[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills]
[Â§ 13. House-Senate Relations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5157-5185]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 13. House-Senate Relations

    The general subject of relations between the House and Senate, and 
that of House-Senate conferences, are discussed in other 
chapters.(15) This section discusses a few issues that arise 
specifically with respect to appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra; Ch. 33, House-Senate 
        Conferences, infra. See also Ch. 13, Powers and Prerogatives of 
        the House, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Constitution, it is exclusively the prerogative of the

[[Page 5158]]

House to originate revenue bills. Article I, section 7, clause 1, 
provides that,

        All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
    Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
    Amendments as on other Bills.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 102 (1981).
            See also Constitution of the United States of America: 
        Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess. pp. 125, 126 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of this prerogative is discussed in detail 
elsewhere.(17) (Because questions relating to the 
prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation involve 
interpretation of the Constitution rather than House rules, they are 
decided by the House rather than the Chair.) (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13-20, supra.
18. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has traditionally taken the view that this prerogative 
encompasses the sole power to originate at least the general 
appropriation bills. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, has observed: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cannon's Procedure (1959) p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under immemorial custom the general appropriation bills, 
    providing for a number of subjects (20) as distinguished 
    from special bills appropriating for single, specific 
    purposes,(1) originate in the House of Representatives 
    and there has been no deviation from that practice since the 
    establishment of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3566-68.
 1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the view expressed by Mr. Cannon, the House has returned 
Senate-passed general appropriation bills.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate has not always accepted the view that the House has the 
exclusive right to originate appropriation measures.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issues sometimes arise with respect to the implications of House 
rules barring, in specified circumstances, unauthorized appropriations 
and legislation on general appropriation bills,(4) and 
appropriations on legislative bills.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Ch. 26, infra, for general discussion of Rule XXI clause 2.
 5. See Sec. 4, supra, for general discussion of appropriations on 
        legislative bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Points of order under the House rule prohibiting appropriations on 
legislative bills (6) have been successfully directed 
against items of appropriation in Senate bills, for 
example,(7) but not against a Senate amendment to an 
appropriation bill.(8) Procedural remedies

[[Page 5159]]

against the inclusion of appropriations in Senate bills also include 
possible points of order under section 401 of the Congressional Budget 
Act (if the Senate provision can be construed as new spending authority 
not subject to amounts specified in advance in appropriations acts 
where budget authority has not been provided in advance; section 401 is 
not applicable where money has already been appropriated and is in a 
revolving fund).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
 7. See Sec. 13.16, infra.
 8. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1572. Rule XXI clause 5 does apply 
        to an amendment in the House to a Senate amendment to a House 
        legislative bill. See Procedure in the U.S. House of 
        Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.29 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may also return Senate bills which contain appropriations 
to the Senate by asserting the constitutional prerogative of the House 
to originate ``revenue'' measures, which, as noted above, are construed 
to include at least ``general appropriation bills.''
    A rule of the House (9) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill 
    which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of Rule 
    XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House,(10) 
    nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon 
    any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed 
    to by the managers on the part of the House unless specific 
    authority to agree to such amendment shall be first given by the 
    House by a separate vote on every such amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981), 
        prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
        general appropriation bills. For further discussion of 
        unauthorized appropriations and legislation on general 
        appropriation bills, generally, and Senate amendments that 
        violate the rule, see Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this rule, where a House legislative measure has been 
committed to conference, and the conferees agree to a Senate amendment 
appropriating funds, the conference report thereon may be ruled 
out.(11) In the 96th Congress, a point of order that House 
conferees had violated clause 2 of Rule XX by agreeing to a provision 
in a Senate amendment to a House legislative bill, directing the use of 
funds already appropriated for a new purpose, was conceded, and the 
conference report was ruled out of order.(12) But a point of 
order against an appropriation in a conference report on a legislative 
bill will only lie under the rule if that provision was originally 
contained in a Senate amendment and if House conferees were without 
specific authority to agree to that amend

[[Page 5160]]

ment, and will not lie against a provision permitted by the House to 
remain in its bill.(13) Moreover, since the rule applies 
only to Senate amendments which are sent to conference, it does not 
apply to appropriations contained in Senate legislative 
bills.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 13.8, 13.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 13.9, infra.
13. See Sec. 13.12, infra.
14. See Sec. 13.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an appropriation for a certain purpose has been enacted into 
law, a provision in a legislative bill authorizing the use, without a 
subsequent appropriation, of those funds for a new purpose constitutes 
an appropriation prohibited by clause 5 of Rule XXI, and if in a Senate 
amendment included in a conference report violates clause 2 of Rule XX 
(prohibiting House conferees from agreeing to such a provision absent 
authority from the House).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.30 
        and Ch. 33 Sec. 15.13. (4th 
        ed.).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prerogatives of House and Senate

Sec. 13.1 A discussion took place in the House with regard to the 
    prerogatives of the House in initiating the forms of general 
    appropriation bills, during debate on a motion that the House 
    instruct its managers of a conference committee not to agree to a 
    Senate amendment to a War Department appropriation bill.

    On June 24, 1937,(16) during consideration of the War 
Department appropriation bill of 1938, the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 6304-06, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of the powers of the two Houses with 
        respect to revenue and appropriation measures, see Ch. 13, 
        supra. See also Chs. 32 and 33, infra, for discussion of House-
        Senate relations, conferences, and related matters. And see 
        Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 
    6692, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
    amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker: (17) Is there objection? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Appropriations, I submit a motion, which I send to 
    the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the managers on the part 
        of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the

[[Page 5161]]

        bill H.R. 6692, the Military Appropriation Act, 1938, be 
        instructed not to agree to the Senate amendments to such bill 
        numbered 47 to 77, inclusive, and 80, and not to agree to the 
        amendment of the Senate amending the title of such bill.

