[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4969-4976]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills


[[Page 4969]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by David Bird, J.D., and John Darrouzet, 
J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropriations

    Sec. 1. Scope of Chapter
    Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized
    Sec. 3. Reappropriations
    Sec. 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills
    Sec. 5. Contingent Fund Expenditures 

B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills

    Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status
    Sec. 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations--``Continuing'' Appropriations
    Sec. 8. Consideration Made in Order by Special Rule or Unanimous 
            Consent
    Sec. 9. Waiver of Points of Order--by Resolution
   Sec. 10. General Appropriation Bills Considered by Unanimous Consent
   Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments
   Sec. 12. Points of Order; Timeliness
   Sec. 13. House-Senate Relations

  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS


[[Page 4971]]

                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Authorization of appropriations
    appropriation measure, language of, as authorization, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
    ``authorized by law,'' purposes, effect of language limiting 
        appropriations to, Sec. Sec. 2.17-2.20
    court judgment as, Sec. 2.2
    executive order as, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
    general grant of authority as authorizing specific project, 
        Sec. 2.11
    implied, for necessary or incidental expenses, Sec. 2.10
    increasing appropriation within authorized limits, Sec. Sec. 2.13-
        2.16
    ``miscellaneous expenses,'' appropriation for, as authorized, 
        Sec. 2.12
    ``not less than'' certain amount, language authorizing 
        appropriation of, held not to be appropriation, Sec. 4.34
    prior appropriation measure, language in, as authorization, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
    reappropriations of unexpended balances, see Reappropriations of 
        unexpended balances
    refusal to appropriate for authorized purpose, Sec. 2.1
    Senate amendments, see Senate amendments
    specific project authorized by general grant of authority, 
        Sec. 2.11
    subsequent enactment of authorization, Sec. 2.21
    total amount authorized, amendment increasing appropriation to, 
        Sec. 2.16
Certification of court judgment to Congress as prerequisite to 
    apropriation, Sec. 2.2
Conferees
    appointed for separate chapters of appropriation bill, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
    chairman, selection of, agreement between Appropriation Committees 
        of
    House and Senate as to, Sec. 13.6
    Senate amendments providing for appropriations in legislative 
        bills, duty of conferees as to, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
Conference report
    concurrent resolution, amendment of items not in disagreement made 
        by, Sec. 13.19
    waiver of points of order against, Sec. 13.17
Confirmation, Senate, of appointees as prerequisite to appropriation 
    for salaries, Sec. 2.9
Constitutional rights of House in initiation of revenue and 
    appropriation bills, Sec. 13.1
Contingent fund expenditures
    layover requirement as applied to resolution, Sec. 5.1
    privileged, resolution as, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
    surplus funds, transfer of, Sec. 5.3
Continuing appropriations
    privileged, not reported as, Sec. 7.2
    use of, Sec. 7.1
Court judgment as authorization, Sec. 2.2
Debate, consideration and
    close debate, motion to, Sec. 11.1
    House as in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
    reading bills for amendment, see Reading bills for amendment
    Senate amendments, Sec. 11.2
    suspension of the rules, Sec. 11.7
    terms of, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
Enrollment, changes or corrections in, Sec. Sec. 11.29, 13.19
Executive order as authorization, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
General appropriation bills, privileged status applicable only to, 
    Sec. Sec. 7.2-7.4, 7.6

[[Page 4972]]

General grant of authority as authorizing specific project, Sec. 2.11
Germaneness rule applicable to appropriation bills, Sec. 11.10
Implied authorization for necessary or incidental expenses, Sec. 2.10
Increasing appropriation within authorized limits, amendments, 
    Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16
Judgment of court as authorization, Sec. 2.2
Legislative bills, appropriations in generally, prohibition against, 
    Sec. 4.1
    advances from Treasury directed to be made ``when appropriated,'' 
        Sec. 4.38
    allocation of agency's receipts, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
    allocation of excess foreign currency, Sec. 4.22
    allocation of funds to other agencies to assist in carrying out 
        purposes of act, Sec. 4.36
    allocation of money repaid from loans, Sec. 4.21
    allocation of proceeds of sale, Sec. 4.20
    amendments to legislative bills, generally, Sec. 4.24
    Area Redevelopment Fund, reconstituted appropriations authorized 
        for, Sec. Sec. 4.45, 4.46
    conferees, duty of, as to appropriations contained in Senate 
        amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
    Corps of Engineers, amendment permitting use of appropriations 
        ``heretofore or hereinafter made'' by, Sec. 4.33
    definition of ``appropriation'' as ``payment of funds from the 
        Treasury'', Sec. 4.40
    definition of ``appropriation'' discussed, generally, Sec. 4.43
    ``directed,'' Secretary of Treasury authorized and, to purchase 
        notes and obligations, Sec. 4.43
    diversion of funds to new purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.9, 4.12, 4.13
    emergency fund, amendment providing for, Sec. 4.25
    exports, future, provision for use of foreign currency proceeds 
        from, Sec. 4.44
    farm loans, amendment authorizing, Sec. 4.37
    fees or receipts of agency, allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
    foreign credits, additional use of, Sec. 4.23
    foreign credits, amendment providing for use of, for new purpose, 
        Sec. 4.31
    foreign currency, excess, use of, Sec. 4.22
    foreign currency proceeds from future exports, provision for use 
        of, Sec. 4.44
    guaranteeing agencies authorized to use funds ``heretofore'' 
        approved, Sec. 4.27
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, amendment providing for
    expenditures from funds appropriated for, relating to detention of 
        illegal aliens, Sec. 4.29
    interest paid to United States by India, amendment providing for 
        expenditure of, Sec. 4.28
    loan repayments, use or allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.21, 4.46
    membership in international organization, language authorizing 
        President to accept, as not involving appropriation, Sec. 4.42
    Mutual Security Agency, funds ``heretofore'' appropriated for, 
        amendment providing for use of, Sec. 4.30
    ``not less than'' certain amount, language authorizing 
        appropriation of, held to be authorization, Sec. 4.34
    portion of bill subject to point of order, Sec. 4.2
    public debt issues, loans authorized to be made from proceeds of, 
        Sec. 4.43

