[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropriations]
[Â§ 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5025-5084]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills

    A House rule provides:

        No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be 
    reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
    appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an appropriation 
    be in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
    reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of 
    order on an

[[Page 5026]]

    appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment 
    thereto may be raised at any time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rulings on points of order under the above provision have 
frequently depended on whether language allegedly making an 
appropriation was in fact merely language authorizing an 
appropriation.(9) For example, language in a bill 
authorizing an appropriation of not less than a certain amount for a 
specified purpose has been held not to be an 
appropriation.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 4.34 et seq., infra.
10. See Sec. 4.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Points of order under this rule, while in order ``at any time,'' 
are received at any time while the amendment or provision of the bill 
is pending under the five-minute rule. See discussion in notes at House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981), citing decision of Mar. 18, 1946.
    Points of order based on the above rule have sometimes been waived 
by resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 4.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 4.1 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    reappropriating, making available or diverting an appropriation or 
    a portion of an appropriation already made for one purpose to 
    another is not in order.

    On Apr. 7, 1936,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
12037, the tobacco compact bill. A point of order was raised and, after 
debate, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 5108, 5109, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] makes a point of order 
    against section 7(a), which reads as follows:

            For the purpose of administering this act the Secretary of 
        Agriculture is hereby authorized to expend $300,000, or so much 
        thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, out of funds 
        appropriated by section 12(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment 
        Act, as amended.

        The gentleman from Michigan calls attention to clause 4 of rule 
    XXI, which provides:

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an 
        appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or 
        joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
        jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any 
        such bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised 
        at any time.

        The question, of course, arises as to whether or not an 
    appropriation made by a preceding Congress or by this

[[Page 5027]]

    Congress for a particular purpose may be diverted for another 
    purpose not contemplated at the time the appropriation was made, 
    under the rule which the Chair has just read.
        The gentleman from Michigan has read rulings which were made in 
    the Seventy-third Congress, first session, in which it is said--

            Language reappropriating, making available or diverting an 
        appropriation or a portion of an appropriation already made for 
        one purpose to another is not in order.

        Of course, we all know that the Committee on Agriculture is not 
    authorized under the rules to report appropriations. In the opinion 
    of the Chair it is very clear, in a reading of the section referred 
    to, that the language constitutes a diversion of funds heretofore 
    made by the Congress for an entirely different purpose and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Mapes] against section 7(a).

 Portion of Bill Subject to Point of Order

Sec. 4.2 Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) is limited in 
    application to the objectionable language in a bill and not to the 
    bill in its entirety.

    The rule cited above has been held to disallow the following 
language in a bill reported by a legislative committee, without at the 
same time disallowing the remainder of the bill:

        Provided further, That out of revenues from and appropriations 
    for the Alaska Railroad, there is authorized to be used such amount 
    thereon as may be necessary for the purchase of property of the 
    Mount McKinley Tourist & Transportation Company, and the purchase, 
    construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities for the 
    public as herein authorized.

    Thus, on Mar. 6, 1940,(13) a Member raised a point of 
order against the language quoted above during consideration of H.R. 
4868, a bill concerning Mount McKinley National Park. The following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 2457, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: I make the point of order against the entire bill 
    on the ground that the provisions beginning in line 23, on page 2, 
    are in contravention of the rule prohibiting appropriations in a 
    bill for legislative purposes.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Green [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order and desire to offer an amendment.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: But, Mr. Chairman, under the 
    point of order the bill goes out.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Oh, no; it does not go out. The 
    enacting clause is still there, and anyone has

[[Page 5028]]

    authority to offer any amendment that he desires under the rules of 
    the House.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        This provision comes under clause 4 of rule XXI, which, in 
    effect, prohibits appropriations being made by committees not 
    having jurisdiction over appropriations. Beginning with line 23 on 
    page 2 of the bill provision is made for an appropriation. 
    Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Waiver of Points of Order

Sec. 4.3 Consideration of a legislative bill has sometimes taken place 
    pursuant to a resolution waiving points of order against the bill, 
    when a provision in the bill could constitute an appropriation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On Apr. 12, 1967,(15) a Member addressed Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 9121-23, 9134, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 411 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 411

            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 the bill (H.R. 5404) to amend the National 
        Science Foundation Act of 1950 to make changes and improvements 
        in the organization and operation of the Foundation, and for 
        other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are 
        hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
        the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 
        the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit. . . .

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. . . .
        I wonder if the gentleman can explain to the House why in line 
    7, page 1, House Resolution 411, all points of order against the 
    bill are waived in the wisdom of the committee?
        Mr. Pepper: I will ask the distinguished author of the bill, 
    the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Daddario], if he will make the 
    response to the able gentleman from Missouri, and I yield to him 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. [Emilio Q.] Daddario: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
    for yielding. I would advise the gentleman from Missouri that on 
    page 17, line 12, section (g), there is reference to the transfer 
    of funds from one department to another.

[[Page 5029]]

    [Note: the language referred to sought to permit funds available to 
any department of the government for scientific research to be 
transferred to the National Science Foundation under certain 
conditions.]

Transfer or Diversion of Funds to New Purposes

Sec. 4.4 The diversion or reappropriation of funds to a new purpose is 
    an appropriation and is therefore not in order on a rivers and 
    harbors bill.

    On Apr. 8, 1935,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6732, a bill dealing with the construction, repair, 
and preservation of public works on rivers and harbors. An amendment 
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 5277, 5278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is on the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: On page 1, line 9, after the 
        word ``documents'', change the colon to a period and add the 
        following: ``The Administrator of Public Works is hereby 
        directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of 
        said authorized works of improvement of rivers and harbors and 
        other waterways, such sum or sums out of the funds provided in 
        House Joint Resolution 117 as may be necessary to prosecute and 
        complete such works or improvements.''

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order to the amendment. As I understand the 
    amendment, it is the equivalent of an appropriation. It applies to 
    a matter not within the jurisdiction of this committee. We have no 
    jurisdiction over legislation of the Public Works Administration. 
    Furthermore, I consider that amendment as an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as I heard 
    the amendment read, it makes an appropriation, because it directs 
    the Administrator of Public Works to allocate part of the funds 
    already appropriated for these specific purposes. This is at least 
    a reappropriation and comes within the rule forbidding 
    appropriations coming from legislative committees. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . This bill, of course, 
    cannot carry an appropriation. The gentleman offers an amendment to 
    the effect that the Administrator of Public Works is hereby 
    directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of such 
    authorized works of improvement on rivers and harbors and other 
    waterways such sum or sums from the funds provided in House Joint 
    Resolution 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William W. Arnold (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This, clearly, is a diversion of funds already appropriated, 
    which is tantamount, in the opinion of the Chair, to an 
    appropriation.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5030]]

Sec. 4.5 Language in a legislative bill to reorganize the government, 
    providing for the transfer of unexpended balances of appropriations 
    and making such funds available for expenditure, was held to be an 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On Apr. 8, 1938,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 3331, a government reorganization bill. At different 
points the Clerk read two sections as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 5083-98, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 410. Such of the personnel of the General Accounting 
    Office employed in connection with the functions exercised by the 
    General Accounting Office through the Audit Division of that 
    Office, and such of the unexpended balances of appropriations 
    available to the General Accounting Office for the exercise of such 
    functions, as the President shall deem to be necessary to enable 
    the Auditor General to exercise the functions vested in and imposed 
    upon him by this title, are transferred to the office of the 
    Auditor General, and any unexpended balances of appropriations so 
    transferred shall hereafter be available to the Auditor General for 
    the purpose of exercising the functions of his office and for 
    otherwise carrying out the provisions of this title: Provided, That 
    the transfer of personnel under this section shall be without 
    change in classification or compensation . . . Provided further, 
    That such of the personnel so transferred who do not already 
    possess a classified civil-service status shall not acquire such 
    status by reason of such transfer. . . .
        Sec. 307. There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any 
    money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as may 
    be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
        Sec. 308. The provisions of this title shall become effective 
    60 days after its enactment.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the words beginning in line 4, of page 57, ``and such 
    of the unexpended balances of appropriations available to the 
    General Accounting Office for the exercise of such functions''; and 
    then, beginning in line 10, ``and any unexpended balances of 
    appropriations so transferred shall hereafter be available to the 
    auditor general for the purpose of exercising the functions of his 
    office and for otherwise carrying out the provisions of this 
    title.''
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order on the ground that it is in conflict with clause 4 of Rule 
    XXI and the language to which the point of order is addressed is 
    stricken from the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently in the proceedings, a point of order based on

[[Page 5031]]

the same grounds was sustained against the following language:

        Sec. 420. Such portions of the unexpended balances of 
    appropriations or other funds available for the United States Civil 
    Service Commission, the offices of the Civil Service Commissioners, 
    and all other offices of such Commission, as the President shall 
    deem necessary, are transferred to the Administration. Unexpended 
    balances of appropriations or other funds available for such 
    Commission or offices, not so transferred pursuant to the 
    President's determination under this section, shall be impounded 
    and returned to the Treasury.

Sec. 4.6 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    providing that such part as the President might determine of the 
    unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds 
    available for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer 
    District were transferred to the commission and were to be 
    available for expenditure for carrying out the provisions of the 
    act was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    4 (now clause 5), and not in order.

    On July 20, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 1717, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 9554, 9555, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Appropriations

        Sec. 18. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
    such sums as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
    provisions and purposes of this act. The acts appropriating such 
    sums may appropriate specified portions thereof to be accounted for 
    upon the certification of the Commission only. Funds appropriated 
    to the Commission shall, if obligated by contract during the fiscal 
    year for which appropriated, remain available for expenditure for 4 
    years following the expiration of the fiscal year for which 
    appropriated. After such 4-year period, the unexpended balances of 
    appropriations shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered 
    into the Treasury.
        (b) Such part as the President may determine of the unexpended 
    balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds available 
    for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer District 
    are hereby transferred to the Commission and shall be available for 
    expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 
    act.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against subparagraph (b) on page 52, lines 18 to 23, 
    inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes an appropriation and 
    may not be reported by the Committee on Military Affairs, which is 
    without jurisdiction to report appropriations. I am constrained to 
    make this point of order, Mr. Chair

[[Page 5032]]

    man, for two or three reasons. The appropriations now carried in 
    the War Department appropriation bill for $375,000,000 were made in 
    a larger amount than would have been made for 1 year only because 
    the Budget request was for only $200,000,000. The additional 
    $175,000,000 was added in place of contractual authorizations for 
    obligations to mature in fiscal 1948. The total appropriation was 
    made for the military features of the atomic service. It is now 
    proposed that these appropriations be transferred for the purpose 
    of carrying out the provisions of this act, which is much broader, 
    providing for loans, providing for the development of civilian 
    production and licensing, and many other features not contemplated 
    in the appropriations for the Military Establishment. Consequently, 
    this paragraph constitutes an appropriation, and I make the point 
    of order that it may not be reported in this bill.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the language referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota, 
    beginning on line 18, page 52, and extending through line 23, is in 
    violation of clause 4 of rule 21. Therefore, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Sec. 4.7 To a bill establishing an Airways Modernization Board and 
    providing for transfer of personnel, records, and the like, 
    authority to transfer ``unexpended balances of appropriations, 
    allocations, and other funds available,'' was ruled out as an 
    appropriation reported from a legislative committee in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On July 30, 1957,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for the development and 
modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control 
facilities to serve present and future needs of civil and military 
aviation. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Transfer of Related Functions

        Sec. 4. The Board, upon unanimous decision and with approval of 
    the President, may transfer to itself any functions (including 
    powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of 
    the Departments of Defense or Commerce or of any officer or 
    organizational entity thereof which relate primarily to selecting, 
    developing, testing, or evaluating systems, procedures, facilities, 
    or devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic 
    control. In connection with any such transfer, the President may 
    provide for appropriate transfers of records, property, necessary 
    civilian personnel, and unex

[[Page 5033]]

    pended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds 
    available or to be made available of the officers, department, or 
    other agency from which the transfer is made.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language in section 4, page 7, beginning on line 12, reading ``and 
    unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds 
    available or'' as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Arkansas desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has 
    examined the language to which the point of order has been made, 
    and after consideration finds that the language is obnoxious to 
    clause 4 of rule 21 of the House and therefore sustains the point 
    of order.

Sec. 4.8 In a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency, 
    providing inter alia, a revolving fund in the Treasury for higher 
    education facility loans, a provision authorizing the Commissioner 
    of Education to ``transfer to the fund available appropriations 
    under Sec. 303(c) [of the Higher Education Act] to provide capital 
    for the fund,'' was held to constitute an appropriation and was 
    ruled out as a violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On May 18, 1966,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Participation Sales Act of 1966 (H.R. 
14544) a point of order was raised against a provision thereof, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 10913, 10918, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Revolving Loan Fund

        ``Sec. 305. (a) There is hereby created within the Treasury a 
    separate fund for higher education academic facilities loans 
    (hereafter in this section called ``the fund'') which shall be 
    available to the Commissioner without fiscal year limitation as a 
    revolving fund for the purposes of this title. The total of any 
    loans made from the fund in any fiscal year shall not exceed 
    limitations specified in appropriation Acts.
        ``(b)(1) The Commissioner is authorized to transfer to the fund 
    available appropriations provided under section 303(c) to provide 
    capital for the fund. All amounts received by the Commissioner as 
    interest payments or repayments of principal on loans, and any 
    other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from his 
    operations in connection with this title, including any moneys 
    derived directly or indirectly from the sale of assets, or 
    beneficial interests or participations in as

[[Page 5034]]

    sets of the fund, shall be deposited in the fund. . . .''
        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the language on page 8 of the bill, 
    lines 5, 6, and 7 through the word ``fund.'' The point is based 
    upon my feeling that the language violates rule XXI, clause 4, of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        The appropriations referred to are future appropriations 
    authorized and to be made for the specific purpose of making the 
    transfers here authorized. This is not a case of changing the 
    object of past appropriations, and the point of order should be 
    overruled.
        That refers to section 303(c), which I have before me now. It 
    provides:

            For the purpose of making payments into the fund 
        established under section 305, there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated . . . .