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution confers 
    upon the House and the Senate respectively certain exclusive 
    prerogatives. Among those reserved to the House by the Constitution 
    is the right to originate revenue bills, and from the beginning of 
    the Government the House has asserted and successfully maintained 
    that the right to originate revenue bills also involves the right 
    to initiate general appropriation bills. That has been the uniform 
    practice, and in keeping with that doctrine the House has 
    formulated the general appropriation bills since the establishment 
    of the Government. Of course, the right to originate general 
    appropriation bills necessarily includes the right to determine the 
    form and the manner in which they shall be presented, and from the 
    beginning the number and scope of the various annual supply bills 
    have been determined by the House with the acquiescence of the 
    Senate. Only on one or two rare occasions has this right of the 
    House been questioned, and in each such instance the Senate has 
    promptly disavowed any intention of infringing on the 
    constitutional prerogatives of the House and yielded without 
    contention.
        The last instance was in the second session of the Sixty-second 
    Congress and was the occasion for an exhaustive study of the 
    subject by Hon. John Sharp Williams, formerly minority leader of 
    the House and at the time a member of the Senate, which was 
    published as a Senate document and which so conclusively confirmed 
    the contention of the House that its right to originate the general 
    supply bills and determine their form had not since been challenged 
    until the receipt just now of a message from the Senate informing 
    the House that the Senate has assumed the right to combine the two 
    War Department appropriation bills by attaching the nonmilitary 
    bill to the military bill as an amendment. . . .
        The motion offered proposes [that House conferees be 
    instructed] to decline to agree to the amendment by which the two 
    bills have been merged or to any perfecting amendment which may 
    have been made to the text of the nonmilitary bill. Under such 
    instruction, House conferees will be at liberty to consider and 
    agree in full on the final text of the War Department appropriation 
    bill providing for military activities and the Senate may then 
    message over as a separate bill the nonmilitary bill, as amended by 
    the Senate, and the House will appoint conferees to meet with 
    Senate conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
    bill as originated by the House of Representatives.

    The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 13.2 The Senate receded from its amendments which proposed to 
    attach a nonmilitary appropriation bill to a military activities 
    appropriation bill and in so doing discussed the role of the Senate 
    in amending general appropriation bills of the House.

[[Page 5162]]

    On July 1, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took 
place in the Senate during consideration of a conference report on H.R. 
6692 (appropriations for the military establishment):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. 6652-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of 
        the powers of the two Houses with respect to revenue and 
        appropriation measures, see Ch. 13, supra. See also Chs. 32 and 
        33, infra, for discussion of House-Senate relations, 
        conferences, and related matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Royal S.] Copeland [of New York]: Mr. President, I am 
    about to move the adoption of the report, but before doing so I 
    think an explanation should be made to the Senate. I am sure that 
    the matter which I shall present will be of interest to every 
    Senator, because it has to do with the rights of the Senate 
    regarding appropriation bills.
        During the 15 years of my membership in the Senate, and for a 
    long time prior thereto, it has been the custom to embody all 
    appropriations for the Military Establishment in one bill. This 
    year the House . . . undertook to . . . separate the appropriations 
    and embody them in two bills, one devoted to the strictly military 
    activities . . . and a second to the nonmilitary activities of the 
    Government. . . .
        The Senate Committee on Appropriations decided to blend the 
    bills and to present them to the Senate as they have been presented 
    through many years. Explanation was made to the Senate, and the 
    Senate, by unanimous vote, decided to accept and act upon the bill 
    in the usual form.

    After discussing the response of the House, and noting the 
existence of divergent views of the respective prerogatives of the 
Houses relating to appropriation bills and their form, the Senator 
stated:

        Of course, we do not concede . . . that the Constitution 
    confers upon the House any such right to initiate general 
    appropriation bills. . . .
        Mr. President, I am instructed by the Committee on 
    Appropriations to say that we challenge the contention that it is 
    the exclusive right of the House to determine the form and number 
    of appropriation bills.

    The Senator, however, noted the existence of special circumstances 
in the present case, and indicated he would therefore move that the 
conference report be agreed to. The conference report was accordingly 
agreed to. The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate agree to the 
    amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate numbered 
    24, 26, and 79.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate recede from its 
    amendments still in disagreement, and its amendment to the title of 
    the bill.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson [of Utah]: Mr. President, I should like to 
    ask the Senator from New York to tell the Senate the status of the 
    military appropriations, and the status of the nonmilitary 
    appropriations. In what condition does this action leave them?

[[Page 5163]]

        Mr. Copeland: Mr. President, title I of the Senate bill, which 
    is the military part, has now been agreed to by both Houses, and on 
    my motion, just made, we receded from the amendments which covered 
    the nonmilitary appropriations.
        I now wish to present to the Senate for immediate action House 
    bill 7493, as amended by the Senate committee and by the Senate to 
    cover the nonmilitary item, so that the House will be in the 
    position of having two bills, as it desires.
        Mr. Robinson: In other words, that puts the Senate in the 
    position of completely yielding to the House?
        Mr. Copeland: Yes.

Reference of Bill to Committee on Appropriations

Sec. 13.3 The Speaker announces to the House that he has referred a 
    general appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto to the 
    Committee on Appropriations

    On July 2, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that he has referred 
    the bill H.R. 3368, the war agencies bill, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, to the Committee on Appropriations.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the Speaker has this discretionary 
authority to refer Senate amendments to any bill under Rule XXIV clause 
2, it is seldom exercised.

Conferees for Separate Chapters of Bill

Sec. 13.4 The Speaker has appointed a series of conferees for separate 
    chapters of an appropriation bill.

    On July 27, 1955,(1) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 11686, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints 
    the following conferees: Messrs. Cannon and Taber; and on chapter 
    I, Messrs. Whitten, Marshall, and H. Carl Anderson; on chapter II, 
    Messrs. Preston, Thomas, and Bow; on chapter III, Messrs. Mahon, 
    Sheppard, Sikes, Wigglesworth, Scrivner, and Ford; on chapter IV, 
    Messrs. Passman, Gary, and Wigglesworth.

[[Page 5164]]

Sec. 13.5 In appointing conferees on the general appropriation bill, 
    1951, the Speaker appointed a set of conferees for each chapter of 
    the bill, and four Members to sit in the conference on all 
    chapters.