[[Page 4973]]

    public debt transaction financing, Senate ruling on, Sec. 4.47
    reappropriations as, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.35
    receipts, allocation of, Sec. Sec. 4.16-4.19
    sale, allocation of proceeds of, Sec. 4.20
    same or related purposes, unobligated funds previously appropriated 
        for, Sec. Sec. 4.10-4.13
    school construction, amendment providing for payment of allotments 
        to states for, from tax receipts, Sec. 4.32
    Senate ruling on public debt transaction financing, Sec. 4.47
    special accounts for special purposes, language directing deposit 
        of tax proceeds in, Sec. 4.39
    tax receipts, amendment providing for payment of allotments to 
        states from, for school construction, Sec. 4.32
    transfer of fund to new purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.9, 4.12, 4.13
    Treasurer directed or authorized to use funds or make payments, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.14, 4.15
    Treasury account, provision for payment into, of unused 
        appropriations, Sec. 4.41
    Treasury, payment of funds from, ``appropriation'' defined as, 
        Sec. 4.40
    unemployment benefits, amendment directing payments to states on 
        account of, Sec. 4.26
    unexpended appropriations, provision requiring payment into 
        Treasury account of, Sec. 4.41
    unobligated funds previously appropriated for same or related 
        purposes, Sec. Sec. 4.10-4.13
    waiver of points of order, Sec. 4.3
``Miscellaneous expenses,'' appropriation for, as authorized, Sec. 2.12
Necessary or incidental expenses as impliedly authorized, Sec. 2.10
Points of order
    legislative bill, points of order against appropriation language 
        included in conference report, Sec. 13.12
    precedence of, over amendments, Sec. 12.3
    pro forma amendment, precedence of point of order over, Sec. 12.3
    recognition, priority in, Sec. 12.4
    reservation of, prior to referral of bills to Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.2
    Senate bills, appropriations contained in, Sec. 13.16
    timeliness, see Timeliness of points of order
    two consecutive paragraphs, points of order against, made by 
        unanimous consent, Sec. 12.5
    waiver of, against conference report, Sec. 13.17
Prior appropriation measure, language in, as authorization, 
    Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
Privileged status of appropriation bills
    adjourn, motion to, automatic rollcall on motion to go into 
        committee of the Whole after rejection of, Sec. 6.2
    agreement giving appropriation bill privilege over other privileged 
        matter, Sec. 6.1
    consideration, question of, determined by House, Sec. 6.2
    continuing appropriations not privileged, Sec. 7.2
    general appropriation bills, privilege applicable only to, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.2-7.4, 7.6
    reduction in appropriations, bill providing for, Sec. 7.6
    relative privilege, Sec. 6.1
    supplemental appropriations not privileged, Sec. 7.4
    Projects or purposes authorized by law, effect of language 
        expressly limiting appropriations to, Sec. Sec. 2.17-2.20

[[Page 4974]]

