22 USC Sec. 1767a) providing that 
    ``unexpended balances are authorized to be continued available,'' 
    since the rules of the House readopted in 1959 contained a later 
    expression of Congress to the contrary.

    On June 17, 1960,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 12619) making appropriations 
for the mutual security program and related agencies for fiscal 1961, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against certain 
language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 13138, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 5, lines 1 through 8, inclusive, on the grounds it 
    is not in order on a general appropriation bill under clause 5 of 
    rule XXI. This language provides for the reappropriation of funds 
    previously made available and is not permitted under the rules of 
    the House--paragraph 5 of rule XXI which reads, in pertinent part, 
    as follows:

            No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be 
        received or considered if it contains a provision 
        reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.

        It is true that the mutual security authorization law 
    authorizes reappropriation of unexpended balances, but that 
    authority was last contained in section 548 enacted in calendar 
    year 1956. Subsequent to that time, and at the beginning of the 
    86th Congress, the House adopted rules from which I have just read. 
    Inasmuch as this rulemaking action occurred subsequent to the 
    latest action by law, and there has been no enactment by statute on 
    the particular matter during the present Congress, the rules of the 
    House govern in this situation. Furthermore, it is well settled in 
    the precedents that the power of the House to make its own rules 
    may not be impaired by a law passed by a prior Congress. Therefore, 
    I ask that my point of order be sustained.
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was considerate enough to advise us 
    in advance of his intention to make this point of order.

[[Page 5014]]

    He has stated the facts of the matter accurately. I have discussed 
    this point of order with other Members and we have carefully 
    reviewed the situation. Most regretfully I must concede that the 
    point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Later Statute as Superseding Rule

Sec. 3.7 Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), relating to the 
    reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations, is not 
    applicable when the reappropriation language is identical to the 
    authorization language enacted subsequent to adoption of the rule; 
    thus, where the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. No. 87-195) 
    specifically provided that ``unexpended balances of funds made 
    available under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 . . . are hereby 
    authorized to be continued available for general purposes for which 
    appropriated,'' the Speaker pro tempore held that a provision in an 
    appropriation bill reappropriating the unexpended balances of such 
    funds was in order, notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 
    6), since the legislative authorization bill was a more recent 
    expression of the will of the House.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(4) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
point of order against consideration of a bill (H.R. 9033) making 
appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies for fiscal 
year 1962. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the Chair to the Rules of 
    the House of Representatives, 87th Congress, rule XXI, paragraph 5, 
    which reads as follows:

            No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be 
        received or considered if it contains a provision 
        reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations; except 
        that this provision shall not apply to appropriations in 
        continuation of appropriations for public works on which work 
        has commenced.

        Mr. Speaker, the language is explicit and there is only one 
    exception; that is for public works bills. I submit that this is 
    not a public works bill.
        Mr. Speaker, I call attention of the Chair to the language 
    contained in H.R. 9033 for which consideration is asked, on page 3 
    of that bill, lines 8 through 24.

            Unobligated balances (not to exceed $50,000,000) as of June 
        30,

[[Page 5015]]

        1961, of funds heretofore made available for military 
        assistance under the authority of the Mutual Security Act of 
        1954, as amended, are, except as otherwise provided by law, 
        hereby continued available for the fiscal year 1962 for the 
        same general purposes for which appropriated.

        Further, Mr. Speaker, section 101 on the same page reads:

            Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the 
        Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated 
        against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of 
        the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, for the same 
        general purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic 
        assistance'' except the subparagraph of this title for 
        ``Administrative expenses,'' are hereby continued available for 
        the same period as the respective appropriations in such 
        subparagraphs for the same general purpose.

        Mr. Speaker, the language which I have read relates to funds 
    not in the bill and clearly reappropriates unexpended balances of 
    appropriations in violation of the rules of the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was 
    passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President 
    yesterday, and is now Public Law 87-195, specifically authorizes:

            Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to the 
        Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, are hereby authorized 
        to be continued available for the general purposes for which 
        appropriated, and may at any time be consolidated, and, in 
        addition, may be consolidated with appropriations made 
        available for the same general purposes under the authority of 
        this act.