    On Aug. 7, 1950,(2) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, and the following proceedings ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11894, 11895, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill H.R. 
    7786, an act making appropriations for the support of the 
    Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other 
    purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
    amendments, and ask for a conference with the Senate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints 
    the following conferees.
        Managers on the part of the House:
        Messrs. Cannon, Rabaut, Norrell, Taber, and on Chap. I, Messrs. 
    Bates of Kentucky, Yates, Furcolo, Stockman, and Wilson of Indiana; 
    on Chap. II, Messrs. McGrath, Kirwan, Andrews, Canfield, and 
    Scrivner; on Chap. III, Messrs. Rooney, Flood, Preston, Stefan, and 
    Clevenger. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Will the chairman take a minute to 
    explain how the conferees will operate under this arrangement?
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
    House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we expect to go to conference tomorrow 
    morning at 10 o'clock. The bill will be taken up by chapters 
    seriatim. As a chapter is reached the entire subcommittee which 
    wrote that particular chapter, and which therefore is more familiar 
    with it than anyone else on the committee, along with the other 
    managers on the part of the House, will take up the chapter with 
    the Senate conferees.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: This means, then, that the four 
    Members who were first named will sit through the entire 
    conference.
        Mr. Cannon: They are the ranking members on the central 
    subcommittee which reported the bill to the House and will sit with 
    the respective subcommittees throughout the conference.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: And the Members who are assigned to a 
    particular chapter will receive notification as their particular 
    chapter is approached?
        Mr. Cannon: When a chapter is taken up, the conferees on the 
    next succeeding chapter will be notified. We hope to proceed with 
    as little delay as possible, subject always to the approval of the 
    managers on the part of the Senate.

[[Page 5165]]

Agreement as to Selection of Conference Chairman

Sec. 13.6 An agreement was made between the House and the Senate 
    Committees on Appropriations with respect to selecting a conference 
    chairman.

    On July 19, 1962,(3) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 14133, 14134, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, each branch of Congress in conference has group 
    autonomy. The selection of the conference chairman is procedural 
    for orderly functioning of the conference. Realizing this, the 
    question of the selection of the conference chairman for the 
    present session of Congress shall be left to the decision of the 
    two subcommittee chairmen.
        It is agreed by the joint committee on behalf of the full 
    Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives that for this session only the subcommittee 
    chairmen of each body shall decide who shall act as chairman of the 
    conference. It is further agreed that the chairmen of the Senate 
    and House Committees on Appropriations appoint representatives of 
    each committee to serve as a joint committee to study all the 
    issues involved and to report in January 1963 their 
    recommendations.

Appropriations on Legislative Bills--Duty of Conferees

Sec. 13.7 Conferees of the House may not in conference agree to a 
    Senate amendment providing for an appropriation upon any other than 
    a general appropriation bill without first having secured specific 
    authority from the House to do so.

    On May 22, 1936,(4) a Member addressed Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 9496) to protect the United 
    States against loss in the delivery through the mails of checks in 
    payment of benefits provided for by laws administered by the 
    Veterans' Administration, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement may be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order on the conference report that it includes an appropriation 
    which is contrary to the rules of the House and the Senate. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman 
    of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a 
    conference report signed by the conferees on the part of the Senate 
    and the House. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the 
    point of order that the conference report is out of order because 
    the conferees on the part of the House

[[Page 5166]]

    in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate providing an 
    appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
        Senate amendment no. 1 contains the following language:

            The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance, 
        from time to time, to the Postmaster General, from the 
        appropriation contained in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 
        fiscal year 1936, approved February 11, 1936, for 
        ``administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment act, 
        1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937'', such sums as are 
        certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the 
        expenses of the Post Office Department in connection with the 
        handling of the bonds issued hereunder. Such bonds--

        This amendment also contains the following language:

            The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the 
        Postmaster General, from the aforesaid appropriation contained 
        in said supplemental appropriation act, for such postage and 
        registry fees as may be required in connection with such 
        transmittal.

        Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of 
    Representatives, reads as follows:

            No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill 
        which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of 
        rule XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House, nor 
        any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon 
        any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be 
        agreed to by the managers on the part of the House unless 
        specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be first 
        given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

        It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the 
    House in agreeing in conference to Senate amendment no. 1 violated 
    the provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an 
    appropriation.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
        The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, if the conference report is out of 
    order, how can we consider it?
        The Speaker: The amendments are before the House and must be 
    disposed of.
        Mr. Snell: I supposed that the whole report went out.
        The Speaker: The report goes out, but that leaves the 
    amendments before the House, and some action must be taken on them. 
    It is for the House to say what action it will take. . . .
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan] (interrupting the reading of 
    the Senate amendment): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, supplementing what the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell] has said, an attempt was made to get this bill 
    before the House by calling up the conference report and the 
    conference report was held out of order. No further action to get 
    the bill before the House has been taken. There has been no request 
    to bring it up in any other way

[[Page 5167]]

    except through the conference report, and the Speaker, very 
    properly I think, has ruled that the conference report is out of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The conference report was called up by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead]. The conference report has been 
    held to be out of order, which leaves the Senate amendments before 
    the House for consideration. The House must take some action on 
    them.
        Mr. Mapes: How do the amendments get before the House for 
    consideration?
        The Speaker: They are called up by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Mead].
        Mr. Mapes: No attempt has been made by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Mead], as I understand, to call them up.
        The Speaker: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman from 
    Michigan, reads from section 3257 of Cannon's Precedents:

            When a conference report is ruled out of order the bill and 
        amendments are again before the House as when first presented, 
        and motions relating to amendments and conference are again in 
        order.

        The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Mr. Mapes: That seems to cover the matter.
        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lehlbach: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate 
    privileged?
        The Speaker: After the stage of disagreement has been reached 
    they are. For this reason it is necessary that the House take some 
    action upon the amendments at this time.

Sec. 13.8 Where House conferees agreed to a Senate amendment providing 
    that ``benefits shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
    disability fund'', such an agreement constituted a violation of 
    Rule XX clause 2, and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Oct. 4, 1962,(5) a Member addressed Speaker pro 
tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal 
    rates, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object and I do so in order to make a parliamentary inquiry, I 
    desire to make a point of order against considerations of the 
    conference report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report, and I ask to be recognized 
    at the proper time to make that point of order.

[[Page 5168]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the Clerk reports the title of 
    the bill, the gentleman may be recognized.
        The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa makes a point 
    of order. The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    conference report on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule 
    XX of the House rules.
        Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:

            Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an 
        appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation 
        bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the 
        House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment 
        shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every 
        such amendment.

        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the 
    Senate provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:

            Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
        benefits made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by 
        reason of the enactment of this part shall be paid from the 
        civil service retirement and disability fund.
            The words ``shall be paid from the civil service retirement 
        and disability fund'' constitute an appropriation within the 
        meaning of clause 2 of rule XX. . . .
            Inasmuch as the House, when it sent the bill to conference, 
        did not give specific authority to agree to such amendment I, 
        therefore, submit that it is not in order for such language to 
        be included in the conference report. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Murray] desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Murray: I do not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] 
    makes a point of order that the language contained on page 110, 
    section 1104, line 12, ``shall be paid from the civil service 
    retirement and disability fund'' is in violation of clause 2, rule 
    XX.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 13.9 A point of order that House conferees had violated clause 2, 
    Rule XX by agreeing to a provision in a Senate amendment to a House 
    legislative bill, directing the use of funds already appropriated 
    for a new purpose, was conceded and the conference report was ruled 
    out of order.