Reading bills for amendment
    increasing funds in bill, when permitted, Sec. Sec. 11.16-11.18
    paragraph, general appropriation bills considered by, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.8, 11.9
    paragraph not yet read, effect of amendment relating to, Sec. 11.12
    paragraph, previous line in amendment affecting, Sec. 11.14
    passed, when paragraph considered as, Sec. 11.11
    points of order, timeliness of, see Timeliness of points of order
    separate votes in House on amendments, Sec. 11.21
    stricken, language previously, amendment containing, Sec. 11.15
    substitute, amendment in nature of, Sec. Sec. 11.19, 11.20
    unanimous consent, amendment offered by, to paragraph passed in 
        reading, Sec. 11.13
Reappropriations of unexpended balances
    generally, as prohibited, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5
    authorization by statute as superseded by later rule, Sec. 3.6
    authorization by statute as superseding rules, Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.8
    authorization, lack of, for project as barring reappropriation 
        prior to rule prohibiting reappropriations, Sec. 3.14
    Holman Rule not applicable, Sec. 3.10
    legislative bills, prohibition under rule against appropriations 
        in, Sec. Sec. 4.4-4.7, 4.10, 4.11
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, enactment of prohibition 
        in, rulings prior to, Sec. Sec. 3.12-3.15, 4.35
    limitation, amendment prohibiting expenditures ``so long as'' prior 
        appropriations unexpended held to be permissible as, Sec. 3.11
    transfer of funds, Sec. 3.9
    works in progress, for, Sec. 3.15
Recognition, priority in, to make points of order, Sec. 12.4
Recommittal of bill with instructions
    amendments previously adopted by House, changes not permitted in, 
        Sec. 11.26
    Committee of the Whole, motion recommending recommittal made in, 
        Sec. 11.22
    deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 11.24
    inconsistent motions in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.22
    procedure upon reporting bill back with amendment, Sec. 11.23
    prohibition on use of appropriations, Sec. Sec. 11.27, 11.28
    reduction of total appropriation, instructions as to, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.25, 11.26
    scope of instructions, Sec. 11.26
Reduction of total appropriation, recommittal of bill with instructions 
    effecting, Sec. Sec. 11.25, 11.26
Refusal to appropriate for authorized purpose, Sec. 2.1
Repeal of prior authorization, Sec. 2.22
Reported, authorization enacted after bill has been, Sec. 2.21
Salaries, appropriations for, as dependent on Senate confirmation of 
    appointees, Sec. 2.9
Scope of general authorization, specific project as within, Sec. 2.11
Senate amendments
    appropriations in legislative bills, duty of conferees as to, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.12
    recede, motion to, agreed to in Senate, Sec. 13.2
    reference of bill with Senate amendments to Committee on 
        Appropriations, Sec. 13.3

[[Page 4975]]

    scope of House amendments to, Sec. Sec. 13.13-13.15
    unauthorized expenditures, Senate amendment containing, perfection 
        by House of, Sec. Sec. 13.13, 13.14
Senate bill
    point of order in House against appropriations in, Sec. 13.16
    point of order, language in Senate bill stricken pursuant to, in 
        Committee of the Whole, Sec. 12.18
Special rule making consideration of bill in order
    closed rule, modified, form of, Sec. 8.1
    continuing appropriations considered in House as in Committee of 
        the Whole, Sec. 8.4
    debate on, Sec. 8.6
    deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 8.3
    previous question on special rule, rejection of, Sec. 8.6
    rejection of special rule providing for consideration of continuing 
        appropriation, Sec. 8.5
    temporary appropriations, Sec. 8.1
    waiver of points of order against deficiency appropriation bill, 
        Sec. 8.3
    waiver of points of order against general appropriation bill, 
        Sec. 8.2
Specific approval of project or expenditure, effect of law requiring, 
    Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
Specific project as authorized by general grant of authority, Sec. 2.11
Subsequent enactment of authorization, Sec. 2.21
Supplemental appropriations
    House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration in, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
    privileged, not reported as, Sec. 7.4
    requests for consideration of, Sec. 7.5
    unanimous consent, consideration by, Sec. 10.1
    waiver of points of order against provision, Sec. 9.1
    waiver of points of order against specific paragraph, Sec. 9.6
    waiver of points of order by unanimous consent, Sec. 10.1
    waiver of three-day availability requirement, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
Suspension of rules for matters not in disagreement between the Houses, 
    Sec. 13.18
Suspension of rules, passage of certain provisions under, Sec. 11.7
Timeliness of points of order
    amendments, point of order too late after consideration of, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.10, 12.11
    amendments, points of order against, Sec. 12.13
    appropriations in legislative bills, points of order against, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.18
    considered as read, points of order where bill has been, Sec. 12.12
    debate on paragraph, point of order made before, Sec. 12.9
    ``general''appropriation bill, point of order that bill is not, 
        Sec. 12.6
    legislative bill, appropriation language contained in conference 
        report on, Sec. 13.12
    passed, point of order that paragraph has been, Sec. 12.7
    reading of paragraph, point of order made after, Sec. Sec. 12.8-
        12.11
Total amount authorized, amendment increasing appropriation to, 
    Sec. 2.16
Unanimous consent, consideration of appropriation bills by
    any time, consideration at, Sec. 8.20
    continuing appropriations, Sec. Sec. 8.7-8.10, 8.12, 8.16-8.20