        That is the will of both branches of the Congress as expressed 
    very recently. The language in the pending appropriation bill is 
    identical and consistent with the authority contained in section 
    645.
        The Chair overrules the point of order, for the reason that the 
    recent act of the Congress makes the actions of the Committee on 
    Appropriations pursuant to law.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the House, 87th Congress 
        (including Rule XXI clause 5) were adopted on Jan. 3, 1961 (H. 
        Res. 8). The foreign-aid authorization bill (S. 1983) was 
        signed by the President on Sept. 4, 1961 (becoming Pub. L. No. 
        87-195). Section 645 of this law contained a specific 
        authorization for the reappropriation of certain unexpended 
        balances of mutual security funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.8 Language in an appropriation bill continuing the availability 
    of unobligated balances of prior appropriations was held in order 
    where provisions of the original authorizing legislation still in 
    effect had provided for such a reappropriation, and a dollar 
    limitation in the current authorization bill was interpreted to be 
    a limitation on new appropriations only and not to restrict

[[Page 5016]]

    the reappropriation of unexpended balances of prior year funds.

    On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10871, a foreign-aid appropriation bill for fiscal 
1966. The Clerk read the following portion of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  111 Cong. Rec. 23181, 23182, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 3, line 19:

            Unobligated balances as of June 30, 1965, of funds 
        heretofore made available under the authority of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, except as otherwise 
        provided by law, are hereby continued available for the fiscal 
        year 1966, for the same general purposes for which appropriated 
        and amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the 
        Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated 
        against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of 
        the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, for the same general 
        purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic 
        Assistance'' are hereby continued available for the same period 
        as the respective appropriations in such subparagraphs for the 
        same general purpose: Provided, That such purpose relates to a 
        project or program previously justified to Congress and the 
        Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
        and the Senate are notified prior to the reobligation of funds 
        for such projects or programs.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 3, beginning with line 
    19 and running through the remainder of that page to and through 
    line 13 on page 4.
        I made the point of order on the basis that the authorization 
    bill contains section 649, which reads as follows:

            Sec. 649. Limitation on aggregate authorization for use in 
        fiscal year 1966.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        Act, the aggregate of the total amounts authorized to be 
        appropriated for use during the fiscal year 1966, for 
        furnishing assistance and for administrative expenses under 
        this Act shall not exceed $3,360,000,000.

        Mr. Chairman, I point out that listed at the top of page 3 of 
    the committee report is the ``carryover from prior year 
    appropriations,'' in the amount of $158,352,000, which is a part of 
    the unobligated carryover that is controlled under the language 
    which I seek to strike under the point of order. There is further 
    ``deobligations of prior-year obligations'' listed in the report at 
    the top of page 3. This is also controlled under the language that 
    I seek to have stricken under the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to find the total amounts of all 
    appropriations contained in the language to be found on pages 3 and 
    4, to which I have referred, but in order that this bill to be made 
    to conform to the new section that was written into the 
    authorization bill, which has been signed by the President of the 
    United States and is now law, I submit that the language in the 
    bill to which I have referred must be stricken.

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 5017]]

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        It appears to me that we are dealing with two different acts.
        Under the authorizing legislation there was a ceiling of $3,360 
    million of new appropriations. The bill before the House calls for 
    only $3,285 million in new appropriations. Some part of the 
    previous money appropriated is 1-year funds and does not 
    necessarily carry over, and we are following the language in the 
    authorizing legislation itself.
        I refer to section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as 
    amended:

            Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to 
        this Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended or Public 
        Law 86-735 are hereby authorized to be continued available for 
        the general purposes for which appropriated, and may at any 
        time be consolidated, and, in addition, may be consolidated 
        with appropriations made available for the same general 
        purposes under the authority of this Act.

    Mr. Passman further made the argument, apparently accepted by the 
Chair, that since section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 had 
not been deleted from the current bill in conference, it appeared the 
conference intended that the right to continue unobligated funds should 
remain in the authorization.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa made his point of order against the 
    language on line 19, page 3, and through line 13 on page 4.
        The Chair, after careful examination of the sections in the 
    conference report referred to by the various Members who have 
    commented on this point of order, is constrained to agree that the 
    language found in the conference report on page 25 referred to 
    authorizations contained in that particular bill and pertains only 
    to new money.
        There is a definite feeling on the part of the Chair that it 
    did not pertain to carryover funds or to the making available of 
    funds which under section 645 would remain and continue to be 
    available.
        The Chair feels that section 645 is sufficient to make these 
    carryover funds in order and the Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

 Transfer of Funds

Sec. 3.9 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring the 
    availability of funds available in other acts for employment of 
    guards for government buildings and conferring certain powers on 
    those guards and on the Postmaster General was conceded to be 
    subject to a point of order and was ruled out as in violation of 
    Rule XXI clauses 2 and 5 (clause 5 is now clause 6).