    On Nov. 29, 1979,(6) a conference report on H.R. 2676 
(EPA research authorization for appropriations, fiscal year 1980) 
authorizing appropriations for environmental research and development 
was called up for consideration. Included in the conference report was 
a provision originally contained in a Senate amendment, directing that 
funds appropriated

[[Page 5169]]

pursuant to the authorization be obligated and expended on a certain 
project not specifically funded by the appropriation law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 34113, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair, noting that the appropriation bill for the activity 
concerned had already been enacted for the year in question, ruled that 
the provision at that time constituted an appropriation on a 
legislative bill and could not, under clause 2 of Rule XX, be agreed to 
by House conferees. The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of rule XXI prohibits 
    committees without proper jurisdiction from reporting measures 
    carrying appropriations. Interpretation of the rule has held that 
    language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an 
    appropriation already made for one purpose to another is not in 
    order. This has been sustained numerous times, but it is very 
    clearly stated in a ruling on August 11, 1921, and is a precedent 
    that is nearly identical to the issue that is before us now.
        In the paragraph authorizing appropriations for the health and 
    ecological effects activity of the water quality research and 
    development program House conferees on H.R. 2676 agreed to retain 
    in the bill the following provision added by the Senate:

            Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
        paragraph $900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold 
        Climate Research program through the Environmental Protection 
        Agency's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, 
        Corvallis, Oregon.

        The 1980 Environmental Protection Agency budget request did not 
    include any funding for cold climate research. The 1980 
    appropriation of EPA's research and development programs also did 
    not include any funding for cold climate research.
        The proviso amounts to a diversion of funds previously 
    appropriated and violates clause 5, rule XXI.
        Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Fuqua) wish to speak on the point of order?
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

    In this instance, the conference report containing the Senate 
amendment having been ruled out of order because containing an 
appropriation, the manager of the conference report moved to recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment merely encouraging, 
but not mandating, the use of funds already appropriated for a new 
purpose.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 34114, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1979.

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

[[Page 5170]]

Sec. 13.10 The rule restricting the authority of conferees in agreeing 
    to appropriation language in Senate amendments does not apply to 
    language in Senate bills.

    On Jan. 25, 1972,(9) a conference report on S. 2819 (the 
foreign military assistance authorization) was under consideration 
which contained an additional provision beyond the scope of the 
differences committed to conference.(10) The Speaker, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, in overruling a point of order against the report, 
noted that the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
against the inclusion of such additional matter, and that clauses 2 and 
3 of Rule XX (restricting the authority of House conferees from 
agreeing to appropriation or nongermane language, respectively, in 
Senate amendments) are not applicable where a Senate bill and House 
amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Inclusion of such matter violates Rule XXVIII clause 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the consideration of the conference report. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the grounds that 
    certain provisions of the bill are not germane and exceed the 
    authority of the conference. I point specifically, Mr. Speaker, to 
    the language to be found on page 13 of the report, section 658:

            Sec. 658. Limitation on Use of Funds.--
            (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of 
        the funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act 
        or the Foreign Military Sales Act shall be obligated or 
        expended until the Comptroller General of the United States 
        certifies to the Congress that all funds previously 
        appropriated and thereafter impounded during the fiscal year 
        1971 for programs and activities administered by or under the 
        direction of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Health, 
        Education and Welfare have been released for obligation and 
        expenditure.

        Mr. Speaker, I contend that this language goes far beyond the 
    scope of the legislation, far beyond any intent of the Congress It 
    is neither germane nor does it come within the scope of the 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The rule is 
    broad and covers the objections made by the gentleman from Iowa. 
    Last November the House sent to conference two foreign aid bills, 
    one economic and one military, which passed the Senate. At that 
    time the House struck out all after the enacting clauses of both 
    bills and inserted in lieu thereof the complete text of H.R. 9910, 
    which had passed the House last August.
        All the provisions of both the House and Senate bills that were 
    in disagree

[[Page 5171]]

    ment were considered in conference. The House having adopted a rule 
    to send these two Senate bills (to conference) the amendments to 
    which the gentleman from Iowa has objected automatically became 
    House amendments and the provisions from the Senate bill are no 
    longer subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa has raised a point of order against the 
    conference report on the ground that the House conferees have 
    exceeded their authority by including in the conference report 
    provisions not germane or not in either the Senate bill or the 
    House amendment and agreed to an appropriation in violation of 
    clause 2, rule XX. That rule provides in relevant part:

            No amendment of the Senate . . . providing for an 
        appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation 
        bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the 
        House.

        The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was 
    sent to conference, with a House amendment thereto. The rule is 
    restricted in its application to Senate amendments, and thus is not 
    applicable in the present situation.
        The Chair also points out that the resolution under which this 
    conference report is being considered specifically waives points of 
    order under clause 3, rule XXVIII.
        The action of the conferees in adding the language in section 
    658 of the conference report is protected by this waiver of points 
    of order.

        For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 13.11 Clause 2 of Rule XX which precludes House conferees from 
    agreeing to Senate amendments providing for appropriations in a 
    conference report absent specific authority applies only to Senate 
    amendments which are sent to conference and not to appropriations 
    contained in Senate legislative bills.

    On June 30, 1976,(11) the Speaker (12) 
overruled a point of order against a conference report containing a 
provision permitting a new use of funds in an existing revolving fund, 
even though such provision constituted an appropriation on a 
legislative bill, since the provision had been contained in the Senate 
bill and since clause 2 of Rule XX is not applicable where a Senate 
bill and House amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 21632, 21633, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3295) to extend the 
    authorization for annual contributions under the U.S. Housing Act 
    of 1937, to extend certain

[[Page 5172]]

    housing programs under the National Housing Act, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the conference report on S. 3295 on the basis that 
    the House managers exceeded their authority by agreeing to two 
    matters not in the original House amendment to the Senate bill and 
    which violates clause 2, rule XX, of the House Rules and Precedents 
    of the House. Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:

            Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an 
        appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation 
        bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the 
        House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment 
        shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every 
        such amendment.