[[Page 4976]]

    general appropriation bills have been considered by, 
        Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3
    House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration in, Sec. 8.7
    immediate consideration, Sec. 8.21
    month, consideration during current, Sec. 8.19
    reporting bill as nonprivileged, effect of, Sec. 8.8
    special rule superseded, Sec. 8.14
    specified day, consideration on, Sec. 8.9-8.14
    supplemental appropriations, Sec. Sec. 8.7, 8.11, 8.13, 8.14
    three-day availability requirement waived, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 10.2, 
        10.3
    waiver of three-day rule, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 10.2, 10.3
    week, following, consideration during, Sec. Sec. 8.17, 8.18
    week, same, consideration during, Sec. 8.16
Waiver of points of order by resolution
    bill or provisions, points of order against, Sec. 9.5
    committee amendments, points of order against, Sec. 9.7
    conference report, points of order against, Sec. 13.17
    debate, general, waiver agreed to after, Sec. 9.1
    deficiency appropriation bill, Sec. 8.3
    general appropriation bill, Sec. 8.2
    legislative language specifically made in order, Sec. 9.3
    paragraph, specified, excepted from waiver, Sec. 9.2
    paragraph, specified, of supplemental appropriation bill protected, 
        Sec. 9.6
    paragraph, specified, points of order waived as to, Sec. 9.6
    three-day availability requirement waived, Sec. 9.4
    title, specified, points of order against, Sec. 9.8
West front extension, law requiring specific approval of, Sec. 2.7

[[Page 4977]]


 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 1. Scope of Chapter



    This chapter discusses consideration of appropriation bills on the 
floor, beginning with procedures for reporting and calling up such 
bills.(1) The requirement that appropriations contained in 
general appropriation bills must have been previously authorized by law 
is discussed in a general way; but detailed treatment of the 
prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
general appropriation bills is to be found in a separate 
chapter.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For earlier treatment of the subject matter of this chapter, see 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3553-3700; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1116-1331, 1571-1578.
 2. Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Matters relating to the duties, prerogatives, and jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Appropriations are discussed in the chapter on 
committees of the House.(3) Dicussion of referral of bills 
to committees is accordingly to be found in that chapter, although 
additional related precedents may be found in the chapter on 
introduction and reference of bills.(4) It may be noted for 
present purposes that the Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction 
over all general appropriation bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Ch. 17, supra. Similarly, this chapter does not treat in any detail 
        the various powers and prerogatives of the House, including any 
        constitutional restrictions affecting appropriations for 
        particular purposes, such as the constitutional stricture (see 
        art. I Sec. 8 clause 12) that no appropriation of money ``to 
        raise and support armies'' shall be for a longer term than two 
        years. Matters relating to the powers and prerogatives of the 
        House, generally, including House authority with respect to 
        revenue and appropriation measures, are treated in Ch. 13, 
        supra.
 4. Ch. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, issues related to committee hearings and various 
oversight functions of the Committee on Appropriations are to some 
extent covered in the chapter on committees; procedures and issues that 
have developed too recently for inclusion in this edition will be taken 
up in supplements to this edition as they appear. Accordingly, the 
general oversight re

[[Page 4978]]

sponsibilities of the committee with respect to conducting studies and 
examinations of the organization and operation of executive departments 
and agencies are not discussed at length here. Moreover, the hearings 
on the budget as a whole which are conducted by the committee in open 
session within 30 days of submission of the budget are not covered in 
any detail in this chapter.
    In particular, procedures under the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, and the impact of such act on the congressional budget process 
and on the role of the Committee on Appropriations, are necessarily 
given only limited treatment in this edition. A summary of the act's 
major provisions can be found in the chapter on the powers and 
prerogatives of the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Ch. 13, supra. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 1007-11 (1981) 
        for provisions from the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, it is clear that the impact of the Congressional 
Budget Act on the appropriations process and on the responsibilities of 
the Committee on Appropriations will be considerable. For example, the 
committee is given certain responsibilities with respect to rescissions 
of appropriations, transfers of unexpended balances, and the amount of 
new spending authority to be effective for a fiscal year. Its 
responsibilities extend to measures reported by other committees which 
exceed the appropriate allocation of new budget authority contained in 
the latest concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year (the 
resolution setting forth, among other things, appropriate levels of 
budget outlays and of total new budget authority).
    New provisions also require the Committee on Appropriations (to the 
extent practicable), before reporting the first regular appropriation 
bill for the fiscal year, to complete subcommittee markup and full 
committee action on all regular appropriation bills for that year, and 
to submit to the House a summary report comparing the committee's 
recommendations with provisions of the latest concurrent resolution on 
the budget.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For further discussion of the above provisions, see materials 
        contained in the latest edition of the House Rules and Manual, 
        and supplements to this edition of Deschler's Precedents. See 
        also the summary of Budget Act provisions in Ch. 13, supra.