        It is not making the appropriation; it is authorizing the 
    appropriation.
        I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not subject 
    to the point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) . . . The gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Jonas] makes a point of order to the language 
    appearing on page 8, lines 5 through 7, to the end of the sentence 
    on that line, on the ground that it is in violation of rule XXI of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language and has listened 
    attentively to the gentleman from Texas, but is of the opinion that 
    since this language directs a transfer of available appropriations 
    it is in fact in violation of rule XXI; and therefore sustains the 
    point of order.

Sec. 4.9 Where a legislative bill (reported from the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency) authorized certain government agencies that 
    extend credit to individuals to use any appropriated funds or other 
    amounts available to them for certain new purposes specified in the 
    bill, the provision was conceded to be in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On May 18, 1966,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 10893, 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) Section 302(c) of the Federal National Mortgage 
    Association Charter Act is amended [by inserting at a designated 
    point]:
        . . . Any trustor creating a trust or trusts hereunder is 
    authorized to purchase, through the facilities of the trustee, 
    outstanding beneficial interests or participations to the extent of 
    the amount of his responsibility to the trustee on beneficial 
    interests or par

[[Page 5035]]

    ticipations outstanding, and to pay his proper share of the costs 
    and expenses incurred by the Federal National Mortgage Association 
    as trustee pursuant to the trust instrument, and for these purposes 
    may use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him 
    for the general purposes or programs to which the obligations 
    subjected to the trust are related.
        (3) If any trustor shall guarantee to the trustee the timely 
    payment of obligations he subjects to a trust pursuant to this 
    subsection, and it becomes necessary for such trustor to meet his 
    responsibilities under such guaranty, he is authorized to fulfill 
    such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other amounts 
    available to him for the general purposes or programs to which the 
    obligations subjected to the trust are related. . . .
        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 4, line 22, beginning with the word 
    ``and'', which language is as follows: ``and for these purposes may 
    use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him for 
    the general purposes or programs to which the obligations subjected 
    to the trust are related.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language 
    in the bill on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of 
    the rules of the House of Representatives, which requires that 
    bills making appropriations may not originate in committees other 
    than the Committee on Appropriations.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word 
    ``he'' and continuing through lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the word 
    ``related,'' which language is as follows: ``he is authorized to 
    fulfill such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other 
    amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to 
    which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language 
    on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI of the House of 
    Representatives.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from North 
    Carolina has added some language which he does not really intend to 
    include in his point of order? As I understand, the gentleman 
    intended to make a point of order against the language on page 5, 
    line 5, starting with the word ``by'' down to and including the 
    word ``related'' on line 8. In other words, as I understand, the 
    gentleman intends to make a point of order against the language 
    reading as follows: ``by using any appropriated funds or other 
    amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to 
    which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''

[[Page 5036]]

        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is correct 
    and it was my purpose to have the point of order lie against the 
    language on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word ``by'' down to 
    and including the word ``related'' on line 8.
        As I said, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this 
    language on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of the 
    House of Representatives.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Unobligated Funds Previously Appropriated for Same or Related Purposes

Sec. 4.10 Language in a legislative bill providing that the cost of 
    surveys therein authorized would be paid from the appropriation 
    theretofore or thereafter made for such purposes was held to be an 
    appropriation and therefore in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now 
    clause 5).

    On July 29, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 175, a bill to authorize the 
submission to Congress of a comprehensive national plan for the 
prevention and control of floods of all the major rivers of the United 
States. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 7838-40, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such 
        sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
        resolution.

        With the following committee amendment:

            Strike out all of section 2 and insert: ``The cost of 
        surveys and preparing plans as herein authorized shall be paid 
        from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such 
        purposes.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to 
    have to make a point of order against the committee amendment. The 
    amendment changes the authorization to a direct appropriation, and, 
    of course, an appropriation is not in order on a legislative bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The language against which the 
    point of order is raised reads as follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The cost of surveys and preparing plans as herein 
        authorized shall be paid from the appropriations heretofore or 
        hereafter made for such purposes. . . .

        It seems clear to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    is prohibited by rule XXI, section 4, and, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 4.11 Language in a legislative bill making available unobligated 
    balances of appropria

[[Page 5037]]

    tions ``heretofore'' made to carry out the provisions of the bill 
    was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 
    (now clause 5) and therefore not in order.

    On Mar. 18, 1946,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal 
Works Administrator. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 2371, 2372, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Federal Works Administrator is 
    hereby authorized under the provisions of the Public Buildings Act 
    of May 25, 1926, as amended (40 U.S.C. 341-347), and as hereby 
    further amended--
        (a) For projects outside of the District of Columbia: To 
    construct extensions to the marine hospitals at Seattle, Wash., and 
    San Francisco, Calif. . . . and design new building projects where 
    the sites are in Government ownership, notwithstanding the fact 
    that appropriations for construction work shall not have been made. 
    The total limit of cost for the foregoing shall be $13,000,000 and 
    the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made for the 
    construction of projects outside the District of Columbia are 
    hereby made available for this purpose.
        (b) To construct an additional building for the General 
    Accounting Office.
        . . . The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore 
    made for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged 
    project, including the acquisition of addition land, and contracts 
    may be entered into for construction work within the full limit of 
    cost pending additional appropriations.
        (c) To acquire additional land in and contiguous to the area in 
    the District of Columbia defined in the act of March 31, 1938 (52 
    Stat. 149), under a limit of cost of $2,000,000. Funds for this 
    purpose are hereby made available from the unobligated balances of 
    appropriations heretofore made for the construction of buildings 
    outside the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fadjo Cravens (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make a point of order against the words beginning 
    on page 2, line 4: ``and the unobligated balances of appropriations 
    heretofore made for the construction of projects outside the 
    District of Columbia are hereby made available for this purpose''; 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation and coming from a 
    committee not authorized to report appropriation bills to the 
    House. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to make a point of order against the language in paragraph (b) and 
    paragraph (c), and in paragraph (b) I make the point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 15 which reads:

            The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made 
        for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged 
        project, including the acquisition of additional land,

[[Page 5038]]

        and contracts may be entered into for construction work within 
        the full limit of cost pending additional appropriations. . . .

        Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: I call the gentleman's 
    attention to the fact that there is a committee amendment striking 
    out section (b).
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the committee amendment has not 
    been made. Consequently, I am making a point of order lest, by some 
    slip, the amendment might not be accepted. I make the point of 
    order that that would make appropriations for an unauthorized 
    project by means of an appropriation reported by a committee 
    without jurisdiction. . . .

        Mr. Lanham: Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly concede the points 
    of order. I do it reluctantly because I had hoped they would not be 
    made.
        The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from 
    Texas concedes each point of order?
        Mr. Lanham: The gentleman from Texas does reluctantly concede 
    the points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] and the two points of order made by the gentleman from South 
    Dakota [Mr. Case] are sustained by reason of the fact the language 
    against which they are made is tantamount to new appropriations; 
    and the language is stricken from the bill in each instance.

Sec. 4.12 Provisions in a bill reported from a legislative committee 
    that funds appropriated and made available under specified items in 
    the Agricultural Appropriation Act of 1946, to the extent that such 
    funds have been validly obligated, should be continued available 
    for use by the Farmers' Home Corporation established in the bill, 
    and that certain appropriated funds should be transferred from one 
    agency to another agency created in the bill, were held to be 
    appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), 
    and therefore not in order.

    On Apr. 9, 1946,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5991, a bill creating the Farmers' Home Corporation. 
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 3375, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    several points of order to submit.
        My first point of order is against the language contained on 
    page 5, lines 4 to 15, inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes 
    an appropriation upon a legislative bill and is out of order for 
    that reason. That language reads as follows:

            (c) The funds appropriated, authorized to be borrowed, and 
        made available under the items ``Farmers' crop production and 
        harvesting loans' (under the heading ``Farm Credit 
        Administration''), ``Loans,

[[Page 5039]]

        grants, and rural rehabilitation'', and ``Farm tenancy'', in 
        the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1946, to the 
        extent that such funds are validly obligated or committed by 
        the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of the Farm Credit 
        Administration, or their delegates, shall not lapse on June 30, 
        1946, but shall be continued available for use by the 
        Corporation in fulfilling such obligations or commitments, 
        subject to the limitations set forth in the acts appropriating 
        or authorizing such funds.

        I make the same point of order against the language contained 
    on page 6, lines 4 to 18, inclusive, as follows:

            (e) All funds made available by appropriation or 
        authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture for the fiscal 
        year 1947 for loans and administrative expenses for carrying on 
        the farm tenancy program shall be available to the Corporation 
        for loans under the provisions of section 40(d)(13)(A) hereof 
        and for administrative expenses incident thereto. All such 
        appropriations and authorizations for loans, grants, and rural 
        rehabilitation and farmers' crop production and harvesting 
        loans shall be available to the Corporation for loans for the 
        purposes of section 40(d)(13)(B) hereof and for administrative 
        expenses incident thereto. The limitations on the amounts of 
        each such appropriations and authorization for loans and 
        administrative expenses for each such purpose shall be observed 
        by the Corporation.

        I make the same point of order against the language contained 
    on page 6, lines 19 to 25, inclusive, and on page 7, lines 1 to 5, 
    as follows:

            (f) There is hereby transferred to the Corporation from the 
        revolving fund established for the purpose of increasing the 
        capital of the regional agricultural credit corporations, 
        pursuant to section 84 of the Farm Credit Act of 1933, approved 
        June 16, 1933, as amended (U.S.C., 1940 ed., title 12, sec. 
        1148a), $10,001,000. $1,000 of the funds so transferred shall 
        be used for capital of the Corporation, as provided in section 
        40(b)(1) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended, and 
        $10,000,000 of such funds shall be covered into the farm tenant 
        mortgage insurance fund, pursuant to section 11(a) of the 
        Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended.

        Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, while 
    I am not certain, I am afraid the points of order are well taken.
        The Chairman: (13) The points of order are well 
    taken. The Chair sustains the points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip A. Traynor (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.13 Language in a bill authorizing participation by the United 
    States in the International Development Association (which 
    prohibited further United States subscription to the fund ``except 
    that loans or other financing may be provided by [an] agency . . . 
    which is authorized . . . to make loans or provide other financing 
    to international organizations,'' which would have included funds 
    theretofore appropriated) was held to be in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5), and ruled out

[[Page 5040]]

    on a point of order where it was not clear that the exception 
    merely restated existing authority in law to make loans to this 
    particular organization.

    On June 28, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11001, a bill providing for U.S. participation in the 
International Development Association. At one point, the Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 14789, 14790, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither 
    the President nor any person or agency shall, on behalf of the 
    United States, (a) subscribe to additional funds under article III, 
    section 1, of the articles; (b) accept any amendment under article 
    IX of the articles; or (c) make a loan or provide other financing 
    to the Association, except that loans or other financing may be 
    provided to the Association by a U.S. agency created pursuant to an 
    act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide 
    other financing to international organizations.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 3, beginning at the end of line 4 down through 
    line 8, ``except that loans or other financing may be provided to 
    the Association by a United States agency created pursuant to an 
    act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide 
    other financing to international organizations.''
        I will say to the Chair that I have made inquiry of the 
    committee here on the floor and the committee says that these are 
    organizations already in existence, with the possibility of 
    transfers being made under Public Law 480 or by other organizations 
    now authorized to make loans to these various countries. I make the 
    point of order that this is a transfer of appropriated funds and is 
    an appropriation on a legislative bill. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: . . . I suggest that the 
    point of order should be overruled. I do not think I said anything 
    to indicate that there was any attempt to transfer any appropriated 
    funds or any authorized funds.
        May I read from page 11 of the report which refers precisely to 
    the language now under attack by the point of order?

            The excepting clause does not confer upon any U.S. agency 
        any authority it would not otherwise have and is intended to 
        make clear that the prohibitory language does not in any way 
        narrow, or preclude the use of, authority which any agency of 
        the U.S. Government, including the President, possesses under 
        other legislation to make loans or provide other financing to 
        international organizations, including the International 
        Development Association.