        The Senate-passed bill contains section 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which 
    in effect provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA 
    insurance funds to honor claims made eligible for payment by the 
    provisions of section 9 generally. These amendments are to section 
    518(b) of the National Housing Act and relate to sections 203 and 
    221 housing programs for which the authority of the Secretary of 
    HUD to pay claims related to certain structural defects has expired 
    if the claims were not filed by March 1976.
        Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include identical language which 
    states as follows:

            Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from 
        the insurance fund chargeable for insurance benefits on the 
        mortgage covering the structure to which the expenditures 
        relate.

        The words ``Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be 
    made from the insurance fund'' constitute an appropriation within 
    the meaning of clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents under clause 
    5, rule XXI, it is clear that payments out of funds such as the FHA 
    insurance fund are within the meaning of the term ``appropriation'' 
    and that the action taken by the House managers is violative of 
    clause 2, rule XX.
        In support of this point of order, I cite the ruling of the 
    Chair on a point of order raised by H.R. Gross on October 1, 1962, 
    to the conference report on H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed to 
    in that report provided that--

            The benefits made payable . . . by reason of enactment of 
        this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
        disability fund.

        Inasmuch as when the House agreed to go to conference, it did 
    not give specific authority to agree to such an amendment. I 
    therefore submit that it is not in order for such language to be 
    included in the conference report.
        The FHA insurance funds are designed to provide the reserves 
    for payments on defaulted mortgages and for the operation of HUD 
    related to the various insurance programs and any diversion of the 
    use of such funds such as for payment for defects in the structure 
    would violate clause 5 of rule XXI. In further support of this 
    point of order, and specifically on the point that the provisions 
    constitute a diversion of funds for a separate purpose not within 
    the intention of the legisla

[[Page 5173]]

    tion establishing the fund, I cite the ruling of the Chair on 
    October 5, 1972, which holds that an amendment allowing for the use 
    of highway trust fund moneys to purchase buses,
        would seem to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that it would 
        divert or actually reappropriate for a new purpose funds which 
        have been appropriated and allocated and are in the pipeline 
        for purposes specified by the law under the original 1956 act.

        I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report on this basis.
        I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    the one who sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Gross in the 
    case which I have referred to.
        Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to anticipate a ruling against my 
    point of order, but if that should be the case, Mr. Speaker, I 
    suggest we are making a mockery of the rules of the House.
        Since some of my comrades may not be aware of it, the rules of 
    the House in clause 5, rule XXI, provide:

            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. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House 
    in its rules cannot have extraterritorial effect or extra body 
    effect, in order to protect the House from having its rules 
    violated by the Senate, we adopted clause 2 of rule XX which 
    related to action that the Senate might take that would be 
    violative of the House rules. But the very fact that this is not a 
    Senate amendment on a House bill is insignificant if the rules of 
    the House are going to have any real meaning because what we are 
    saying is any time we want to violate the House rules, we can have 
    the rule provide that after consideration of the bill it shall be 
    in order for the such-and-such Senate bill to be taken from the 
    Speaker's desk and everything after the enacting clause stricken 
    and apply the House language. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Speaker, clause 2 
    of rule XX of the rules of the House makes out of order any 
    provision in a Senate amendment which provides for an 
    appropriation. However, the rule does not address itself to 
    provisions in Senate bills. The conferees accepted the provision in 
    question, without change, from a Senate bill and not from a Senate 
    amendment. Therefore, no violation of the House rules is involved 
    even if the provision is considered to be an appropriation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order against 
    the conference report, referring to the language of rule XX, clause 
    2, which places certain restrictions on the managers on the part of 
    the House in a conference with the Senate.
        The Chair has ruled on this matter before.
        On January 25, 1972, the Chair ruled in connection with a point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the 
    conference report on a foreign military as

[[Page 5174]]

    sistance authorization bill (S. 2819) on the ground that the House 
    conferees had exceeded their authority by including in the 
    conference report an appropriation entirely in conflict with clause 
    2, rule XX. That rule provides, in relevant part, that ``no 
    amendment of the Senate''--that is the important language--no 
    amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon any 
    bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by 
    the managers on the part of the House.
        The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was 
    sent to conference with a House amendment thereto. The rule is 
    restricted in its application to Senate amendments and, thus, is 
    not applicable in the present situation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    After the above ruling, Mr. Brown pointed to the following language 
in the conference report as representing, in effect, an agreement by 
the Senate ``with a Senate amendment'':

        That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
    of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an 
    amendment.

    The Speaker responded that a conference report on a Senate bill 
which recommends that the Senate concur in the House amendment with an 
amendment does not place before the House a Senate amendment against 
which a point of order can be raised under clause 2 of Rule XX, since 
the conference report represents only a proposed compromise and not a 
Senate amendment originally committed to conference.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 21634, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.12 Although Rule XXI clause 5 permits a point of order against 
    an appropriation in a legislative bill or amendment to be raised 
    ``at any time'' during the initial consideration of the bill or 
    amendment under the five-minute rule in the House, a point of order 
    against similar language permitted to remain in the House version 
    and included in a conference report on that bill will not lie, 
    since the only rule prohibiting such inclusion (Rule XX clause 2) 
    is limited to language originally contained in a Senate amendment 
    where House conferees have not been specifically authorized to 
    agree thereto.

    The following proceedings took place on May 1, 1975,(14) 
during consideration of a conference report, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the bill (H.R.

[[Page 5175]]

    6096) to authorize funds for humanitarian assistance and evacuation 
    programs in Vietnam and to clarify restrictions on the availability 
    of funds for the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Indochina, and for 
    other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to make a point of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker [Carl Albert, of Oklahoma]: The gentlewoman will 
    state it.
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the conference report 
    in the last sentence refers to evacuation programs authorized by 
    this act. It permits a waiver of a series of laws for the purpose 
    of allowing those evacuation programs to take place.
        In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section 3 dealt with evacuation 
    programs referred to in section 2 of the bill and waived the same 
    series of laws with respect thereto. In order for section 3 to be 
    considered, it required a rule from the Rules Committee. And a rule 
    was granted waiving points of order against section 3 of the bill. 
    But section 7 of the conference report, in speaking of evacuation 
    programs authorized by the entire act and not just by one section, 
    exceeds the scope of section 3 of the bill and exceeds the waiver 
    that was permitted under the rule. It therefore violates rule XXI, 
    clause 5, and violates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits House 
    conferees from accepting a Senate amendment providing for an 
    appropriation on a nonappropriation bill in excess of the rules of 
    the House. . . .
        Mr. Morgan: . . . The point of order has no standing. Section 3 
    of the House bill and section 7 of the conference report referred 
    to use of funds of the Armed Forces of the United States for the 
    protection and evacuation of certain persons from South Vietnam. 
    The language of the conference report does not increase funds 
    available for that purpose. Both the House bill and the conference 
    report simply removed limitations on the use of funds from the DOD 
    budget. These limitations were not applicable to the funds 
    authorized in H.R. 6096. The scope of the waiver is the same in the 
    conference report and the House bill.
        Mr. Speaker, the changes in language are merely conforming 
    changes. Section 2 of the House bill was a section which authorized 
    the evacuation programs in the House bill. The conference version 
    contains the evacuation programs authority in several sections plus 
    reference to the entire act rather than to one specific section. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentlewoman from New York makes the point of order that 
    section 7 of the conference report constitutes an appropriation on 
    a legislative bill in violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to which the 
    House conferees were not authorized to agree pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XX.
        The Chair would first point out that the provisions of clause 
    2, rule XX, preclude House conferees from agreeing to a Senate 
    amendment containing an appropriation on a legislative bill, and do 
    not restrict their authority to consider an appropriation which 
    might have been contained in the House-passed version. In this 
    instance, the conferees have recommended language which is