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

[[Page 4979]]



                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized

    The Constitution (7) states: ``No money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' 
Appropriation bills are the device through which money is permitted to 
be ``drawn from the Treasury'' for expenditure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Art. I Sec. 9 clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But before a general appropriation bill may appropriate funds for 
particular purposes, such purposes must be authorized by law. Thus, an 
appropriation for a project or activity not authorized by law is not in 
order on a general appropriation bill, and a point of order may be made 
against an appropriation that violates this requirement.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation 
        on general appropriation bills is found in Rule XXI clause 2, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981). The application of this 
        rule is discussed in detail in Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It can be seen that every ``authorization'' for an appropriation is 
only one step in the process by which funds ultimately may become 
available, since it contemplates subsequent action through 
appropriation measures.(9) Of course, the House may decline 
to appropriate funds for particular purposes, even though authorization 
has been given for such purposes.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: It follows, for example, that 
        ``authorizing'' language does not itself constitute ``new 
        spending authority'' which would prohibit the consideration of 
        a bill under Sec. 401 of the Congressional Budget Act. Where 
        the provision in question either impliedly contemplates further 
        recourse to the appropriations process, or makes express 
        reference to the appropriations process when required by 
        Sec. 401, such consideration is not precluded. (Note: The 
        Budget Act is necessarily given only limited treatment herein; 
        see the remarks in Sec. 1, supra, as to the scope of this 
        article.)
10. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The enactment of authorizing legislation must occur prior to, and 
not following, the consideration of an appropriation for the proposed 
purpose. Thus, delaying the availability of an appropriation pending 
enactment of an authorization will not protect that appropriation 
against a point of order.(11) A bill violates the intent of 
the requirement if it permits a portion of a lump sum--unauthorized at 
the time the bill is being considered--to subsequently become available 
without a further

[[Page 4980]]

appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``authorization'' for an appropriation must ordinarily derive 
from statute. An executive order, for example, does not constitute 
sufficient authorization in the absence of proof of its derivation from 
a statute enacted by Congress.(12) On the other hand, 
sufficient ``authorization'' for an appropriation may be found to exist 
in a treaty that has been ratified by both parties; (13) in 
a resolution of the House of the same Congress; (14) or in 
legislation contained in a previous appropriation act which has been 
allowed to become permanent law.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 
        (proceedings related to H.R. 8619). See also Sec. Sec. 2.3, 
        2.4, infra.
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3587.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3656-3658, 3660.
15. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appropriation in excess of the specific amount authorized by law 
is in violation of the rule prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
general appropriation bills was originally intended primarily to 
prevent any delay of appropriation bills that might arise from 
contention over propositions of legislation. However, as the 
authorization process itself became more complicated over the years, 
and as the number of programs requiring annual authorization increased, 
there were frequent instances where the congressional appropriations 
process remained uncompleted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. The 
rule as currently implemented serves the purpose of giving legislative 
committees the first opportunity to determine and report to both Houses 
on priorities within specific legislative programs and the conditions 
under which available funds may be expended, before the Appropriations 
Committee recommends allocations of available revenues among various 
legislative priorities during a given fiscal year. Procedures under the 
Congressional Budget Act generally contemplate authorization of 
expenditures by legislative committees as a prior step in the budget 
process. (See, for example, Congressional Budget Act Sec. Sec. 301(c) 
and 402(a).)

    It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ``general 
appropriation bills.'' Neither a resolution providing an appropriation 
for a single government agency,(17)

[[Page 4981]]

nor a joint resolution containing continuing appropriations for diverse 
agencies (to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are 
enacted),(18) is considered a general appropriation bill 
within the purview of the rule. In fact, the restrictions against 
unauthorized items or legislation in a general appropriation bill or 
amendment thereto are not applicable to a joint resolution continuing 
appropriations, despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are 
not ``continuing'' in nature.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 87th Cong 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1962.
18. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2 
        (4th ed.).
 1. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.3 
        (4th ed.).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refusal to Appropriate for Authorized Purposes

Sec. 2.1 The House in the Committee of the Whole has the right to 
    refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part, 
    even though that object may be authorized by law.

    On Feb. 18, 1938,(2) during consideration of the State, 
Justice, Commerce, and Labor appropriations for 1939 (H.R. 9544), an 
amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 2175, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. The principle is well 
        established. See also, for example, 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942 (a refusal to appropriate 
        above a certain amount per designated recipient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 104, after line 25, 
    insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        No part of any appropriation contained in this act for the 
    Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be expended for any 
    expense incident to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for 
    the admission to any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the 
    United States for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for 
    readmission to the United States, or for the salary of any employee 
    charged with any duty in connection with the readmission to the 
    United States of any such alien without visa.