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury, postal

[[Page 5018]]

service, and executive office appropriations bill (H.R. 9590) for 
fiscal 1974, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, raised a point of order 
against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 610. Funds made available by this or any other Act to the 
    ``Building management fund'' (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), and the ``Postal 
    service fund'' (39 U.S.C. 2003), shall be available for employment 
    of guards for all buildings and areas owned or occupied by the 
    United States or the Postal Service and under the charge and 
    control of the General Services Administration or the Postal 
    Service, and such guards shall have, with respect to such property, 
    the powers of special policemen provided by the first section of 
    the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), but shall 
    not be restricted to certain Federal property as otherwise required 
    by the proviso contained in said section, and, as to property owned 
    or occupied by the Postal Service, the Postmaster General may take 
    the same actions as the Administrator of General Services may take 
    under the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948 
    (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b) attaching thereto penal 
    consequences under the authority and within the limits provided in 
    section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 
    318c).
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make, again, the same point of 
    order against the entirety of section 610, beginning with line 4 on 
    page 36.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holman Rule Not Applicable

Sec. 3.10 A reappropriation of unexpended balances, prohibited by Rule 
    XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), is not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill under the guise of a Holman rule exception to 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18381, a supplemental appropriation bill. Proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 16 after line 3 add a new 
    section as follows:

            Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision, 
        appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall, 
        not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, be reduced in the aggregate by not less than 
        $1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer 
        of funds previously appropriated for governmental activities 
        that the President, within the aforementioned 120 days, shall 
        have determined to be excess to the necessities of the services 
        and objects for which appropriated.

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment.

[[Page 5019]]

        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the amendment goes far 
    beyond the scope of this bill and applies to funds made available 
    by other laws for which appropriations are not provided in the 
    pending measure.
        I make the further point of order that the amendment would 
    obviously impose additional duties on the President.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Yes, I do wish to be heard, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        With respect to this amendment I shall not repeat the 
    provisions of the Holman rule.
        I believe we have changed the Holman rule today by making it 
    relate to this bill. The previous precedents of the House have been 
    it must not necessarily apply to this particular bill when there is 
    a retrenchment so, we are making new precedents today.
        This is a general appropriation bill affecting various 
    agencies. Since the amendment also deals with and affects various 
    appropriations of various agencies, it is germane.
        Again, there can be no speculation as to its retrenching 
    Federal expenditures because it reduces appropriations in this 
    bill--in this bill by $1.5 billion and requires the President to 
    fund activities in this bill from previously appropriated funds 
    that are excess to the necessities of the services and objects for 
    which appropriated.
        I point out again that the Holman rule does not go along with 
    the decision suggested by the distinguished chairman of the 
    committee that additional duties are involved.
        Under the Holman rule it is a question of retrenchment of 
    expenditures.
        The legislation in this amendment is not unrelated to the 
    retrenchment of expenditures. Instead, it is directly instrumental 
    in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures. Thus, the proposed 
    retrenchment and the legislation are inseparable and must be 
    considered together.
        ``Cannon's Precedents'', in volume VII, 1550 and 1551, holds 
    that an amendment may include such legislation as is directly 
    instrumental in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures 
    proposed. That is the precise situation with respect to this 
    pending amendment.
        Again I cite ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VII, 1511, which 
    holds that language admitted under the Holman rule is not 
    restricted in its application to the pending bill, and to the June 
    1, 1892, decision, to which I referred before, of the Committee of 
    the Whole and its Chairman, that an amendment was in order under 
    the Holman rule even though it changed existing law.
        I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if this is held to be out of 
    order we will be changing the precedents and the rules of the 
    House, and we will be destroying the Holman rule.
        I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio specifies that 
    appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall be 
    reduced in the ag

[[Page 5020]]

    gregate by not less than $1.5 billion. This reduction would be 
    achieved by authorizing and directing the President to utilize 
    previously appropriated funds for the activities carried in this 
    bill.
        The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. It 
    places additional determinations and duties on the President and 
    involves funds other than those carried in this bill.
        Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have 
    to qualify, as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the 
    Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is 
    inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
        First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum 
    which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held 
    not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule.
        Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruled to the same effect when a 
    proposition involving the Holman rule was before the House on 
    January 26, 1921.
        Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) authorizes the reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.

        Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in 
    this bill and is not germane.
        With respect to the latter point and the citation that has been 
    given by the gentleman from Ohio, which is found in the precedents 
    of the House, volume VII, 1511, the Chair will note that the 
    proposition reduced the number of Army officers and provided the 
    method by which the reduction should be accomplished. It was an 
    amendment, as it appears in the citation, to a War Department 
    appropriation bill and was therefore germane in spite of whatever 
    the general proposition in the heading may have stated.
        For the reasons given, the Chair will sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Texas.

Limitation of Funds in Bill so Long as Previously Appropriated Funds 
    Remain Unexpended

Sec. 3.11 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no part 
    of the funds therein should be available for expenditure so long as 
    the funds theretofore appropriated for such purpose and unexpended 
    exceeded three billion dollars, was held to be a proper limitation 
    and not an affirmative reappropriation of unexpended balances.

    On July 11, 1955,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10235, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained 
    in this act

[[Page 5021]]

    shall be available for expense of transportation . . . and 
    unpacking of household goods and personal effects in excess of an 
    average of 5,000 pounds net but not exceeding 9,000 pounds net in 
    any one shipment, but the limitations imposed herein shall not be 
    applicable in the case of employees transferred to or serving in 
    stations outside the continental United States under orders 
    relieving them from a duty station within the United States prior 
    to August 1, 1953.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten: On page 9, after line 9, 
        add the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds herein 
        appropriated shall be available for expenditure so long as the 
        funds heretofore appropriated for such purposes and unexpended 
        by the Mutual Security Administration exceed $3 billion.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and that it attempts to reappropriate money 
    previously appropriated. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) As the Chair understands it, the 
    amendment provides a very definite limitation to this 
    appropriation. In the opinion of the Chair it is merely a 
    limitation and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reappropriations Permitted Prior to Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1946

Sec. 3.12 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which 
    prohibited it,(15) the reappropriation of funds carried 
    in a prior appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law was 
    held in order on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI 
        clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5587, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment 
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 8941, 8942, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 89 Cong. 
        Rec. 1068-70, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 17, 1943; 81 Cong. 
        Rec. 3799, 3800, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

           ``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources

        ``The funds appropriated in the Department of Agriculture 
    Appropriation Act, 1945, under the head `Conservation and Use of 
    Agricultural Land Resources,' notwithstanding any allocation 
    thereof heretofore made by departmental order, may be used to 
    discharge in full payments and grants earned by farmers in carrying 
    out authorized soil and water conservation practices.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and that it changes existing law.

[[Page 5022]]

        It is apparent from the reading of it that if it were not 
    legislation, there would be no occasion for offering it, that if it 
    did not require legislation to permit the reallocation of these 
    funds there is no reason why the Department would not have done it 
    before. There would be nothing to stop it. So it is perfectly 
    apparent that this is legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair holds that this is a 
    reappropriation of formerly appropriated money, so as to carry out 
    existing law and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.13 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which 
    prohibited reappropriations,(18) the reappropriation of 
    unobligated or unexpended balances for purposes authorized by law 
    was in order, even though for different purposes than those for 
    which originally appropriated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI 
        clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 28, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The following portion of the bill was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 2987, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Federal-Aid Highway System

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide that the United States shall aid the States in the 
    construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes'', 
    approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355-359), and all acts 
    amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, to be expended in 
    accordance with the provisions of said act, as amended, including 
    not to exceed $556,000 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $60,000,000 to be immediately available and 
    to remain available until expended, which sum is part of the sum of 
    $125,000,000 authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 
    1936, by section 4 of the act approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 
    994). . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 70, line 24, after 
        ``$60,000,000'', insert the following: ``of the unobligated 
        balances of funds allocated for other purposes than road and 
        grade-crossing eliminations appropriated by Public Resolution 
        No. 11, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved April 8, 1935.''

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order that it is legislation upon an appropriation. 
    . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is clearly in error, 
    because this is a pure reappropriation of funds that were 
    appropriated under the act of April 8, 1935, out of unobligated 
    balances other than those providing for the elimination of grade 
    crossings and roads. It involves a reappropriation only. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 5023]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] seeks to reappropriate certain unobligated funds heretofore 
    appropriated. The Chair has before him a syllabus which is directly 
    applicable to the point raised. It may be found in Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 1158, and is as follows:

            The reappropriation of unexpended balances for purposes 
        authorized by law is in order, even though for different 
        purposes than those for which originally appropriated.