        I suggest the point of order is not well taken.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to that and say that the one 
    I am

[[Page 5041]]

    referring to is the exception to what the gentleman from New York 
    has just stated.
        Mr. Multer: I have referred only to the language which begins 
    with the words against which the point of order is made. It is that 
    exception to which the report from which I have read is directed.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from New York whether or not he interprets this to be that the U.S. 
    agencies could use funds heretofore appropriated for the purposes 
    of this section?
        Mr. Multer: Only if so authorized by the enabling or enacting 
    legislation and the appropriation making the funds available to 
    such other agencies.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Under the 
    interpretation of the gentleman from New York, the point of order 
    would lie; and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Directing Treasury to Make Funds Available

Sec. 4.14 Language directing the Secretary of the Treasury to make a 
    certain fund available for the payment of
    adjusted-service certificates was held to be an appropriation and 
    not in order on a legislative bill.

    On Jan. 9, 1936,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted-service 
certificates (bonus bill). The Clerk read an amendment as follows and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 273, 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 7, line 13, add section 6A, 
    as follows:
        ``The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to make the 
    exchange stabilization fund of $2,000,000,000 that expires on 
    January 30, 1936, available on that date for payment of the 
    adjusted-service certificates.''
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this 
    section or to any part of the bill.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from New York on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    reads, ``To provide for the immediate payment of World War 
    adjusted-service certificates'', and my amendment offers a method 
    for the payment of these certificates. This is one of the many 
    means that may be proposed for the payment of these certificates, 
    and I should think there would be the greatest amount of latitude 
    by the Chair for any Member to offer a specific way of paying the 
    certificates.
        The Chairman: The bill is merely an authorization for an 
    appropriation. The Chair thinks that a reading of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York clearly shows that the 
    amendment is an appropriation, and

[[Page 5042]]

    not proper on this bill, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the 
    point of order.

Sec. 4.15 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    authorizing the Treasurer of the United States to honor 
    requisitions of the Archivist in such manner and in accordance with 
    such regulations as the Treasurer might prescribe was held an 
    appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 
    5).

    On July 13, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering Senate Joint Resolution 118, a bill to provide for the 
establishment and maintenance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9060, 9061, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the section on the ground that it contains an 
    appropriation of public funds and that it is reported by a 
    committee not having jurisdiction to bring into the House an 
    appropriation bill.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the following language on 
    page 6, in line 7:

            The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to 
        honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and 
        in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from 
        time to time prescribe.

        Those words take money directly from the Treasury of the United 
    States without any limitation and are in violation of the 
    provisions of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House. . .  .
        Now, this is a permanent appropriation which will go on forever 
    of whatever amount the Archivist cares to draw for upon the 
    Treasurer under such rules and regulations as the Treasurer may 
    from time to time prescribe. I make the point of order against the 
    section.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair desires to direct a 
    question to the gentleman from New York. In line 8, on page 6, is 
    the gentleman of the opinion that the authorization there takes 
    money from the United States Treasury or merely honors 
    requisitions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: It authorizes the Treasurer of the United States, 
    without any further legislation, to take money right out of the 
    United States Treasury. It is a permanent appropriation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    to me that the point of order is ill taken for this reason: This is 
    not an appropriation. There is no appropriation provided in this at 
    all. It is simply and solely for the purpose of accepting the 
    requisitions of the proper authority in charge of all archives of 
    all kinds and character, because this bill provides that the 
    expense shall be appropriated for as a part of the Archivist's 
    expenses to the Government as a whole.

[[Page 5043]]

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the fact that the language in the section provides for 
    the creation of a trust fund to be deposited in the Treasury of the 
    United States. It provides for the raising of a trust fund to be 
    placed in the Treasury, and the language does not take appropriated 
    money out of the Treasury. It is not out of Government funds, but 
    out of the trust fund. It is not in itself a direct appropriation, 
    but more of an authorization for those in charge to draw on the 
    trust fund.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact that there is no limitation on the funds that this should 
    be taken out of. The way it reads it would be taken directly out of 
    the Treasury and not out of any trust fund whatever. It does not 
    say that it shall be taken out of a trust fund, nor is it implied 
    in any way.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York limit his point 
    of order to the sentence which he read?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order against the 
    section.
        Mr. Keller: Have you read what is at the bottom of page 5 as to 
    the method of depositing the money in the Treasury first?
        Mr. Taber: Yes; I have read that. There is nothing whatever 
    that limits the amount that can be taken out to the amount that is 
    put in, nor is there anything whatever that limits it to being 
    taken out of that fund. It is direct authority to the Treasury to 
    pay it.
        Mr. Keller: Well, what is a requisition, then?
        Mr. Taber: A requisition is a draft upon the Treasurer. This 
    constitutes a permanent appropriation.
        Mr. Keller: Only where the money is already provided, not where 
    it is not provided.
        Mr. Taber: No; there is no such limitation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York against the section is well taken, and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rayburn: I yield.
        Mr. Taber: Will the gentleman tell us briefly what his 
    amendment does?
        Mr. Rayburn: I may say to the gentleman from New York that I 
    conceded that his point of order was good.
        The amendment I offer leaves out the language objected to by 
    the gentleman from New York in lines 7, 8, 9, and 10 on page 6, 
    reading:

            The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to 
        honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and 
        in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from 
        time to time prescribe.

        This undoubtedly meets the objection raised by the gentleman 
    from New York, and I contend that the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 5044]]

Allocation of Agency's Receipts

Sec. 4.16 Language in a legislative bill providing for the collection 
    of certain fees and authorizing the use of the fees so collected 
    for the purchase of certain installations was construed to be an 
    appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 
    5).

    On June 17, 1937,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7472, the District of Columbia tax bill. At one point, 
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby 
    authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to fix, prescribe, 
    and collect fees for the parking of automobiles in or upon any 
    street, avenue, road, highway, or other public space within the 
    District of Columbia under their jurisdiction and control, and to 
    make and enforce regulations to provide for the collection of such 
    fees. Any person violating any such regulation shall be punished by 
    a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 days.
        The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are further 
    authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase, rent, 
    and install such mechanical parking meters or devices as the 
    Commissioners may deem necessary or advisable to insure the 
    collection of such fees as may be prescribed for the parking of 
    vehicles as aforesaid, and to pay the purchase price or rental and 
    cost of installation of the same from the fees collected, the 
    remainder of such fees to be paid to the collector of taxes for 
    deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the 
    revenues of said District. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order 
    that this section appropriates money out of fees to be collected, 
    and therefore it is appropriation on a legislative bill. Line 24 
    provides that the purchase price of these machines shall be paid 
    from the fees collected and the remainder of the fee shall be paid 
    into the Treasury.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the point of order comes too late. The section 
    has been debated and amendments have been offered, and an amendment 
    to strike out the section has been offered.
        Mr. O'Malley: I was attempting to get recognition from the very 
    beginning.
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any 
        time.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is 
    properly raised at this time (1) and that this is purely 
    an

[[Page 5045]]

    appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the 
    gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be 
        raised even after debate on the merits has taken place. See 
        Sec. 12.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 4.17 A provision in a legislative bill authorizing the Director of 
    the Census to use funds collected for issuance of birth 
    certificates in administering the provisions of the bill until 
    expended was held to be an appropriation not in order under Rule 
    XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On July 15, 1942,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7239, a bill authorizing the Director of the Census to 
issue birth records. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6209, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the last sentence of the section just 
    read that the language creates a revolving fund, constitutes an 
    appropriation, and is reported in the bill by a committee which is 
    without authority to report appropriations.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi rose.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin of [Mississippi]: I wish to say that this is not an 
    appropriation. This money never goes into the Federal Treasury. 
    Therefore it does not come under the rule on which the gentleman 
    from South Dakota relies.

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I pointed out that this creates a 
    revolving fund.
        The Chairman: Where does this money go if it does not go into 
    the Treasury?
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: The money is used by the Director of 
    the Census to pay for the copying of these records.
        The Chairman: What happens to the money?
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: It is held in the Bureau of the 
    Census just exactly as the Tennessee Valley Authority holds the 
    money that is paid in there, and that is used in a revolving fund 
    for the construction of dams, transmission lines, and so forth.
        The Chairman: The question seems to be whether or not the 
    language is equivalent to appropriating this money. The language 
    is:

            All amounts collected in payment of such fees may be used 
        by the Director in administering only the provisions of this 
        act and shall be available until expended.

        There are certain precedents which indicate that that language 
    is equivalent to the phrase 'is hereby appropriated,' which would 
    be in violation of the rule. The Chair cites Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume VII, section 2152, page 896:

            Provision for establishment of a special fund, to be 
        available with other funds appropriated for the purpose in 
        payment of refunds, was

[[Page 5046]]

        ruled to be an appropriation and subject to a point of order 
        under section 4 of rule XXI.
            On January 12, 1933, in the course of the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 13991), the Farm Relief Bill, in the Committee 
        of the Whole House on the state of the Union, this paragraph 
        was read:
            ``(b) The proceeds of all taxes collected under this 
        section, less 2\1/2\ percent for the payment of administrative 
        expenses under this act, shall be covered into the Treasury 
        into a special fund to be available, together with any other 
        funds hereafter appropriated for the purpose, for the payment 
        of any refunds under this section.''
            Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, raised the question of 
        order that the paragraph was in violation of section 4 of rule 
        XXI prohibiting committees other than the Committee on 
        Appropriations from reporting appropriations.

        The Chairman, Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, 
    sustained the point of order.
        The Chair believes that the language objected to is in 
    violation of section 4 of rule XXI, and sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 4.18 Language in a bill reported from a legislative committee 
    providing that all moneys received by the Maritime Commission under 
    the act would be deposited in the construction fund of the 
    commission, and all disbursements made by the commission in 
    carrying out the act would be paid from such fund, was held to be 
    an appropriation and not in order.

    On Oct. 2, 1945,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3603, a bill concerning the sale of surplus war 
vessels. At one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 9288, 9289, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 13. (a) The Commission is authorized to reconvert or 
    restore for normal operation in commercial services, including 
    removal of national defense or war service features, any vessel 
    authorized to be sold or chartered under this act. The Commission 
    is authorized to make such replacements, alterations, or 
    modifications with respect to any vessel authorized to be sold or 
    chartered under this act . . . as may be necessary or advisable to 
    make such vessel suitable for commercial operation on trade routes 
    or services or comparable as to commercial utility to other such 
    vessels of the same general type. . . .
        (d) All moneys received by the Commission under this act shall 
    be deposited in the construction fund of the Commission, and all 
    disbursements made by the Commission in carrying out this act shall 
    be paid from such fund. The provisions of sections 201(d), 204(b), 
    207, 209(a), and 905(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as 
    amended, shall apply to all activities and functions which the 
    Commission is authorized to perform under this act. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert C.] Bonner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.

[[Page 5047]]

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William G. Stigler (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonner: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 21, line 6, first sentence, on the ground that it 
    is an appropriation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Reluctantly, upon 
    advice from the parliamentarian on the point of order that I would 
    be foolish to argue otherwise, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded; the point of 
    order is sustained.

Use of Proceeds From User Charges

Sec. 4.19 An amendment establishing a user charge and making the 
    revenues collected therefrom available without further 
    appropriation is not in order to a bill reported by a committee not 
    having the jurisdiction to report appropriations.

        On Mar. 29, 1972,(6) during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 11896) to amend the 
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the following proceedings took 
    place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 10749-51, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz: On page 350 following line 
        6:
            ``Sec. 319(a) It is the purpose of this Section to 
        supplement the enforcement procedures of this Act by providing 
        for desirable economic incentives to water users to conserve 
        water and to minimize pollution through reduction in the 
        quantity of waste products dumped into these waterways. It is 
        also the purpose of this Section to encourage the formation of 
        regional waste treatment management organizations pursuant to 
        section 208(a) of this Act.
            ``(b)(1) In furtherance of the purpose of this Section, the 
        Administrator and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe 
        such regulations as are necessary to establish and put into 
        effect two years after the enactment of this Act a schedule of 
        national effluent charges for all those discharges including 
        municipal sewage which detract from the quality of the water 
        for municipal agricultural, industrial, recreational, sport, 
        wildlife, and commercial fish uses. These discharges shall 
        include, but not be limited to, biochemical oxygen demand 
        (BOD), suspended solids, thermal discharges, and toxic wastes. 
        The charges shall be set at a level which will provide for the 
        attainment of the standards and goals of this Act. Such 
        regulations shall also provide for making available as public 
        information all amounts collected pursuant to such charges.
            ``(2) Any person who willfully fails to pay any charge as 
        required by regulations established pursuant to this Section or 
        who willfully fails to make any return, keep any records, 
        supply any information, or to do any other act required by such 
        regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon 
        conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or 
        imprisoned not more than one year or both, together with costs 
        of prosecution. . . .

[[Page 5048]]

            ``(c) Revenues collected by the Secretary of the Treasury 
        pursuant to such charges shall be deposited in a trust fund 
        (hereinafter referred to as the `fund') in the Treasury to be 
        available without further appropriation to the Administrator 
        for use as prescribed in subsection (d).
            ``(d) Money from the fund shall be available for 
        distribution by the Administrator in each year for the purpose 
        of funding Section 106 of this Act (to assist water pollution 
        control programs of States and interstate agencies) . . . .''