    The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order. This comes right back to the point I made 
    originally, that this provision deals with the present immigration 
    laws and is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes our 
    present act, which contains the provision that it is mandatory upon 
    the officials of the Department of Labor to advise an alien of his 
    status, whether he is legally or illegally in this country. This 
    provision seems to suggest that even a suggestion or an inference, 
    even a suggestion over the phone, would be a violation of the law, 
    and the men who are on the pay roll of the Government would be 
    penalized. I respectfully submit that the language offered as

[[Page 4982]]

    the amendment to the new section is absolutely in the same 
    category, and that it is not germane to the present bill or to the 
    section now under consideration.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Dickstein) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment now suggested and offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia is legislation. The Chair feels he is bound by 
    precedents which have been established for a long time in this 
    House and have been ruled upon by many occupants of the chair more 
    distinguished than he.
        The fact that the failure to appropriate money to carry out the 
    purposes of an act may work an actual hardship in the enforcement 
    of that act or may even effect the practical repeal or certain 
    provisions of the act is entirely within the discretion of Congress 
    itself. Congress does not have to appropriate any money for laws 
    which have been authorized by bills reported from legislative 
    committees. As long ago as 1896 Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House, ruled as follows, and I read from 
    page 47 of Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives:

            The House in Committee of the Whole House has the right to 
        refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part 
        even though that object may be authorized by law. That 
        principle of limitation has been sustained so repeatedly that 
        it may be regarded as a part of the parliamentary law of the 
        Committee of the Whole.

        Therefore, the Chair is unable to agree with the contention of 
    the gentleman from New York and overrules the point of order.

Court Judgment as Authorization

Sec. 2.2 An appropriation to pay a judgment awarded by a court is not 
    in order unless such judgment has been properly certified to 
    Congress.

    On June 20, 1935,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 9811, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Carlson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carlson moves to amend H.R. 8554, page 6, by inserting 
        a new paragraph following line 6, entitled ``Federal Trade 
        Commission'':
            ``For payment to Mrs. William E. Humphrey, or executor of 
        the estate of William E. Humphrey, $3,017 amount due as salary 
        at time of his death as member of Federal Trade Commission.''

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is new legislation in that the 
    judgment has not been certified according to law. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. Under 
    the law,(6) judg

[[Page 4983]]

    ments have to be certified to the Congress before an appropriation 
    is made; therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
 6. The Chair apparently relied on provisions governing procedures 
        whereby claimants obtaining judgments against the United States 
        are compensated from appropriations made for that purpose. See, 
        for example, the present 28 USC Sec. 2518 (based on 26 Stat. 
        537, Sept. 30, 1890 and 43 Stat. 939, Feb. 13, 1925), regarding 
        certification to Congress of judgments of the Court of Claims; 
        see also 28 USC Sec. 2517 (payment of judgments of the Court of 
        Claims out of general appropriations therefor); 28 USC 
        Sec. 2414 (payment of judgments and compromise settlements on 
        claims against the United States); 31 USC Sec. 724a (permanent 
        appropriation to pay final judgments, awards, and compromise 
        settlements); 28 USC Sec. Sec. 2671 et seq. (tort claims 
        procedure); and House Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 852 (1981) (prohibiting private bills and 
        resolutions, and amendments to bills and resolutions, 
        authorizing payment of claims for which suit may be instituted 
        under tort claims procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order as Authorization

Sec. 2.3 The words ``authorized by law'' in Rule XXI clause 2, were 
    construed to refer to a ``law enacted by the Congress,'' and not to 
    encompass executive orders.

    On Mar. 2, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1682, 1683, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY

        Salaries and expenses: The limitation in the appropriation for 
    salaries and expenses, War Relocation Authority, in the National 
    War Agency Appropriation Act, 1945, on the amount which may be 
    expended for travel is hereby increased from $375,000 to $475,000; 
    and of said appropriation not to exceed $280,477 is made available 
    for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1945 incident to the 
    establishment, maintenance, and operation of the emergency refugee 
    shelter at Fort Ontario, N.Y., provided for in the President's 
    message of June 12, 1944, to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against that part of the section following the 
    semicolon in line 20 and ending on page 14, line 2, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; furthermore, that there is no 
    specific authority in existing statutes for the operation of this 
    particular program. The Executive order of the President which 
    created the War Relocation Authority does not encompass the 
    activities for which these funds would be used. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes the point of 
    order against the language beginning in the concluding part of line 
    20 on page 13 and extending through the balance of

[[Page 4984]]

    the paragraph, that this appropriation is not authorized by law.
        Under the rules of the House, no appropriation shall be 
    reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an 
    amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by 
    law.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that an Executive order does not 
    meet the requirement stated in that rule. Therefore, not being 
    authorized by law enacted by Congress, the appropriation would not 
    be in order. The mere fact that it may be a reappropriation would 
    not make it in order if the original appropriation was not 
    authorized by law.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Idaho.