[[Page 5176]]

     virtually identical to section 3 of the House bill, and they have 
    not agreed to a Senate amendment containing an appropriation. 
    Therefore, clause 2, rule XX, is not applicable to the present 
    conference report.
        While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a point of order to be raised 
    against an appropriation in a legislative bill ``at any time'' 
    consistent with the orderly consideration of the bill to which 
    applied--Cannon's VII, sections 2138-39--the Chair must point out 
    that H.R. 6096 was considered in the House under the terms of House 
    Resolution 409 which waived points of order against section 3 of 
    the House bill as constituting an appropriation of available funds 
    for a new purpose. . . .

        The gentlewoman from New York also has in effect made the point 
    of order that section 7 of the conference report goes beyond the 
    issues in difference between the two Houses committed to conference 
    in violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
        In the House-passed bill, section 3 contained waivers of 
    certain provisions of law in order to make available funds already 
    appropriated to the Department of Defense to be used for the Armed 
    Forces in ``evacuation programs referred to in section 2 of the 
    act.'' The conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law 
    shall apply to ``evacuation programs authorized by this act.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, a conforming change in phraseology 
    in a conference report from language contained in the House or 
    Senate version to achieve consistency in the language thereof, 
    absent proof that the effect of that change is to broaden the scope 
    of the language beyond that contained in either version, does not 
    necessarily render the conference report subject to a point of 
    order. In this instance, it appears to the Chair that the only 
    effect of the language in the conference report was to accomplish 
    the same result that would have been reached by section 3 of the 
    House bill, namely to remove certain limitations on the use of 
    funds in the Defense budget for military evacuation programs under 
    this bill.
        The Chair therefore holds that the conferees have not exceeded 
    their authority and overrules the point of order.

Amendments to Senate Amendments

Sec. 13.13 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill 
    proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in 
    the House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments.

    The following proceedings took place on Feb. 8, 
1937,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3587, a deficiency 
appropriations bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which 
    I send to the Clerk's desk. . . .
        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a pref

[[Page 5177]]

    erential motion, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Ellenbogen moves that the House recede and concur in Senate 
    amendment no. 9.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentleman from 
    Virginia demands a division of the question. The question is, Shall 
    the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the motion to recede was agreed to.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Woodrum moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        inserted by said amendment insert the following: ``or of any 
        appropriation or other funds of any executive department or 
        independent executive agency shall be used after June 30, 1937, 
        to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned for 
        service in connection with any investigation or inquiry 
        undertaken by any committee of either House of Congress under 
        special resolution thereof.''

        Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    motion of the gentleman from Virginia violates the rules of the 
    House in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Senate 
    amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because 
    it contains legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is not germane, since it 
    limits the Senate amendment by date.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore. The Chair will state that it deals 
    with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate 
    amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec. 13.14 Where the Senate attaches to an appropriation bill a 
    legislative amendment, it is in order in the House to concur with a 
    perfecting amendment provided such amendment does not broaden the 
    scope of the legislation in the Senate amendment.

    On June 15, 1933,(17) during consideration of Senate 
amendments to the independent offices appropriation 
bill,(18) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 77 Cong. Rec. 6150, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 5389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5178]]

            Amendment No. 30: On page 57, after line 14, insert:
            ``Sec. 6. After the enactment of this act the Postmaster 
        General is directed to suspend payments upon any air mail or 
        ocean mail contract to any individuals, companies, or 
        corporations which, singly or in combination with other 
        individuals, companies, or corporations receiving a subsidy, 
        pay any salary or salary combined with bonus to any officer, 
        agent, or employee in excess of a salary of $17,500. . . .''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    recede and concur with an amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Woodrum moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30, and 
        agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment insert the following:
            ``Sec. 6. Hereafter the Postmaster General shall not award 
        any air mail contract or any ocean mail contract under the 
        Merchant Marine Act of 1928 to any individuals, companies, or 
        corporations which, singly or in combination with other 
        individuals, companies, or corporations pay any salary, or 
        salary combined with bonus, to any officer, agent, or employee 
        in excess of $17,500. . . .''

        Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The amendment as I heard it read contains the word 
    ``hereafter'', making this permanent law, forever. I have no 
    particular objection to the language contained, that makes it for 
    the duration of the life of this appropriation bill, but it might 
    not be wise, under certain circumstances, to make it permanent, 
    forever. The word ``hereafter'' makes it legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, which makes it permanent legislation.
        Mr. Woodrum: The original text makes it permanent legislation.

        Mr. Goss: But it reads ``after the enactment of this act.''
        The Speaker: (19) We are considering the Senate 
    amendment. The entire amendment of the Senate is legislation which 
    the House may now perfect by any germane amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Goss: I will reserve it for the moment, to hear further 
    explanation. I do not want to see it made permanent law.
        Mr. Woodrum: The only change which the House makes in it is the 
    very proper change not to undertake to make this retroactive to 
    apply to contracts. They have postoffice contracts that have 
    already been made in good faith, but it does provide----
        Mr. Goss: For all time.
        Mr. Woodrum: Yes; until Congress changes it, because the 
    original language was for all time. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut.

Sec. 13.15 In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined 
    within the limits of the amount set by the original bill and the 
    Senate amendment.