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is as follows: . . . [T]his amendment is not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works. It proposes a tax on 
    effluents, and raises revenues, and therefore violates rule XI, 
    which places jurisdiction of revenue raising in the Committee on 
    Ways and Means.
        Section 319(c), Mr. Chairman, categorically refers to revenues 
    collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to such 
    charges.
        . . . [T]he amendment violates rule XXI, clause 4 prohibiting 
    appropriations in legislative bills. Section 319(c) and (d) of the 
    amendment directs the action to be taken with the revenues raised 
    in accordance with the amendment. In addition to the clear language 
    of the amendment, the stated purpose of the amendment in the 
    proponent's March 22, 1972, letter demonstrates the intent that 
    these funds be used for a specific purpose in violation of rule 
    XXI, clause 4.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .

        Mr. Heinz: Mr. Chairman, I would argue, in response to the 
    statement of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) in 
    urging his point of order, that effluent charges are basically user 
    charges, and user charges are fundamental to the bill. The bill 
    would not work without them; they are the primary means of 
    financing the operation and construction of the water treatment 
    works herein.
        And I would add further that this in itself is an important 
    consideration in ruling on this.
        Also I would hasten to add that clearly under sections 
    204(b)(2) and 204(b)(3) that in fact the purpose of this bill is to 
    raise revenues for the purposes of the bill, and without this we 
    could not possibly construct any water treatment facilities.
        Finally--and to be brief--there are two historical precedents 
    that I believe are important that establish the principle that user 
    charges are germane to the legislation.
        Volume IV, section 4119 of Hinds' Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives--no relation, I would add--state that on February 
    23, 1905, the River and Harbor Appropriations Bill was under 
    consideration, and included in such bill was a section permitting 
    the collection of tolls on freight and passengers. A point of order 
    was made to that. The point of order was not sustained.
        Similarly, at a later date, in Volume VII, section 1929 of the 
    same precedents, a bill that included a provision calling for fines 
    and penalties for offenses on lands of the public domain was 
    reported from the Committee on Public Lands, now called the Depart

[[Page 5049]]

    ment of the Interior, and it was determined that those charges 
    might properly be considered by the Committee of the House as a 
    Whole.
        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Chair consider 
    these precedents in ruling on the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Ohio. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the amendment.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania states that the bill contains 
    similar provisions. However, the rule under which we are operating 
    specifically waives all points of order against sections 2, 8, and 
    12 of the committee amendment, but it does not waive such points of 
    order against an amendment to the committee amendment.
        So far as nongermaneness is concerned, the Chair finds in 
    clause 3(c) of the amendment submitted a provision for collecting 
    revenues or taxes. Also in section 3(d) it provides for money 
    collected from the fund shall be available for distribution--in 
    other words, an appropriation.
        So the Chair finds it is not germane for the reason that it 
    provides for raising revenue, or a tax, and appropriates money. 
    Therefore, the amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI and 
    also it is in violation of clause 4, rule XXI, prohibiting 
    appropriations on legislative bills.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Points of order had been waived against 
appropriations contained in the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, but not against amendments offered from the floor 
containing such provision. Hence, the amendment was subject to a point 
of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 of Rule XXI in the 1981 
House Rules and Manual].

Allocation of Proceeds of Sale

Sec. 4.20 In a bill providing, in part, authority to construct certain 
    facilities at military reservations, a provision permitting 
    immediate use of funds derived from the sale of the San Jacinto 
    Depot for purchase of a site and construction of a depot at Point-
    Aux-Pins, Alabama, was ruled out as an appropriation reported from 
    a legislative committee in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now 
    clause 5).

    On July 9, 1958,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13015. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 13277, 13284, 13285, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 110. The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed 
    to enter into a contract or contracts for the sale of the San 
    Jacinto Ordnance Depot, Texas. . . . The Secretary of the Army is 
    directed to act as follows:

[[Page 5050]]

        (1) The depot shall be moved to, and integrated with, the 
    ammunition out-loading terminal previously authorized for 
    construction at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., and, notwithstanding any 
    other provisions of this or any other act, the authority contained 
    in the act of July 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 536), for the acquisition of 
    land and initiation of construction for the Point-Aux-Pins facility 
    shall continue in effect until specifically superseded, modified, 
    or repealed.
        (2) The sale of the San Jacinto Depot property shall be offered 
    by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on behalf of and 
    under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army within 18 months 
    from the date of this act. No part of the land herein shall be 
    sold, transferred, or occupied, by virtue of this transaction, by 
    any Government agency or department.
        (3) A contract or contracts for the sale of the San Jacinto 
    Depot shall be consummated as expeditiously as possible thereafter. 
    . . .
        (4) All proceeds from the sale shall be available to administer 
    the provisions of this section and to pay any and all expenses, 
    including land acquisition, in connection with the relocation, 
    exchange, or sale of the San Jacinto Depot or the establishment of 
    a fully integrated depot at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., or all proceeds 
    deposited into the Treasury of the United States for obligation by 
    the Army. . . .
        Mr. [Harry R.] Sheppard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    paragraph 4 of section 110 which appears on page 18 of the bill. 
    This paragraph is on appropriation in a bill from a committee not 
    having jurisdiction to report appropriations, and is in violation 
    of rule 21, paragraph 4.
        Specifically, this provides that funds from the sale of the San 
    Jacinto Ammunition Depot shall be available to the Secretary of the 
    Army to pay any and all expenses, including land acquisition, in 
    connection with the relocation, change, or sale of the San Jacinto 
    Depot or for the establishment of a fully integrated depot at a 
    specified location in Alabama.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: I do not desire to be heard on 
    the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order. 
    Therefore, paragraph 4, if the Chair sustains the point of order, 
    will be eliminated.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia concedes the point of 
    order. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Allocating Money Repaid From Loans

Sec. 4.21 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    making available for administrative purposes money repaid from 
    advances and loans was held to be an appropriation and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 8, 1936,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5051]]

ering H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill. At one point the Clerk read 
a provision of the bill and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 7. (b) Any advances or loans which are repaid to the 
    Secretary by any commission pursuant to section 3 of this act shall 
    be held in a special fund in the Treasury of the United States and 
    shall be available until expended for the purpose of administering 
    this act or until such time as the Secretary shall determine that 
    all or any part of such funds will not be needed for such purpose, 
    whereupon all or any part of such funds shall, upon approval by the 
    Secretary, revert to the general fund of the Treasury of the United 
    States.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I desire to make a point of order against that paragraph.
        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: We intend to offer an amendment 
    striking out the appropriation.
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph. I do not care to argue it. It is conceded by the 
    chairman of the committee, I think.
        Mr. Jones: It is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Excess Foreign Currency

Sec. 4.22 Language in a bill authorizing funds for the Foreign 
    Assistance Act and making excess foreign currencies available to 
    stimulate private enterprise abroad was conceded to be an 
    appropriation and in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12048, the Foreign Assistance Act for 1967. A 
provision was read, and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 23974, 23975, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 35, line 1: . . .
        ``Sec. 301. Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act 
    of 1961, as amended, which relates to general provisions, is 
    amended as follows: . . .
        ``(d) Section 612, which relates to the use of foreign 
    currencies, is amended by adding at end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        `` `(d) Notwithstanding section 1415 of the Supplemental 
    Appropriation Act, 1953, excess foreign currencies, as defined in 
    subsection (b) may be made available, in addition to funds 
    otherwise available, to encourage the establishment, improvement, 
    or expansion of private enterprises in friendly less developed 
    countries. . . . The President may make loans or guaranties with 
    such currencies on such terms and conditions as he may deem 
    appropriate in the circumstances. To the maximum extent practicable 
    in making such loans or guaranties, the President shall utilize the 
    services of private financing institutions, including inter

[[Page 5052]]

    mediate credit institutions which finance private business activity 
    even though there may be a governmental interest in such 
    institutions. . . .' ''
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the portion of the bill starting on page 
    35, line 1, to the bottom of page 37, be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? The Chair hears none, and it is 
    so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language on page 36, beginning on line 3 and running 
    through line 23, on the grounds that it makes an appropriation and 
    is therefore in violation of paragraph 4 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Additional Use of Existing Foreign Credits

Sec. 4.23 To a law authorizing, for certain purposes, use of foreign 
    credits already generated from sale of agricultural products 
    abroad, a section of a bill reported by the Committee on 
    Agriculture to authorize use of such funds for an additional 
    purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On July 18, 1956,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 11708, a bill to amend the Agricultural 
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 13393, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. Section 104 (h) of the act is amended by inserting the 
    following language immediately before the period at the end of the 
    section: ``and for the providing of assistance to activities and 
    projects authorized by section 203 of the United States Information 
    and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
    1448)''.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against all of section 2 that it is an appropriation 
    on a bill by a committee not authorized to deal with 
    appropriations.
        In support of that statement, may I say that this is 
    exceedingly technical and very difficult to follow. Nonetheless, by 
    referring to the basic act, Public Law 480, with which this deals, 
    we find that it refers to foreign currencies and I quote, ``which 
    accrue to the United States under this act.'' Then refer to the 
    specific section which states, ``to use the foreign currencies

[[Page 5053]]

     which accrue.'' Then go right on down to section (h), to which 
    this is an amendment. It states, ``for the financing of.'' I submit 
    this is obviously an appropriation. I might say that if this were 
    only an authorization I would have no objection to it at all, but I 
    do not believe this is a proper place to appropriate. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, This currency 
    unquestionably belonging to the Government of the United States, 
    which it receives under the provisions of section 2 of Public Law 
    480, 83d Congress, and being turned over by the terms of section 
    104 for specific purposes is for other things or for anything that 
    they desire to purchase.
        Paragraph (a) provides for providing new markets for United 
    States agricultural commodities.
        Paragraph (b) to purchase strategic and critical materials. . . 
    .
        Paragraph (e) for promoting balanced economic trade among 
    nations.
        Paragraph (f) to pay United States obligations abroad.
        Paragraph (g) for loans to promote multilateral trade.
        Mr. Chairman, the adding of one more item for which the funds 
    can be used constitutes an additional appropriation of these 
    currencies which belong to the Government of the United States as a 
    result of the operations under paragraph (a) section 2. . . .
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, all 
    of the money that goes into the financing of these programs have 
    already been appropriated and turned over to the President to be 
    used by the President. In the original act, he is given the right 
    to barter. He is given the right to sell for local currencies. He 
    is given the right to give away. This only provides that he can 
    barter just as has been pointed out heretofore in the debate; one 
    of the rights he now has is to barter. We say he cannot barter with 
    the U.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, but that he can barter with 
    all other countries in the world. So it is not an appropriation on 
    legislation at all. The moneys have already been appropriated and 
    now are in the hands of the President. Mr. Chairman, without unduly 
    delaying the matter, may I point out the language. It says:

            The President may use or enter into agreements with 
        friendly nations or organizations of nations and use the 
        foreign currencies which accrue under this title for one or 
        more of the following purposes.

        And following that is barter, which is one of those purposes.
        The Chairman:  (15) The Chair would like the 
    gentleman from North Carolina to comment on this question. Do we 
    not acquire foreign currencies which belong to this Government, 
    which we receive for selling commodities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Prince H. Preston, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: Certainly, we are acquiring foreign currencies, and 
    the act provides for the use of those currencies by the President 
    of the United States. One of the uses that he can use them for is 
    (c) to produce military equipment, materials and so forth and 
    services for the common defense.
        The Chairman: The point at issue is whether the funds can be 
    used without a further appropriation by the Congress.

[[Page 5054]]

        Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the question. But the 
    point is, as I have pointed out, that the funds have already been 
    appropriated and have already been used largely, and this act 
    itself authorizes the increase of the authorization, but it does 
    not authorize the President to use the foreign currencies or 
    commodities for any purpose foreign to or in addition to the 
    enumerated uses set forth in the act, one of which is to barter.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] if all the currencies previously 
    acquired have been used by this Government.
        Mr. Cooley: They have been obligated. To the exact extent, I am 
    not sure, but practically all of them have been obligated but not 
    actually used. They are covered by gentlemen's agreements, some of 
    which have not been fully consummated.
        I would like to emphasize one point, if I may. The point of 
    order is to the effect that we are adding to the enumeration of 
    uses that the President could employ. We are not doing anything of 
    the kind. Under the act we have a right to barter. That is what 
    this provision authorizes him to do. We are only saying that he can 
    barter with this money. The fact of the business is it might be 
    considered a limitation because we limit the use of the money, in 
    that he cannot use it in North Korea or China.
        Mr. Taber. If the Chair will permit, this is not barter at all. 
    It is the use of funds. The appropriations having already been 
    established in section 104, that of course can be continued. But to 
    add new money and appropriate money for other purposes that were 
    not allowed in the first bill is beyond the rule, and it 
    constitutes a new appropriation. Therefore, it is subject to a 
    point of order because it comes from a committee other than the 
    Committee on Appropriations.
        Mr. Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, might I add also that 
    in the committee hearings witnesses testifying on the part of the 
    executive department used as one of their arguments that this would 
    give them additional funds.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, may I add one comment? The gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber] points out that we are adding something 
    to the authority of the President by this amendment in the bill. 
    Actually, I think some of these funds are now used in connection 
    with the school lunch program in Japan. They are being used in 
    other countries in connection with the education of the children of 
    those countries. Certainly we are not adding to the authority of 
    the President. It is rather strange that an objection to giving 
    authority to the President should come from that side of the aisle. 
    I do not think this is subject to a point of order.
        The Chirman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Curtis] has made a point of order against section 2 
    of the bill, that this constitutes an appropriation. The bill under 
    consideration by the Committee seeks to amend existing law known as 
    Public Law 480 of the 83d Congress. In the pending bill it is 
    clearly evident that a new activity is being created by the 
    legislation. New authority is being granted in the handling of the 
    foreign credit derived from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in 
    the opinion of

[[Page 5055]]

    the Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair therefore 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.44, infra, where language 
authorizing use only of future foreign currency proceeds was held not 
to be an appropriation.