Sec. 2.4 An executive order does not meet the requirement that 
    appropriations must be authorized by law.

    On July 5, 1945,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649), 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair. . . .
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the bill be considered as read and that all Members desiring 
    to submit amendments or points of order have leave to submit them 
    at this time.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the unanimous consent request that has just been granted, I make 
    the point of order against the first item, National War Labor 
    Board, on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    same ground against the item for the Office of Defense 
    Transportation on page 5.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The point of order is conceded, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcantonio) 
    makes a point of order which the gentleman

[[Page 4985]]

    from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) concedes. The Chair sustains the point 
    of order.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we do not 
    all have to concede the point of order. I want to ask the gentleman 
    from Missouri a question. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: . . . If these were times of peace and this agency 
    had been created by the Executive order, as it was, I submit that a 
    point of order would lie against it. But the President of the 
    United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces. One of 
    the necessary incidents to that position is the ability and the 
    power to see that our troops and the materials to support them are 
    transported. For that reason, in order to break a bottleneck in our 
    transportation system, the President of the United States set up 
    the Office of Defense Transportation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chairman again states his opinion, regardless 
    of his own beliefs as to the merits of this particular office, that 
    the point of order must be sustained.
        The rule is very explicit to the effect that no appropriation 
    shall be reported in any general appropriation bill or be in order 
    as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously 
    authorized by law.
        In this present Congress, the present occupant of the chair 
    ruled that an Executive order was not a law such as could comply 
    with this rule.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sees no reason for departing from that holding. The 
    Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 
        (H.R. 8619).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language in Prior Appropriation Measure as Authorization

Sec. 2.5 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a point 
    of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but it may become permanent law 
    if it is not challenged and is permanent in its language and 
    nature; thus, language in a previous appropriation act providing 
    that ``hereafter such sums . . . as may be approved by Congress 
    shall be available (to increase domestic consumption of farm 
    commodities),'' was held to be permanent authorizing legislation 
    capable of supporting subsequent appropriations therefor.

    On May 20, 1964,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 
11202) for fiscal 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, raised a point 
of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the 
    portion of the

[[Page 4986]]

    section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. I will read it. 
    It reads as follows:

            (5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase 
        domestic consumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority 
        contained in Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture 
        and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount 
        $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
        construction, alteration and modification of research 
        facilities.

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) makes a point of order 
    addressed to the language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning 
    with ``and'' and continuing through and including line 9, on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.6 A point of order having been raised that a portion of a lump 
    sum supplemental appropriation for the White House was not 
    authorized by law, the Chairman determined that the permanent law 
    authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, as well as 
    legislative provisions authorizing additional employment contained 
    in an earlier regular appropriation bill enacted for that fiscal 
    year, constituted sufficient authorization.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11576) a point of order was raised against a provision, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 38854, 38855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             The White House Office

                             salaries and expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'', 
        $1,500,000.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        I raise a point of order to the language of lines 5, 6, 7, and 
    8 of page 14 under the provisions of rule XXI, clause 2, which 
    prohibits legislation on appropriation bills and which prohibits 
    the appropriation of funds without prior legislative authorization.
        Mr. Chairman, I would now like to read from the language of the 
    commit

[[Page 4987]]

    tee's report on White House office, salaries and expenses:
        The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000, a 
    reduction of $110,000 below the amount of the budget estimate.
        These supplemental funds were requested to provide the 
    additional funds needed for the activities of the Counselors to the 
    President and their staffs, the President's Foreign Intelligence 
    Advisory Board, the President's Special Assistant for Consumer 
    Affairs, the Council on Economic Policy, and other professional 
    staff and consultants.