        The Chair thinks, therefore, that the amendment is in order, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 3.14 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which 
    prohibited it,(3) the reappropriation of an unexpended 
    balance could be made in a general appropriation bill; but a 
    reappropriation of an unexpended balance, to be applied to projects 
    unauthorized by law, was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI 
        clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 17, 1937,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment a paragraph of the bill H.R. 6958, an 
Interior Department appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4684, 4685, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong. 
        Rec. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For administrative expenses on account of the above projects, 
    including personal services and other expenses in the District of 
    Columbia and in the field, $750,000, in addition to and for the 
    same objects of expenditure as are hereinbefore enumerated in 
    paragraphs 2 and 3 under the caption ``Bureau of Reclamation''; in 
    all, $9,500,000, to be immediately available: Provided, That of 
    this amount not to exceed $75,000 may be expended for personal 
    services in the District of Columbia: Provided further, That the 
    unexpended balances of the amounts appropriated from the 
    Reclamation Fund, Special Fund, under the caption ``Bureau of 
    Reclamation, Construction,'' in the Interior Department 
    Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937, shall remain available for the 
    same purposes for the fiscal year 1938.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 79, line 4, beginning with 
    the word ``Provided'' down to the end of the paragraph.
        Mr. Chairman, this includes a lot of allotments to irrigation 
    projects, which would expire on the 30th of June, amounting to 
    $33,000,000. As I understand, a great many of them have not been 
    authorized by law. There is included, amongst others, the Gila 
    project that was ruled out on a point of order previously. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5024]]

    of projects are sought to be covered by the provision here 
    contained. The Chair feels that under the rule cited by the 
    gentleman from Nevada there can be no question but what 
    unappropriated balances may be reappropriated, but the Chair is 
    unable to see how this rule meets the situation here presented, 
    because the question here is whether or not these various projects 
    have been authorized by law. The Chair feels the burden of proof is 
    on those supporting the projects and the provision contained in the 
    bill to make some satisfactory showing, to the effect that the 
    projects have been authorized. The Chair invites attention to the 
    fact that such a showing has not been made. It follows, therefore, 
    that the language to which the point of order has been made, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, would be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill, a proper showing not having been made that these items have 
    been authorized by law.
        The Chair is of the opinion this provision is not in order and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Works in Progress

Sec. 3.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the Public 
    Works Administration allotments (made available to the Bureau of 
    Reclamation, pursuant to the National Industrial Recovery Act, 
    either by direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally 
    made from the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937) should 
    remain available for the purpose for which allotted during the 
    fiscal year 1939 was held in order under the principle relating to 
    ``works in progress.''

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the following paragraph of H.R. 9621, an Interior 
Department appropriation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Works Administration allotments made available to 
    the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
    the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by 
    direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to 
    another Department or agency, and the allocations made to the 
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the 
    appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act 
    of 1935 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, shall 
    remain available for the purposes for which allotted during the 
    fiscal year 1939.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Nevada 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    unexpended

[[Page 5025]]

    balances proposed to be appropriated by this paragraph are lawful 
    projects which have qualified as being in order under the rules of 
    the House for one or more of the following reasons:
        First. That they are for improvements of existing projects.
        Second. That the work on them is in progress.
        Third. That there has been a finding of feasibility by the 
    President, which automatically authorizes appropriations, as 
    provided by the reclamation law, title 43, sections 412, 413, and 
    414.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Nevada states that all of 
    these projects are already under way and that this paragraph simply 
    reappropriates money already available.
        Mr. Taber: These allotments have been made for all sorts of 
    projects not authorized by law, and yet the adoption of this 
    provision would authorize every project that has not yet been 
    authorized for which an allotment has been made.
        The Chairman: The gentleman states that these projects are 
    already under way.
        Mr. Taber: That would not authorize them.
        The Chairman: It authorizes reappropriation of appropriations 
    heretofore made if the work is in progress. The Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While this decision predates the enactment 
of clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI as part of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (which rule prohibits the reappropriation of 
unexpended balances except with respect to appropriations in connection 
with appropriations for public works on which work has commenced), 
clause 2 of Rule XXI, in effect on the date of this decision, likewise 
precluded appropriations for purposes not authorized by law unless in 
continuation of appropriations for public works and objects already in 
progress. Thus this decision stands for the proposition that 
reappropriations of unexpended balances may be included on general 
appropriation bills at least if made for the same unauthorized public 
works in progress for which originally made. For a discussion of 
precedents involving public works in progress, see Chapter 26, infra 
(including a similar ruling made on May 13, 1941, discussed in that 
chapter).