Amendment to Legislative Bills--Generally

Sec. 4.24 An amendment appropriating money is not in order on a bill 
    reported by a committee not having jurisdiction over 
    appropriations.

    On May 22, 1936,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 3531, a bill to amend an act relating to Mississippi 
River flood control. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 7777, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arthur P.] Lamneck [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 2, line 7, after the word ``Engineers'', add the 
        following: ``Provided, That the Chief of Engineers, under the 
        supervision of the Secretary of War, shall at the expense of 
        the United States Government, construct a system of levees and 
        reservoirs to adequately control the floodwaters of the Scioto, 
        Olentangy, and Sandusky River Valleys in Ohio: And provided 
        further, There is hereby appropriated the sum of $40,000,000 
        for the carrying out of the above project.''

        Mr. [Riley J.] Wilson [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it makes a direct 
    appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The amendment proposes to 
    appropriate $40,000,000. Rule XXI provides that no bill or joint 
    resolution carrying appropriations shall be reported by any 
    committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations nor 
    shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during 
    consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
    not having that jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Inasmuch as the amendment appropriates money in violation of 
    the rule, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Emergency Fund

Sec. 4.25 An amendment to a legislative bill proposing to make 
    available not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations for rivers and 
    harbors work as an emergency fund to be expended for repairing 
    damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon 
    was held in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On May 17, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5056]]

ering H.R. 6264, a bill dealing with public works on rivers and 
harbors. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5679, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: Page 9, after line 6, insert a 
    new paragraph, as follows:
        ``The sum of not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations available 
    for river and harbor work shall be immediately available as an 
    emergency fund to be expended under the direction of the Secretary 
    of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for repairing 
    damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon, 
    caused by storm in January 1939, in order to provide adequate 
    protection to property on such peninsula and in Tillamook, Oreg.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is an appropriation on a 
    legislative bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    gentleman from New York did not hear the amendment correctly, 
    because it is not an appropriation but an authorization for the 
    engineers to use river and harbor money.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no language in this amendment which is 
    appropriating language. The amendment authorizes the use by the 
    Army engineers of money available for river and harbor work to be 
    used in emergency work on this project.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall have to insist on the 
    point of order. If we are to have an appropriation, it should come 
    in an appropriation bill after a hearing, and then it would go 
    through quicker, if the need were shown, than this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Oregon contains language which proposes to divert an 
    appropriation heretofore made to a new purpose and is therefore in 
    violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives. 
    The Chair sustains the point of order.

Unemployment Benefits

Sec. 4.26 To a bill amending the Social Security Act to provide a 
    national program for war mobilization and reconversion, an 
    amendment directing payments to states on account of unemployment 
    benefits was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5), and not in order.

    On Aug. 31, 1944, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 
2051, the war mobilization and reconversion bill of 1944. The following 
proceedings took place: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 7464, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 5057]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the [committee] amendment that it is an 
    appropriation of funds in violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the 
    House. I call the attention of the Chair particularly to this 
    language. I refer to the page and line of the Senate bill rather 
    than the amendment, because I have that in front of me and I assume 
    the Chair can refer to it readily. It begins on page 21, line 6:

            (c) Each State shall be entitled to receive from the 
        Federal unemployment account for each quarter, beginning with 
        the first quarter commencing after enactment of this act, an 
        amount equal to the total of all payments of unemployment 
        compensation made by such State during such quarter, pursuant 
        to an agreement under this section.
            (d) In the event that any State does not agree to make such 
        payments to such persons, the Civil Service Commission is 
        hereby authorized and directed to make such payments. . . .
            (f) In case of an agreement under this section that a State 
        agency will make payments as agent of the United States, there 
        shall be paid in advance to the State such sum as the Board 
        estimates the State will be entitled to receive for each 
        quarter under such section. All money paid to a State under 
        this subsection shall be used solely for the payment of 
        unemployment compensation. Any money so paid to a State which 
        is not used for the purpose for which it was paid shall, upon 
        termination of the agreement, be returned to the Treasury. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island that the rule under which we are 
    considering this measure, waives points of order against the 
    committee substitute, but not against the amendments which would be 
    offered to that substitute. The rule cited by the gentleman from 
    New York is very clear and specific:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an 
        appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or 
        joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
        jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any 
        such bills, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be 
        raised at any time.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language cited by the Chair 
    and other language cited by the gentleman from New York, clearly 
    provides for an appropriation.
        Mr. [Aime J.] Forand [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    committee amendment, which is an entire new bill, had not been 
    brought to the floor of the House as it is now, we would be 
    considering the George [Senate] bill, and that would be in the 
    George bill. Would not the rule given to us by the Committee on 
    Rules clear that? We understood this was a broad rule.
        The Chairman: Yes; the rule would clear the Senate bill, but we 
    are not considering the Senate bill; we are considering the 
    committee substitute amendment to the Senate bill. This is offered 
    as an amendment to the committee amendment. In the opinion of the 
    Chair the point of order is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order on the authorities cited.

[[Page 5058]]

Guaranteeing Agencies' Use of Previously Appropriated Funds

Sec. 4.27 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency providing that certain guaranteeing 
    agencies were thereby authorized to use for the purposes of the 
    section any funds ``heretofore'' appropriated was held to be an 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and 
    not in order.

    On Aug. 2, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950. At one 
point, a Member raised a point of order against an amendment. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11599, 11600, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I make the point of order that the amendment 
    violates the provisions of section 4 of rule 21. . . .
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from New York point out the 
    specific language in the bill to which he objects?
        Mr. Taber: I call the Chair's attention to page 7, lines 18 to 
    23:

            (d) Each guaranteeing agency is hereby authorized to use 
        for the purposes of this section any funds which have 
        heretofore been appropriated or allocated or which hereafter 
        may be appropriated or allocated to it, or which are or may 
        become available to it, for such purposes or for the purpose of 
        meeting the necessities of the national defense. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the language there 
    does constitute an appropriation in violation of the rule cited by 
    the gentleman from New York, and accordingly sustains the point of 
    order against the amendment on account of that objectionable 
    language.

Use of Foreign Interest Payments

Sec. 4.28 To a bill authorizing the furnishing of emergency food relief 
    assistance to India on specified credit terms, an amendment 
    providing that interest on the principal of any debt incurred 
    pursuant to such relief program be deposited in a special account 
    in the Treasury, to be immediately available for certain types of 
    expenditures by the Department of State was held to be an 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

[[Page 5059]]

    On May 24, 1951,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3791, a bill to furnish emergency food relief 
assistance to India. An amendment was offered and a point of order 
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5837, 5838, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William G.] Bray [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bray: On page 3, at line 20, add a 
        new section reading as follows:
            ``Sec. 4 (a) any sums payable by the Government of India, 
        under the interest terms agreed to between the Government of 
        the United States and the Government of India, on or before 
        January 1, 1957 . . . as interest on the principal of any debt 
        incurred under this act shall, when paid, be placed in a 
        special deposit account in the Treasury of the United States, 
        notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to remain 
        available until expended. This account shall be available to 
        the Department of State for the following uses:
            ``(1) Allocation, for designated educational, agricultural, 
        experimental, scientific, medical, or philanthropic activities, 
        to American institutions engaged in such activities in India. . 
        . .''

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, because of my 
    admiration for the gentleman I dislike to press the point of order, 
    but I think the rules of the House keep our thinking straight. I 
    therefore make the point of order. I submit the gentleman's 
    amendment goes far beyond the scope of the legislation. It 
    introduces a great deal of new matter and provides for an 
    appropriation in a legislative act, and is therefore not in order. 
    . . .

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk 
    has reported, providing certain conditions relating to the 
    assistance proposed to be granted under the pending bill; in 
    addition it proposes the creation of a fund and makes available 
    those funds for certain specific purposes.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds: One, that it is not germane; two, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation.
        The Chair would call attention to page 88 of Cannon's 
    Precedents where the following statement is made:

            The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same 
        end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered--

        Which is the contention of the gentleman from Indiana--
        does not render it germane.

            Though the proposed amendment seeks accomplishment of ends 
        undoubtedly worthy and somewhat related to the aims of the 
        pending bill, it does provide conditions separate and apart 
        from the pending bill.

        Clause 4 of rule 21 provides:

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an amendment 
        be in order during the

[[Page 5060]]

        consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a 
        committee not having that jurisdiction.

        The proposed amendment would in the opinion of the Chair, 
    violate this rule.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio in both respects.

Appropriations to Another Government Agency

Sec. 4.29 To a bill to amend the Agriculture Act of 1949 to permit the 
    importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment relating 
    to the detention of Mexican aliens, generally, in the United States 
    and providing that appropriations made heretofore shall be 
    available for expenditures to carry out the purposes of the 
    provision was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).

     On June 27, 1951,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 3283, a bill to amend the Agricultural 
Act of 1949, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 7274, 7275, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Add a new section:
            ``Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to 
        the contrary and without regard to section 3709 of the revised 
        statutes, the Attorney General is authorized to purchase, 
        construct, lease, equip, operate, and maintain on either 
        Government-leased or Government-owned land such detention 
        facilities as may be necessary for the apprehension and removal 
        to Mexico of Mexican aliens illegally in the United States 
        Appropriations made to the Immigration and Naturalization 
        Service shall be available for expenditures to carry out the 
        purposes of this act.''

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler). . . .
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) Will the gentleman please state 
    the grounds of his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: First, that it broadens the scope of the 
    legislation under consideration. It is not germane, and it actually 
    constitutes an appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York offers an amendment to the bill 
    before the committee and the gentleman from North Carolina makes 
    the point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    not germane and that it contains an appropriation.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to study the amendment offered 
    by the

[[Page 5061]]

    gentleman from New York. As the Chair understands the bill before 
    the committee, H.R. 3283, it applies to certain Mexican aliens as a 
    class and as described in the bill. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York broadens the group to include Mexican 
    aliens illegally in the United States, beyond the class described 
    in the bill. The amendment also proposes to appropriate funds for a 
    certain purpose described in the amendment.
        For these two reasons, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Funds Previously Appropriated for Mutual Security Agency

Sec. 4.30 To a bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture, an 
    amendment authorizing the use of funds ``heretofore appropriated 
    for the use of the Mutual Security Agency'' was ruled out as an 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On July 29, 1953,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6016, a bill concerned with emergency famine relief. 
An amendment was offered and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 10392, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: Page 2, lines 
        10 and 11, strike out the words ``(including the Corporation's 
        investment in the commodities)'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``of funds heretofore appropriated for the use of the Mutual 
        Security Agency.''

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Glenn R. Davis (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hope: I make the point of order against the amendment that 
    it is not germane and that it constitutes an appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment as 
    drafted, would divert previously appropriated funds to a new 
    purpose. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

 Foreign Credits for New
    Purpose

Sec. 4.31 To a bill providing for extension of a law authorizing, for 
    certain purposes, use of foreign credits generated from the sale of 
    surplus agricultural products abroad, an amendment proposing use of 
    a limited percentage of the generated funds for an additional 
    purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5).

[[Page 5062]]

    On June 4, 1957,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural Trade 
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, among other things. At one 
point a Member offered the following amendment, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 2, following line 
        3, add the following new paragraph No. 4:
            ``Section 104(e) of such act is amended by striking out the 
        semicolon at the end thereof and adding a comma and the 
        following: `for which purposes not more than 25 percent of the 
        currencies received pursuant to each such agreement shall be 
        available through and under the procedures established by the 
        Export-Import Bank for loans mutually agreeable to said bank 
        and the country with which the agreement is made to United 
        States business firms and branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates 
        of such firms for business development and trade expansion in 
        such countries for the establishment of facilities for aiding 
        in the utilization, distribution, or otherwise increasing the 
        consumption of, and markets for, United States agricultural 
        products. Foreign currencies may be accepted in repayment of 
        such loans.' ''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation on a bill 
    coming from a committee which has no authority to report 
    appropriations to this body. . . .
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: As I understand it, 
    the President now has the authority in existing law to make these 
    agreements and to use the money as provided by law. This is in 
    effect saying he shall not use more than 25 percent of it for these 
    purposes.

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Parliamentarian 
    has directed the Chair's attention to the fact that on July 18, 
    1956, in the consideration of a similar measure, the gentleman from 
    Georgia [Mr. Preston], being Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole, ruled on a point of order similar to that made by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        This is the ruling, and the reasons for it in the language of 
    Chairman Preston, which the Chair adopts:

            The gentleman has made a point of order against section 2 
        of the bill. The bill under consideration by the Committee 
        seeks to amend existing law known as Public Law 480 of the 83d 
        Congress. In the pending bill it is clearly evident that a new 
        activity is being created by the legislation. New authority is 
        being granted in the handling of the foreign credit derived 
        from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in the opinion of the 
        Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair, therefore, 
        feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

        The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber].