    On June 20, 1932,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
11267, the

[[Page 5179]]

Economy Committee amendment to the legislative appropriation bill, a 
Senate amendment was under consideration which provided for an 11 
percent reduction in all government salaries in excess of $2,500. An 
amendment was offered proposing to reduce salaries by a graduated scale 
with a minimum exemption of $1,200. A point of order was made as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 13522-25, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the subject matter contained in the 
    gentleman's motion at this time is not proper in that there is 
    nothing before the House at this time which shows a change of 
    attitude on the part of the House in its action on the question of 
    salary reduction. There are two propositions before the House. One 
    is the House bill providing for a reduction with a $2,500 
    exemption, and the other is the Senate so-called furlough plan. The 
    gentleman seeks to concur in the Senate plan with an amendment, and 
    the matter in the amendment is not germane to that plan. The 
    gentleman's motion is beyond the province of conferees. The subject 
    matter contained in the motion is an entirely new proposition. If 
    conferees have failed to agree on either the House bill or Senate 
    bill, then they should be discharged. If the gentleman seeks to 
    carry out a reduction plan, then I submit that the House has not 
    indicated by vote or otherwise that it recedes from its original 
    position. What the gentleman is seeking to do is to get legislative 
    action de novo on a matter which has already been passed on by the 
    House. When we come to that point--enter on our own initiative or 
    from the Senate--new conferees representing the views of the House 
    should be and would be appointed. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the 
    view of the House must first be presented by friends of the 
    proposition to the Senate conferees. There is no indication in the 
    report or otherwise that the House bill was actually sponsored in 
    conference by the conferees on the part of the House, and I submit 
    that at this stage we can not legislate de novo in order to carry 
    out the personal views or preference of the conferees. The House 
    should at least be given the opportunity to express itself on its 
    own bill. In this roundabout method the House is compelled to take 
    other action without first knowing what the attitude of the other 
    body on the proposition may be.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I believe 
    the Chair should hold that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Alabama is out of order, because the amendment goes beyond the 
    range of difference between the action of the House and the Senate. 
    The furlough plan incorporated in the bill by the Senate and the 
    salary-reduction plan as passed by the House contain no salary 
    reductions in salaries below $2,500 per year. I believe on that 
    point alone the amendment is not germane, and therefore it is not 
    in order, as the conferees have exceeded their authority.
        Mr. [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I think the 
    Chair has ample precedent for overruling the point of order raised 
    by the gentleman

[[Page 5180]]

    from Wisconsin, because, in the first place we are not dealing with 
    a conference report, and in the second place, I direct the 
    attention of the Speaker to the fact that anything that is germane 
    is permissible to be written in an amendment such as I have 
    offered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: The 
    Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaGuardia) interposes a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. McDuffie) to the Senate proposal, upon the ground that 
    it does not affirmatively appear that the House conferees really 
    took into consideration the action and voice of the House in the 
    conference. That, of course, is a matter entirely beyond the 
    province of the Chair, and is a matter of speculation, necessarily. 
    The Chair, therefore, overrules that point of order.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Schafer) raised the point of 
    order that the provisions embodied in the motion of the gentleman 
    from Alabama to recede and concur with an amendment to the Senate 
    amendment was beyond the limits fixed in either the House bill or 
    the Senate amendment. The Parliamentarian has furnished the Chair 
    with a syllabus of an opinion by Chairman Hepburn, of Iowa, made on 
    February 26, 1902, which may be found in Hinds' Precedents (vol. 5, 
    sec. 6187). It is as follows: ``In amending a Senate amendment the 
    House is not confined within the limits of amount set by the 
    original bill and the Senate amendment.'' The Chair thinks that 
    that decision disposes of the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin. The Chair desires to say in passing upon 
    these points of order that in cases of this kind the only 
    requirement is that the amendment proposed in the motion to recede 
    and concur with an amendment must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment. This question arose on May 3, 1922, when Mr. Speaker 
    Gillett, in overruling a point of order similar to this, held that 
    to a Senate amendment providing a new method of taxation in the 
    District of Columbia and revising the fiscal relationship of the 
    District of Columbia and the United States with other incidental 
    propositions an amendment proposing a different scheme is germane, 
    although different in detail.
        The Chair thinks that these decisions fully cover points of 
    order raised by the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, and therefore overrules the points of order.

    Similarly, on June 28, 1932, (1) the following 
proceedings took place during consideration of the Navy appropriation 
bill: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 14207, 14208.
 2. H.R. 11452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment No. 16: Page 23, line 17, strike out 
        ``$1,014,250'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,191,850.''

        Mr. [William A.] Ayres (of Kansas): Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House recede and concur with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

             Mr. Ayres moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment 
        No. 16

[[Page 5181]]

        with the following amendment: In lieu of the sum proposed by 
        said amendment insert the following: ``$1,157,535 (none of 
        which shall be available for increased pay for making aerial 
        flights by nonflying officers or observers except eight 
        officers above the grade of lieutenant commander, to be 
        selected by the Secretary of the Navy).''

        Mr. LaGuardia: I make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kansas is beyond the power and scope 
    of the conferees; that it brings in entirely new matter, that the 
    difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is simply one 
    of amount, and we can not at this stage of the proceedings 
    legislate on the bill.
        The Speaker: On the grounds the gentleman makes his point of 
    order the Chair will overrule it. The question is on the motion to 
    concur with an amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair say in connection with that point of 
    order that if the gentleman from New York had made the point of 
    order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the Senate 
    amendment, the Chair thinks it would have been sufficient, but the 
    gentleman from New York said it was beyond the jurisdiction of the 
    conferees, and the motion to concur with an amendment is not 
    subject to that point of order.

Point of Order Against Appropriations in Senate Bill

Sec. 13.16 A point of order under the rule barring appropriations in a 
    legislative bill may be raised against an item of appropriation in 
    a Senate bill.

    On July 30, 1957, (4) during consideration of S. 1865, a 
bill establishing an airways modernization board and to provide 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, a provision granting authority to transfer 
``unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds 
available,'' was ruled out by Chairman George H. Mahon, of Texas, as an 
appropriation reported from a nonappropriating committee in violation 
of clause 4, rule XXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The language having been stricken from the Senate bill pursuant to 
the point of order, that fact was reported by Chairman Mahon to the 
House.(5) The language stricken from the bill on the point 
of order was treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so 
engrossed and messaged to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 13181, 13182, July 31, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order

Sec. 13.17 A resolution is set forth below waiving points of

[[Page 5182]]

    order against a conference report on a general appropriation bill, 
    and making in order a motion to recede from disagreement and to 
    concur therein with an amendment.