Use of Tax Receipts for School Construction

Sec. 4.32 An amendment (to a bill reported from the Committee

[[Page 5063]]

    on Education and Labor) providing that the District Director of 
    Internal Revenue shall, under a formula, pay an allotment to each 
    state out of tax funds for school construction has been ruled out 
    as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently 
    clause 5).

    On July 25, 1957,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1, a bill to authorize federal assistance to the 
states and local communities in financing an expanded program of school 
construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of classrooms. 
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 12728, 12729, 12733, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin H.] May [Jr., of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. May: Page 31, beginning with line 
        19, strike out everything down through line 11, page 46, and 
        insert the following:

               ``Title I--Payments to State Educational Agencies

                       ``Authorization of appropriations

            ``Sec. 101. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1957, and the four 
        succeeding fiscal years, such amounts, not to exceed $300 
        million in any fiscal year, as may be necessary for making 
        payments to State educational agencies as provided in section 
        104.

                             ``Allotments to States

            ``Sec. 102(a)(1) The sums appropriated for any fiscal year 
        pursuant to section 101 shall be allotted among the States on 
        the basis of the income per child of school age, the school-age 
        population, and effort for school purposes, of the respective 
        States. Subject to the provisions of section 103, such 
        allotments shall be made as follows: The Commissioner shall 
        allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the 
        sums appropriated pursuant to section 101 for such year as the 
        product of--
            ``(A) the school-age population of the State, and
            ``(B) the state's allotment ratio (as determined under 
        paragraph (2)), bears to the sum of the corresponding products 
        for all the States.

                              ``Payments to States

            ``Sec. 104. When he has computed a State's allotment for a 
        year, the Commissioner shall certify the amount thereof to the 
        District Director of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue 
        District of which the State is a part (or, if the State lies in 
        more than one such District, to the District Director 
        designated by the Secretary of the Treasury). From the 
        collections made from such State from taxes levied under part I 
        of subchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to income tax on individuals), 
        the District Director of Internal Revenue shall retain an 
        amount equal to the State's allotment. He shall then pay the 
        State's allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments, 
        to the State educational agency. . . .''

[[Page 5064]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that section 104 of the 
    amendment constitutes an appropriation and it is on a bill coming 
    from a committee not authorized to report appropriations.
        That motion is in order at any time before the bill is enacted.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In my opinion, the point of order comes too late. 
    The amendment has been offered and reported and debate has begun on 
    the amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it is specifically specified in the 
    rules that that point of order is available at any time during the 
    progress of the bill.
         Mr. [H. R.) Gross [of Iowa]: Under rule XXI
        Mr. Taber: Under rule XXI.
        The Chairman: As to the question of timeliness of the point of 
    order, there is no question but that it can be made at this time.
        The Chair feels that this language ``shall pay the State's 
    allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments, to the State 
    educational agency'' makes the amendment subject to the point of 
    order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Corps of Engineers--Use of Prior Appropriations

Sec. 4.33 Where a committee amendment to a rivers and harbors 
    authorization bill contained language which permitted the Chief of 
    Engineers to use, for certain purposes, appropriations heretofore 
    or hereinafter made for civil works, the amendment was conceded to 
    contain an appropriation and was ruled out as in violation of Rule 
    XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).

    On Oct. 3, 1962,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13273, the rivers and harbors authorization bill for 
1962. At one point the Clerk read a committee amendment as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 21883, 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 13, line 15, insert:
            ``Sec. 102. (a) The Act approved August 13, 1946, as 
        amended by the Act approved July 28, 1956 (33 U.S.C. 426e-h), 
        pertaining to shore protection, is hereby further amended as 
        follows: . . .
            ``(4) Sections 2 and 3 are amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized 
        to reimburse local interests for work done by them . . . 
        Provided, That the work which may have been done on the 
        projects is approved by the Chief of Engineers as being in 
        accordance with the authorized projects: Provided further, That 
        such reimburse

[[Page 5065]]

        ment shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or 
        funds available therefor and shall not take precedence over 
        other pending projects of higher priority for improvements.
            `` `Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to 
        undertake construction of small shore and beach restoration and 
        protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress, 
        which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he 
        finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized 
        to allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereinafter made 
        for civil works, not to exceed $3,000,000 for any one fiscal 
        year for the Federal share of the costs of construction of such 
        projects. . . .' ''

        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment in that it appears clearly in 
    the amendment that it is an appropriation on an authorization bill.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Minnesota 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee concedes the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The Chair will state, this applies to the entire amendment from 
    page 13, line 15, down to and including line 19 on page 16.
        Mr. Blatnik: Mr. Chairman, am I correct, then, that this 
    applies to the entire section 102, it deletes that section?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Language Held To Be ``Authorization''

Sec. 4.34 Language in a bill authorizing an appropriation of not less 
    than a certain amount for a specified purpose has been held not to 
    be an appropriation.

     On May 11, 1934,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a bill (17) which stated in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 8640, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H.R. 8781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpose of increasing 
    employment by providing for emergency construction of public 
    highways and other related projects there is hereby authorized to 
    be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, the sum of not less than $400,000,000 for allocation 
    under the provisions of section 204 of the National Industrial 
    Recovery Act.

    A point of order was raised against the provision, as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The language of this section 
    provides that there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of not 
    less than $400,000,000. That is, in effect, a mandatory piece of 
    legislation, and must result in an appropriation. This bill does 
    not come from the Committee on Appropriations and therefore this 
    sec

[[Page 5066]]

    tion, with that language in it, is out of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . This is simply an 
    authorization, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David D. Glover (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reappropriation

Sec. 4.35 Language of an amendment providing that an appropriation when 
    made should come out of any unexpended balances heretofore 
    appropriated or made available for emergency purposes was held to 
    be in order on a legislative bill since such language did not 
    constitute an appropriation.

    On Jan. 9, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted service 
certificates. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong Rec. 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
    as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. . . .
        Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Treadway: Page 7, line 13, after the word 
        ``appropriated'', insert ``out of any unexpended balances 
        heretofore appropriated or made available for emergency 
        purposes.''

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the amendment that it is not 
    definite enough. It does not specify what law or what appropriation 
    is intended to be covered by the proposed amendment.
        Mr. Treadway: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the further point of order that it is an appropriation. . . .

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair does not think it 
    necessary to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts unless the 
    gentleman seeks to convince the Chair that the Chair would be in 
    error in holding his amendment in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While it is restrictive and limits Congress to just one source 
    in making its appropriation, while the bill in no way limits, the 
    amendment is merely an authorization. It will require action on the 
    part of Congress later to appropriate the money, and the Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Reappropriations are no longer permitted. See Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds Made Available to Other Agencies

Sec. 4.36 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    providing that all

[[Page 5067]]

    funds available for carrying out the act would be available for 
    allotment to other bureaus and offices for a similar purpose was 
    held not to be an appropriation, inasmuch as the bill permitted no 
    use of existing funds but merely authorized new funds, when 
    appropriated, to be so allocated.

     On Apr. 8, 1936,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill, the 
Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was made as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 5208, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 8. All funds available for carrying out this act shall be 
    available for allotment to the bureaus and offices of the 
    Department of Agriculture and for transfer to such other agencies 
    of the Federal or State governments as the Secretary may request to 
    cooperate or assist in carrying out this act.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order against section 8 for the same reason as 
    applied to section 7. The section makes available and transfers 
    funds in the Treasury for a different purpose than that for which 
    they have been appropriated, and I think under the precedents and 
    decision of the Speaker and of the Chair it is subject to the same 
    point of order as was raised to section 7. . . .
         I call the Chair's attention to the fact that the fees paid by 
    the handlers of tobacco for so-called marketing agreements under 
    section 3 go into the Treasury of the United States and are a part 
    of the funds referred to in this section. They would remain in the 
    Treasury and not be available to the Secretary of Agriculture or to 
    anyone except for the language in section 8. . . .
        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I submit the 
    suggestion that by the provisions of the amendment to the previous 
    section any advance or loans repaid to the Secretary by any 
    commission, and so forth, shall revert to the Treasury of the 
    United States; so the point of order made by the gentleman is not 
    applicable. Section 7(a) is where provision is made with reference 
    to the funds mentioned in section 3. All that is involved in 
    section 8 is the amount appropriated to the Secretary of 
    Agriculture for administrative purposes, and this is merely a 
    matter of allowing him to permit some other bureau assisting him to 
    use the same fund. It is not a new appropriation, it is the same 
    appropriation and it is for the same function, that of 
    administration. It does not involve a new appropriation if a man's 
    assistant spends the man's money helping do the job. In fact, this 
    involves no appropriation at all. It only refers to the use of 
    funds authorized to be appropriated in a previous section--if and 
    when such appropriation is made.
        If the gentleman from Michigan will look at the previous 
    section, he will find the funds mentioned in section 3, and the 
    collections thereof revert to the Treasury automatically, under the 
    amendment which we just adopted and which takes the place of the 
    provision which was stricken out. . . .

[[Page 5068]]

        Mr. Mapes: Will not the gentleman from Texas admit that section 
    8 might divert some of the funds which may be appropriated under 
    the committee's substitute for section 7, which would not be so 
    diverted except for section 8?
        Mr. Jones: That would be true for any part of the funds that 
    are appropriated there for administrative purposes but not for 
    advances and loans, because subdivision (b) of section 7 
    specifically eliminates all loans and advances and puts them back 
    into the Treasury when they are repaid. So, by virtue of the 
    limitation in section (b) this can apply only to administrative 
    funds.
         The Chairman: (5) . . . As the Chair understands, 
    this bill does not carry any appropriation--that part of the bill 
    was stricken out on a point of order--and therefore there are no 
    funds available so far as the bill stands at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Farm Loans

Sec. 4.37 An amendment authorizing the making of farm loans was held 
    not to be an appropriation under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).

    On Jan. 25, 1937,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1545. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 394-98, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) No loan shall be made under this act to any 
    applicant who shall not have first established to the satisfaction 
    of the proper officer or employee of the Farm Credit 
    Administration, under such regulations as the Governor may 
    prescribe, that such applicant is unable to procure from other 
    sources a loan in an amount reasonably adequate to meet his needs 
    for the purposes for which loans may be made under this act; and 
    preference shall be given to the applications of farmers whose cash 
    requirements are small. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Massingale: Amend paragraph C of 
    section 2, page 3, by striking out the period after the word 
    ``prescribe'', on line 5 of said paragraph, inserting a comma, and 
    adding the following: ``and loans for seed oats shall be 
    immediately available in localities where it is customary that 
    sowing or planting shall be done in the late winter or early spring 
    months.'' . . .(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Note: Loans are not considered charges against the Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have 
    to disagree with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Massingale].
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    amendment would amount to inserting an appropriation in a 
    legislative bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair overrules the 
    gentleman's point of order insofar as the point of order is based 
    on the ground that the amendment involves an appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advances From Treasury

Sec. 4.38 Language authorizing and directing an executive

[[Page 5069]]

    officer to advance, when appropriated, sums of money out of the 
    Treasury was held not to constitute an appropriation on a 
    legislative bill.

     On June 17, 1937,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7472. At one point an amendment was offered and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5914, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 1, after line 4, 
        insert the following:

                 ``Title I--Authorization for Advance of Funds

            ``Until and including June 30, 1938, the Secretary of the 
        Treasury, notwithstanding the provisions of the District of 
        Columbia Appropriation Act approved June 29, 1922, is 
        authorized and directed, when appropriated, to advance, on the 
        requisition of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 
        made in the manner now prescribed by law, out of any money in 
        the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, 
        such sums as may be necessary from time to time during said 
        fiscal year to meet the general expenses of said District, as 
        provided by law, and such amounts so advanced shall be 
        reimbursed by the said Commissioners to the Treasury out of the 
        taxes and revenue collected for the support of the government 
        of the said District of Columbia.''

        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        . . . I make the same point of order against the amendment as 
    was raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and upon 
    which the Chair just ruled. The language of the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation Act makes this amendment an exception to the 
    appropriation act. The amendment states ``out of any money in the 
    Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.'' It 
    seems to me the amendment seeks to have Congress authorize and 
    appropriate a certain amount of money which the Congress would have 
    to reimburse the Treasury for if the District itself was not able 
    to reimburse the Treasury out of the revenues to be obtained under 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. It is 
    the opinion of the Chair that the language included in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols], 
    which indicates that the money cannot become available until and 
    when appropriated, is proper, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The language objected to by Mr. John Taber, 
and subsequently referred to by Mr. O'Malley in his point of order, was 
substantially the same as that in the Nichols amendment, but did not 
include the phrase ``when appropriated.'' (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 5910, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Accounts for Specified Purposes

Sec. 4.39 Language directing that the proceeds of taxes shall be

[[Page 5070]]

     deposited in a special account in the Treasury entirely to the 
    credit of the District of Columbia and would thereafter be 
    appropriated and used solely and exclusively for certain enumerated 
    purposes was held merely a direction to appropriate in the future 
    and not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5), 
    as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.

    On June 17, 1937,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7472. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5924, 5925, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``All proceeds of the taxes imposed under this act . . . shall 
    be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United 
    States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia, and 
    shall be appropriated and used solely and exclusively for the 
    following purposes:
        ``(1) For the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and 
    maintenance of public highways, including the necessary 
    administrative expenses in connection therewith . . .''
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against that part of section 2 on page 12, line 2, 
    beginning with the words ``and shall'', through and including line 
    24 on page 12, on the ground that it is an appropriation and 
    violates the rule which requires that appropriations shall come 
    from the Committee on Appropriations.
        The Chairman: (13) Will the gentleman advise the 
    Chair of the language to which he makes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Engel: On page 12, line 2, commencing with the words ``and 
    shall be appropriated'', continuing through the remainder of the 
    section.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do 
    not believe the point of order will lie. This section first does 
    not appropriate any money. It is only an affirmative direction for 
    the expenditure of money or an indication of how the money shall be 
    expended, but it does not undertake, either by language or 
    implication, to appropriate money.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will state 
    that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] has stated the 
    matter correctly. The point of order is overruled.

``Appropriation'' Defined as ``Payment of Funds From the Treasury''

Sec. 4.40 A bill to regulate barbers in the District of Columbia 
    containing language providing that fees and charges payable under 
    the act would be paid to the secretary-

[[Page 5071]]

    treasurer of a board to carry out these regulations and providing 
    compensation of members of the board from such funds was held not 
    to be an appropriation of funds from the Treasury where it was 
    stated that expenses under the bill were not chargeable against the 
    United States or the District of Columbia.

    On Jan. 24, 1938,(14) the House was considering H.R. 
7085. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was 
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 1008, 1009, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 11. All fees and charges payable under the provisions of 
    this act shall be paid to the secretary-treasurer of the Board. The 
    Board is hereby authorized to refund any license fee or tax, or 
    portion thereof, erroneously paid or collected under this act.
        (a) For the examination of an applicant for a certificate as a 
    registered barber, $5. . . .
        Sec. 12. The Commissioners are authorized and directed to 
    provide suitable quarters for examinations and equipment to the 
    Board and for the compensation of the members of the Board at the 
    rate of $9 per day . . . Provided, That payments under this section 
    shall not exceed the amount received from the fees provided for in 
    this act; and if at the close of each fiscal year any funds 
    unexpended in excess of the sum of $1,000 shall be paid into the 
    Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District of 
    Columbia: Provided, That no expense incurred under this act shall 
    be a charge against the funds of the United States or the District 
    of Columbia. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that sections 11 and 12 provide for an appropriation 
    which the Committee on the District of Columbia, as a legislative 
    committee, is not authorized to do. Section 11 sets up a schedule 
    of fees and section 12 appropriates such fees to the use of the 
    Commissioners, stating that any sums unexpended in excess of a 
    thousand dollars shall revert to the Treasury. . . .
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order against 
    section 12 of the bill that under the terms of the section there is 
    an appropriation of funds out of the Public Treasury.
        If, in the opinion of the Chair, the language of the section 
    sustained that position, clearly the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin would be good. However, the Chair calls 
    attention to the fact it is stated in a precedent which will be 
    found in the Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, first 
    session, page 3388:

            The term ``appropriation'' in the rule means the payment of 
        funds from the Treasury.

        As far as the Chair is able to read the language of section 12, 
    it provides

[[Page 5072]]

    only the payment of funds into the Treasury under certain 
    contingencies, and does not provide for the payment of funds out of 
    the Treasury.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Unused Appropriations Paid Into Treasury Account

Sec. 4.41 A provision in a legislative bill providing that sums already 
    appropriated and not used for making parity payments would be 
    covered into the Treasury to offset the subsequent appropriations 
    made pursuant to the authority of the bill under consideration was 
    held not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5), 
    inasmuch as further action would be required to appropriate such 
    sums authorized.

    On Jan. 29, 1942,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6350, a bill dealing with relief for certain 
agricultural producers. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 851, 852, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to make a point of order against paragraph (b), on the ground that 
    it violates clause 4 of rule XXI.
        Paragraph (b) reads as follows:

            The Congress further determines that substantial amounts of 
        the sums which have heretofore been appropriated for making 
        parity payments will not be needed for making such payments; 
        and it hereby directs that so much of the money appropriated in 
        the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1942, for the 
        purpose of making parity payments as is not used for such 
        purpose shall be covered into the Treasury to offset the 
        appropriations made pursuant to the authority of this act. . . 
        .

        My contention is that paragraph (b) diverts an appropriation 
    already made to a different purpose, therefore is a violation of 
    the rule. If there should be any doubt in the mind of the Chair, I 
    should like to be heard further on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. Fulmer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to comment 
    on the point of order except to state I do not believe that the 
    point of order is germane; therefore, it should not be sustained. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined this paragraph very carefully. The Chair 
    calls attention to the fact that the paragraph provides that the 
    sum of money, whatever sum it may be, appropriated for the purpose 
    of making parity payments and not used for such purpose shall be 
    covered into the Treasury to offset the appropriations made 
    pursuant to the authority of this act.

[[Page 5073]]

        The paragraph contemplates that there will be further action by 
    the Congress before any appropriation is made available. Therefore, 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Is the holding of the Chair in the 
    language the Chair just used to the effect that further action is 
    necessary, that under the legislative history of this bill it would 
    not be possible for the proponents of this legislation to come 
    before the Committee on Appropriations and maintain that the hands 
    of the Committee on Appropriations had already been tied by the 
    action on this bill?
        The Chairman: Before there could be any activity under the 
    provisions of this bill, there must be appropriate action by the 
    Congress making money available for the purposes therein set forth.

Membership in International Organization

Sec. 4.42 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee 
    providing ``that the President is hereby authorized to accept 
    membership for the United States in the United Nations Educational, 
    Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the Constitution of which 
    was approved in London on November 16, 1945, by the United Nations 
    Conference for the establishment of an Educational, Scientific, and 
    Cultural Organization, and deposited in the Archives of the 
    Government of the United Kingdom'' was held not to involve an 
    appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently 
    clause 5) merely because the constitution of the organization 
    provided that ``the general conference shall approve and give final 
    effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial 
    responsibility among the states members of the organization . . . 
    .'' since a subsequent appropriation was authorized by the bill.

    On May 21, 1946,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 305, relating to United States 
participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
Cultural Organization. The following proceedings took place as the 
joint resolution was considered for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 5388-95, 79th Cong. 2d Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the President is hereby authorized to 
    accept membership for the United States in the United Nations 
    Educational, Scientific,

[[Page 5074]]

    and Cultural Organization (hereinafter referred to as the 
    ``Organization''), the constitution of which was approved in London 
    on November 16, 1945. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against section 1 of the bill, beginning in line 3 on page 1, 
    and ending in line 2 on page 2. . . .
        I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that it 
    is an appropriation coming from a committee not authorized to 
    report appropriations to the House. That kind of a point of order 
    can be made at any time during the consideration of the bill.
        I call the attention of the Chair to article IX of the 
    constitution of this Organization which appears in the report of 
    the committee on page 9.
        It says:

            The General Conference shall approve and give final effect 
        to the budget and to the apportionment of financial 
        responsibility among the states members of the Organization 
        subject to such arrangement with the United Nations as may be 
        provided in the agreement to be entered into pursuant to 
        article X.

        Let me call attention to the fact that this authorizes the 
    validation of that article. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against section 
    1 of the resolution on the ground that it appropriates money and 
    comes from a committee not authorized to make appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Colmer (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No appropriation is made in section 1 of the bill.
        Section 4 of the joint resolution would authorize an 
    appropriation at a later date to be appropriated by the appropriate 
    committee.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sec. 4 stated in part:
            There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually to 
        the Department of State, out of any money in the Treasury not 
        otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the 
        payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of 
        the Organization as apportioned by the General Conference of 
        the Organization in accordance with article IX of the 
        constitution of the Organization, and such additional sums as 
        may be necessary to pay the expenses of participation by the 
        United States in the activities of the Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [Frank A.] Mathews [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mathews: The point of order is as follows: As I understand, 
    upon the adoption of this resolution the United States of America 
    authorizes the President to make it, the United States, a member of 
    this Organization whose constitution is set forth in the report of 
    the committee.
        Under article IX of that constitution headed ``Budget'' the 
    following appears:

            Sec. 1. The budget shall be administered by the 
        Organization.
            2. The General Conference shall approve and give final 
        effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial 
        responsibility among the states members of the Organization--

[[Page 5075]]

        And so forth. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that in effect 
    practically delegates the power of appropriation of this body to an 
    organization or a part of an organization which is not composed of 
    Members of this body and not acting officially. I contend further, 
    therefore, that we have no right constitutionally to so delegate 
    liability for those appropriations or expenditures. . . .
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: May I suggest to the 
    gentleman from New Jersey that the Chair has already ruled on 
    practically an identical point of order.
        Mr. Mathews: That was not the same point.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair, in 
    construing a point of order raised by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Taber) on a similar proposition, ruled that it was not an 
    appropriation and, therefore, the point of order did not lie. The 
    Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from New Jersey to the 
    fact that section 4, page 5, is the authorization section of the 
    joint resolution, and that money could not be appropriated until it 
    was authorized by that section.
        The point of order is overruled.

Loans From Public Debt Proceeds

Sec. 4.43 A discussion of the nature of an ``appropriation'' took place 
    in the House when language in a housing bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to use proceeds of public-debt issues for 
    the purpose of making loans was held not to be an appropriation and 
    not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).

    On June 27, 1949,(21) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole to consider the Housing Act of 
1949.(22) During the committee's consideration, the 
following language was read: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 8451, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
22. H.R. 4009.
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 8480, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) To obtain funds for loans under this title, the 
    Administrator, on and after July 1, 1949, may, with the approval of 
    the President, issue and have outstanding at any one time notes and 
    obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury in an 
    amount not to exceed $25,000,000. . . .
        (f) Notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator 
    under this title shall be in such forms and denominations, have 
    such maturities, and be subject to such terms and conditions as may 
    be prescribed by the Administrator, with the approval of the 
    Secretary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall 
    bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the 
    Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on 
    outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the 
    last day of the month preceding the issuance of such notes or other 
    obligations. The Sec

[[Page 5076]]

    retary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any 
    notes and other obligations of the Administrator issued under this 
    title and for such purpose is authorized to use as a public debt 
    transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued 
    under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for 
    which securities may be issued under such act, as amended, are 
    extended to include any purchases of such notes and other 
    obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any 
    of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this 
    section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of 
    the Treasury of such notes or other obligations shall be treated as 
    public debt transactions of the United States.

    On the next day, Members discussed the effect of such language: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 8536-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section 
    102 in title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the 
    Federal Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is 
    without jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under 
    clause 4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution 
    carrying appropriations shall be reported by any committee not 
    having jurisdiction to report appropriations.
        This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in 
    consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this 
    proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting 
    funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree.
        The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the 
    Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must 
    follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury 
    is an appropriation.
        I invite the attention of the Chairman to the fact that 
    subparagraph (e) states:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title, the 
        Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any one time 
        notes and obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, which limit on 
        such outstanding amount shall be increased by $225,000,000 on 
        July 1, 1950, and by further amounts of $250,000,000 on July 1 
        in each of the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively--

        Within the total authorization of $1,000,000,000.
        Further that subparagraph (f) provides that--

            The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed--

        And I call particular attention to the use of the words ``and 
    directed''--to purchase any notes and other obligations of the 
    Administrator issued under this title and for such purpose is 
    authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from 
    the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond 
    Act, as amended--
        And so forth. The way in which this particular language extends 
    this device of giving the Secretary authority to subscribe for 
    notes by some authority

[[Page 5077]]

    is this: It includes the words ``and directed.''
        In other words, the Secretary of the Treasury has no 
    alternative when the Administrator presents to him some of these 
    securities for purchase but to purchase them. The Secretary of the 
    Treasury is not limited to purchasing them by proceeds from the 
    sale of bonds or securities. He is directed to purchase these notes 
    and obligations issued by the Administrator. That means he might 
    use funds obtained from taxes, that he might use funds obtained 
    through the assignment of miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury, 
    that he might use funds obtained through the proceeds of bonds. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, this is not, as I said earlier, a casual point of 
    order; we are here dealing with the fundamental power of the 
    Congress to control appropriations. No such device has ever before, 
    so far as I can find out, been presented to the Congress for 
    getting money in the guise of a legislative bill without its having 
    been considered by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a 
    mandatory extraction of funds from the Public Treasury, and, 
    consequently, constitutes an appropriation and is beyond the 
    authority or the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency to report in this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the raising of 
    funds by public debt transaction has been frequently authorized by 
    the Congress: The Export-Import Bank raises funds by that method; 
    the Bretton Woods Agreement, in my recollection, is carried out by 
    that method; the British loan was financed by that method, and the 
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was also financed by that 
    method. It does not seem to me that this is a seasonable objection. 
    This has been the policy of the Congress for years.
        Mr. Chairman, this is not raising money to be appropriated for 
    the purposes that ordinary appropriation bills carry. All of this 
    money is to be used as loans.
        The gentleman says that in other acts the Secretary of the 
    Treasury is ``authorized'' but not ``directed''. I contend that the 
    meaning of ``authorized'' and ``directed'' in this act is 
    absolutely the same.
        Do you think when you authorize the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to raise funds to carry out a great public purpose it is in his 
    discretion whether he shall raise those funds and that that shall 
    depend on the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury? I say 
    ``authorized'' in this sense means ``directed.'' It could not mean 
    anything else, otherwise you would be delegating to an officer of 
    the Government entire discretion as to whether or not great 
    national acts should be carried out and the purposes of Congress 
    should be subserved.