    On Dec. 23, 1963, (6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Note: The waiver of points of order against the amendment 
        was necessary because the language of the amendment would have 
        been subject to the point of order that it constituted further 
        legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I present a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 600) from the Committee on Rules and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        The Speaker: (7) The resolution will be referred to 
    the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution is as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any 
        point of order the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499) 
        making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, 
        and that during the consideration of the amendment of the 
        Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order to 
        consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a 
        motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the part of the House 
        to recede and concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with 
        an amendment.

Suspension of Rules for Matters Not in Disagreement

Sec. 13.18 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions 
    of the bill, the House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed 
    a new bill containing matters in the original bill not in 
    controversy.

    On July 2, 1942, (8) the Department of Agriculture 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1943 was passed in the House in the 
following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 5960, 5961, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            A bill making appropriations for the Department of 
        Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for 
        other purposes.

        The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    be considered as ordered.

[[Page 5183]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Tarver)?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal to enact for the present fiscal 
    year 1943, the provisions of H.R. 6709, the Agricultural 
    appropriation bill, insofar as those provisions have been agreed 
    upon by the House and the Senate, and with respect to the 
    appropriations for the farm tenant land purchase program and for 
    the Farm Security Administration, which are in disagreement, the 
    provisions of the bill are for expenditures by the Farm Security 
    Administration for these purposes for the next 60 days; that is, 
    for the months of July and August, which will be authorized upon 
    the same bases proportionate for the time involved as the 
    expenditures for those purposes were authorized in the Agricultural 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1942, with the proviso that 
    any amount expended by the Farm Security Administration for these 
    purposes during the months of July and August shall be charged 
    against whatever amounts are finally appropriated by the Congress 
    to the uses of the Farm Security Administration for these 
    objectives.
        As I said, all of the provisions of the bill, and all of the 
    limitations in the bill so far as there does not exist disagreement 
    between the House and Senate with reference thereto, are proposed 
    to be enacted. The proviso with regard to Commodity Credit 
    Corporation funds is to be enacted except as the Senate amendments 
    thereto in disagreement are involved.
        There is also a further proviso in title II of the bill which I 
    have just sent to the Clerk's desk, which would validate 
    expenditures upon the bases which I have described to and including 
    the 1st day of July.

    H.R. 7349 passed in the House. Subsequently, various Members 
discussed the consequences of the bill's passage. Some of the remarks 
are as follows:

        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether or not the 
    majority leader wants to say anything about the situation that is 
    now in abeyance for the information of the House?
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: I have nothing to 
    advise the House about at this time. The Senate has adjourned, and 
    I have been informed that they sent the bill which passed the House 
    a short time ago to the committee.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, as I understand the parliamentary situation, 
    as far as the appropriation bill is concerned, it is this. The 
    House passed the regular Department of Agriculture appropriation 
    bill. It went to the Senate. The Senate placed amendments. The two 
    Houses were in disagreement and conferees were appointed. That 
    appropriation bill is in conference. This afternoon certain members 
    of the Appropriations Committee who happened to be the conferees on 
    the agriculture bill brought in another and different appropriation

[[Page 5184]]

    bill.(10) It was passed under suspension of the rules, 
    with a new number. It had no connection with the bill in 
    conference. It was an independent bill. After that bill passed the 
    House and went to the Senate, the Senate recognized it as a new 
    appropriation bill, which it is, and treated it according to the 
    rules of the Senate, and referred it to the Appropriations 
    Committee of the Senate for consideration. The Senate conferees had 
    no part in framing the new bill. So that today the regular 
    agriculture appropriation bill is in conference between the two 
    Houses. Today's House action has had no effect on the conference 
    committee. Another appropriation bill covering much of the same 
    matter has been referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 7349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: I think the gentleman's statement fairly 
    presents the picture except--I would not want to take issue--but I 
    would want to enlarge or express my own views on one observation 
    which the gentleman made--that it had no relationship to the bill 
    in conference. It at least had an attempted relationship.
        Mr. Mirchener: Yes; the two bills deal with the same subject 
    matter, but one bill was the legitimate child of the rules of the 
    House and the Appropriations Committee. The other bill was not.
        Mr. McCormack: I am not taking issue with my friend, but I will 
    certainly say there was an attempted relationship. At least the 
    House in its own way attempted to meet the legislative situation 
    that exists.

Amendment by Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 13.19 Items in an appropriation bill not in disagreement between 
    the two Houses, and hence not committed to the conferees, have been 
    changed through consideration by unanimous consent of a concurrent 
    resolution directing the changes in the enrollment of the bill.

    On July 23, 1962, (11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 14400-03, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    unanimous agreement of last Friday, I call up for consideration a 
    House concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 505

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be 
        authorized and directed in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 
        11038 to make the following changes in the engrossed House 
        bill:
            (1) Page 2, strike out lines 13 to 16, inclusive. . . .
            (28) Page 14, strike out lines 4 to 7, inclusive.
            (29) Page 14, strike out lines 17 to 21, inclusive.

        Mr. Thomas (interrupting reading of the House concurrent 
    resolution): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
    reading of the resolution be dispensed with, I shall attempt to 
    explain what it is.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 5185]]

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled this deals with 
    what we call the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1962 
    When the supplemental left the House it had 55 items carrying about 
    $447 million, which was a reduction, in round figures, of $100 
    million under the budget, a reduction of about 20 percent.
        It went to the other body and that body added some 29 items, 
    increasing the amount over the House by $112 million, which made a 
    round figure of about $560 million.
        We bring to you two items, one a concurrent resolution and the 
    other a conference report. First, why the concurrent resolution? We 
    put in the concurrent resolution some 29 items which were 
    originally in the supplemental, but those 29 items are a 
    reduction--follow me now--below the figure that was in the 
    supplemental when it left the House and the figure when it left the 
    Senate.
        It is a complete reduction and a change. It is in the 
    concurrent resolution because it could not be in the conference 
    report, and the reason it could not be in the conference report is 
    because it is a reduction in those amounts. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The second supplemental appropriation bill, 
        H.R. 11038, was passed by the House on Mar. 30, 1962; by the 
        Senate, amended, on Apr. 6. The conference report was not filed 
        until July 20. Since fiscal year 1962 expired on June 30, the 
        need for some of the funds in the bill had dissipated. To 
        eliminate the sums no longer required and not in disagreement, 
        the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