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, in most of the acts 
    which the gentleman has suggested, points of order were waived, and 
    I refer to Bretton Woods and some of the other bills. But as to the 
    particular point here in issue, the question whether the words 
    ``and directed'' have any meaning, if they do not have any meaning 
    why are they there? The present housing act merely authorizes the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to purchase. It does not say ``and 
    directed.'' The very inclu

[[Page 5078]]

    sion of the words ``and directed'' is evidence of the fact they 
    have a special meaning They create a mandatory extraction of funds 
    from the Public Treasury.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I still contend unless you would make 
    our acts a nullity ``authorized'' and ``directed'' have exactly the 
    same meaning when applied to a public official charged with 
    carrying out a great national act. I do not think there can be any 
    reasonable construction that would hold otherwise. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    agree with my friend who has raised the point of order that this is 
    not a casual one, but, on the contrary, is a very sincere one. It 
    presents a new question from a legislative angle to be passed upon 
    in the direct question raised by the point of order.
        The gentleman from South Dakota has referred to the 
    Constitution. The Constitution says:

            No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of appropriations made by law.

        The word ``appropriations'' is used.
        The rule referred to, clause 4, rule 21, says:

            No bill or resolution carrying appropriations shall be 
        reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations.

        You will note the word ``appropriations'' is used. Now, let us 
    see what ``appropriations'' means.
        I have before me Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary and 
    ``appropriations'' is defined as follows: To set apart for a 
    particular use. To take for one's own use.

            The provisions of this bill are not taking for one's own 
        use, because this is a loan designed purely for loan purposes. 
        It is not a definite appropriation. It is giving authority to 
        utilize for loan purposes and the money comes back into the 
        Treasury of the United States with interest.
            Again, the word ``appropriations'' is defined:
            Something, as money, appropriated--

        I call particular attention to those words ``something, as 
    money, appropriated''--
        or set apart, as by a legislature, for a special use.

        I repeat ``something, as money.''
        The provision in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a 
    point of order against relates entirely to loans. As we read 
    section 102 of title I it starts out with loans. Throughout the 
    bill, a number of times, there is reference to loans.
        Paragraph (e) says:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title.

        It is a loan.
        The meat of the two paragraphs, as I see it, is this:
        Paragraph (f), line 23, page 8, says:

            The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to 
        purchase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator 
        issued under this title and for such purpose is authorized to 
        use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of 
        any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued 
        under such act, as amended, are extended to include any 
        purchases of such notes and other obligations.

[[Page 5079]]

        It seems to me that that is the meat. Certainly, the language 
    there does not amount to an appropriation. It is entirely for loan 
    purposes. . . .
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: The gentleman has 
    discussed the point--the difference between the word ``authorized'' 
    and ``directed.'' Does not the gentleman realize that he is 
    ``authorized'' to appear on the floor and ``authorized'' to make 
    statements? The gentleman is not ``directed'' to. Now, following 
    further, the Committee on Appropriations of this House is 
    ``authorized'' to do certain things, but the gentleman must realize 
    that the Committee on Appropriations is not ``directed'' to do 
    certain things. There is a real difference, a constitutional 
    difference between the words ``authorized'' and ``directed.'' The 
    gentleman is ``authorized'' to walk down the street and 
    ``authorized'' to do many things. But the gentleman would fight for 
    his right not to be ``directed'' to do what he is ``authorized'' to 
    do. The gentleman's argument is farfetched. This is a serious 
    situation.
        Mr. McCormack: There is nothing the gentleman has said that I 
    can disagree with except that everything the gentleman has said has 
    no application to the matter pending now. The basic question here 
    is whether or not this is an appropriation within the meaning of 
    the rules or money that is going to be utilized for loan purposes 
    and recovered back into the General Treasury. So the gentleman's 
    observations, as I see it, respecting the gentleman as I do, have 
    no application at all to the basic and pertinent question presented 
    to the Chair by the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota. . . .
        Mr. [John] Phillips of California: The question has to do with 
    the meaning of ``authorized and directed.'' Within the past 6 weeks 
    I have had a bill before one of the major committees of this House. 
    The county counsel of my home county raised the question of whether 
    the wording should be ``authorized`` or ``authorized and directed'' 
    in four different places in the bill. It was taken up with the 
    attorneys for the Interior Department. The attorneys recognized the 
    distinction between ``authorized'' and ``authorized and directed,'' 
    and agreed upon the inclusion in certain instances and not in 
    others. There is a recognized distinction, Mr Chairman.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the 
    point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a 
    matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain, 
    this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this 
    issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
        As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns 
    on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in 
    its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of 
    the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of 
    the general functions of Government. The language before us does 
    not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to use proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making 
    loans. Under the language, the Treasury of the United

[[Page 5080]]

     States makes advances which will be repaid in full with interest 
    over a period of years without cost to the taxpayers.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not 
    constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order. . . 
    .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that 
    language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the 
    proceeds of the securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act 
    and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous 
    receipts or tax revenues?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that 
    distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has 
    been raised. . . . The Chair can make a distinction between the 
    general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific 
    purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved 
    here.

Future Foreign Currency Proceeds From Exports

Sec. 4.44 To a bill reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, an 
    amendment earmarking a specified amount of the funds authorized by 
    the bill to be used specifically for the purchase and export of 
    surplus agricultural commodities and providing that future foreign 
    currency proceeds therefrom would be used for the purposes of the 
    act was held not to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5).

        On June 29, 1954,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954. An 
    amendment was offered and a point of order raised as indicated 
    below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 9238, 9239, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Judd:
            Page 29, line 15, strike out all on lines 15 through 23 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``Sec. 402. Earmarking of funds: Of the funds authorized to 
        be made available pursuant to this act, not less than $500 
        million shall be used to finance the purchase and export of 
        surplus agricultural commodities or products thereof produced 
        in the United States and foreign currency proceeds therefrom 
        shall be used for the purposes of this act pursuant to section 
        104 of the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Clarence J. Brown (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the . . . point of order that 
    it involves an appropriation of funds, and I call attention to the 
    fact that the language says that these funds that are realized from 
    the sale of these products can be used for a particular purpose. 
    That makes an appropriation out of it.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 5081]]

        This is not an appropriation. The total bill authorizes the 
    appropriation of about $3.4 billion. This section is a limitation 
    or earmarking of funds that may be appropriated under the 
    authorization. It says that of the $3.4 billion, if and when it is 
    appropriated, not less than $500 million shall be used for a given 
    purpose. This is language that is almost word for word the same as 
    section 550 of the act last year, except the act last year said not 
    less than $100 million and not to exceed $250 million should be 
    used for this purpose of purchasing surplus agricultural 
    commodities to be used as aid instead of dollars. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        On a careful reading of the amendment as modified--and I wish 
    to read the wording of it--``of the funds authorized to be made 
    available pursuant to this act not less than,'' and so forth--it is 
    the ruling of the Chair that this amendment should be interpreted 
    to mean that unless the appropriation is first authorized, the 
    amendment has no effect whatsoever and therefore the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.23, supra, where language 
authorizing new use of existing foreign currency proceeds already 
available for a different purpose under existing law was ruled out as 
an appropriation.

Reconstituted Area Redevelopment Fund

Sec. 4.45 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency repealing the public-debt financing 
    provisions of the Area Redevelopment (revolving) Fund, and, in lieu 
    thereof, authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted Area 
    Redevelopment Fund, was held not to be an appropriation within the 
    purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) where another 
    section of the bill authorized subsequent appropriations for the 
    fund.

    On June 12, 1963,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4996, a bill amending the Area Redevelopment Act. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was raised as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 10721, 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 6. (a) Subsection (a) of section 9 of the Area 
    Redevelopment Act is repealed.
        (b) Subsection (b) of section 9 of such Act is redesignated as 
    subsection (a), and the first sentence of such subsection as so 
    redesignated is amended to read as follows: ``There shall be in the 
    Treasury of the United States an area redevelopment fund 
    (hereinafter referred to as the `fund') which shall be available to 
    the Secretary for the purpose of extending financial assistance 
    under sections 6 and 7 and for repayment of all obligations and 
    expenditures arising therefrom.''. . .

[[Page 5082]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Iowa will state 
    it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 5, line 18, beginning with the words ``and the 
    first sentence of such subsection as so redesignated is amended to 
    read as follows:''. . .
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this constitutes, 
    in fact, an appropriation in a legislative bill
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this just merely 
    restates existing law. It just creates a fund which already exists, 
    really, and the fund will be supplemented by the amount 
    appropriated through regular channels. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    whether or not additional appropriations are required for this 
    fund?
        Mr. Patman: Yes, sir; they are required.
        The Chairman: They are required?
        Mr. Patman: Yes; section 10 says:

            Funds appropriated for the purpose of extending financial 
        assistance under sections 6 and 7 shall be deposited in the 
        Area Redevelopment Fund in the Treasury of the United States.

        The Chairman: Additional legislation would be necessary to 
    appropriate funds. The Chair holds this is an authorization and 
    overrules the point of order.

Use of Loan Repayments

Sec. 4.46 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency repealing the public debt financing 
    provisions of the Area Redevelopment Act fund, in lieu thereof 
    authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted fund, and applying 
    receipts from the repayments of loans to the credit of available 
    appropriations was held not to be an appropriation within the 
    purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) upon 
    assurances that such receipts could not be reused without a 
    subsequent appropriation.

    On June 12, 1963,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Area Redevelopment Act amendments (H.R. 
4996) a point of order was raised against the following language, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  109 Cong. Rec. 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 7. Section 11 of the Area Redevelopment Act is amended--
        (1) by striking out ``$4,500,000'' and inserting in lieu 
    thereof ``$10,000,000''; and
        (2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ``The 
    Secretary, in

[[Page 5083]]

    his discretion, may require repayment of the assistance provided 
    under this section and prescribe the terms and conditions of such 
    repayment. Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the 
    appropriation available for assistance under this section which is 
    current at the time of repayment.''. . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language found on page 6 of the bill, line 23, which reads as 
    follows:

            Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the 
        appropriation available for assistance under this section which 
        is current at the time of repayment.

        I again make the point of order that this constitutes in fact 
    an appropriation in a legislative act.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this concerns 
    repayment and disposal of it after it has been repaid from which it 
    was originally appropriated. I do not believe the gentleman's point 
    of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: May the Chair inquire whether these funds can be 
    reused?
        Mr. Patman: I am sure they have to be reappropriated. The funds 
    received cannot be reused, they have to be reappropriated.
        The Chairman: Relying upon that assurance, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order because additional legislation would be 
    necessary.

Senate Ruling on Public Debt Transaction Financing

Sec. 4.47 The Presiding Officer of the Senate ruled that a provision in 
    a bill authorizing use of proceeds of public debt transactions for 
    financing loans to the Development Loan Fund did not constitute an 
    appropriation in a legislative bill in contravention of Senate Rule 
    XVI.

    On July 1, 1959,(10) the following point of order was 
raised, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12435-37, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also Sec. 4.43, supra, for a similar ruling under the 
        rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. President, I desire 
    to make a point of order regarding the language which appears on 
    page 16, beginning in line 13, and through line 13 on page 17. That 
    part of the bill is section 203; and I make the point of order 
    against it. . . .
        The point of order is that that provision constitutes an 
    appropriation, and that an appropriation cannot be made in a 
    legislative bill reported by the Foreign Relations Committee. . . .
        I invite the attention of the Chair to the language of the 
    provision itself:

            (b) For purposes of the loans provided for in this section, 
        the Sec

[[Page 5084]]

        retary of the Treasury is authorized to use the proceeds of the 
        sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act 
        as now in force or as hereafter amended, and the purposes for 
        which securities may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond 
        Act are hereby extended to include this purpose. The President 
        shall determine the terms and conditions of any advances or 
        loans made to the Fund pursuant to this section. . . .
            The amount of such obligations also may not exceed the 
        limitations specified in section 203(a) of this Act except 
        that, to the extent that assets of the Fund other than 
        capitalization provided pursuant to section 203(a) are 
        available, obligations may be incurred beyond such limitations. 
        . . .

        The Presiding Officer: (11) The Chair has not had an 
    opportunity to study the point of order. After discussion with the 
    Parliamentarian, the Chair believes it may be necessary to examine 
    the precedents in connection with this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank E. Moss (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wonders whether the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
    Committee has any comment to make in connection with this matter.
        Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I 
    think the precedents are so clear that the Chair would not need to 
    study the matter. There have been many precedents. The form of this 
    provision is precisely the same as the language used 2 years ago 
    when the Senate voted to approve this very operation of borrowing 
    through the public debt transactions. . . .
        The Presiding Officer: In view of the precedents of other 
    legislation which has passed this body, including revolving funds 
    created thereunder, even though the point of order was not squarely 
    raised before, the Chair feels disposed to follow the precedents, 
    and overrules the point of order.