        Mr. Chairman, before I pursue this matter further, I would 
    point out first of all that when an item in an appropriation bill 
    is defective as violative of the rules of the House--in this 
    instance, Rule XXI, clause 2--the whole of the particular item 
    under the point of order falls.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order 
    is directed specifically to the President's special assistant for 
    consumer affairs and to that office, which was challenged earlier 
    on this floor this year by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross). 
    Upon his point of order the Chair acted affirmatively and ruled in 
    support of the point of order and ruled out the item.
        I challenge further on the same grounds, Mr. Chairman, the 
    appropriations for counsellor to the President in that there is no 
    statutory authority for counsellors to the President. I challenge 
    further the President's foreign intelligence advisory board in that 
    there is also, to my knowledge, no statutory authority for this 
    particular office.
        Also, Mr. Chairman, I challenge on the same grounds again the 
    counsel on economic policy of the President and his staff and 
    offices, appurtenances and expenditures pertinent thereto. I would 
    point out further, Mr. Chairman, that under the rules of the House 
    of Representatives, that the burden is upon the proponent of the 
    appropriation bill to establish the legislative basis and to cite 
    the statutes upon which the Appropriations Committee bases its 
    action in appropriating funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . Sections 103, 105, and 106 
    of title 3 authorize appropriations for the purpose of paying the 
    salaries of certain persons in the Executive Office of the 
    President. The appropriation bill itself, in the paragraph 
    beginning on page 14, line 5, gives no indication that the 
    appropriation would be used for any unauthorized purpose. The 
    paragraph merely provides a lump sum for the Executive Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan, in making his point of order, goes 
    beyond the provisions of the bill and looks at the provisions of 
    the committee report.
        The Chair does not believe that in this case, any more than in 
    the case made by the gentleman from Iowa earlier in the 
    consideration of the bill, it is within his province to go beyond 
    the plain provisions of the bill, and the authorizing statute.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier ruling cited by Mr. Dingell had 
taken place on June 15, 1973. Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
had sustained a point of

[[Page 4988]]

order against an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
established by executive order, where the Committee on Appropriations 
had not cited statutory authority for the appropriation (contained in 
H.R. 8619, agriculture-environment and consumer protection 
appropriations bill). Congress subsequently enacted Public Law No. 93-
143, the Treasury, Executive Office Appropriations Act for fiscal 1974, 
containing funds for the White House Office and legislation, effective 
for the same fiscal year covered by the supplemental appropriation 
bill, permitting the President to employ consultants notwithstanding 
other provisions of law. For that reason, and because it was not 
readily apparent from the language of either the supplemental bill, the 
authorizing statute, or the committee report that a portion of the lump 
sum was to fund an unauthorized office, the Chair overruled the point 
of order.

Appropriation Bill as Containing Specific Approval

Sec. 2.7 The restriction in law prohibiting the use of any funds for 
    the preparation of final plans or for construction of the west 
    front extension ``until specifically approved and appropriated 
    therefor by the Congress'' was held not to require legislative 
    ``approval'' prior to the appropriation, where the legislative 
    history of the law indicated that other law was to be considered 
    sufficient authorization for the project and that only further 
    approval through the appropriation process was required.

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriations bill 
(H.R. 6691) for fiscal 1974, Mr. J. Edward Roush, of Indiana, raised a 
point of order against the following language in the bill, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 12781, 12782, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Extension of the Capitol

        For an amount, additional to amounts heretofore appropriated, 
    for ``Extension of the Capitol'', in substantial accordance with 
    plans for extension of the West Central front heretofore approved 
    by the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, to be 
    expended, as authorized by law, by the Architect of the Capitol 
    under the direction of such Commission, $58,000,000, to remain 
    available until expended. . . .
        Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is based upon these 
    following facts: The appropriation as proposed

[[Page 4989]]

    lacks legislative authority and, secondly, the language 
    ``$58,000,000 to remain available until expended'' constitutes 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill. . . .
        I would refer to the appropriation bill last year, which would 
    be Public Law 92-342, under the section ``Extension of the 
    Capitol:''

            Funds available under this appropriation may be used for 
        the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the 
        west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be 
        used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of 
        construction of said project until specifically approved and 
        appropriated therefor by the Congress.

        I point out to the Chairman that the plans have not been 
    specifically approved. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have searched this matter diligently and the 
    only authority that I can find for the extension of the west front 
    of the Capitol necessarily has to be inferred from the language of 
    a bill which was passed in 1855. . . .
        Mr. [Robert R.] Casey of Texas: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    project is authorized, and I would point out that the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Roush) who is making the point of order, failed 
    to read all of Public Law 242 of the 84th Congress.
        The law reads:

            Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is 
        hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for 
        Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the 
        President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives--

        Et cetera.

            In substantial accordance with Scheme B of the 
        architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress 
        and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document 
        Numbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Congress), but with such 
        modifications and additions, including provisions for 
        restaurant facilities and such other facilities in the Capitol 
        Grounds, together with utilities . . .

        It does not just refer to one item. I think this gives great 
    latitude.

            Together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other 
        appurtenant or necessary items . . . there is hereby 
        appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, that the Architect of the Capitol under the direction 
        of said commission and without regard to the provisions of 
        section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized 
        to enter into contracts.

        Et cetera.
        This law was amended February 14, 1956, and there was added 
    this amendment under ``Extension of the Capitol.'' This was Public 
    Law 406, 84th Congress:

            The paragraph entitled ``Extension of the Capitol'' in the 
        Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, is hereby amended by 
        inserting after the words ``to remain available until 
        expended'' and before the colon, a comma and the following: 
        ``and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 
        additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be 
        required for the purposes hereof. . . .''

        The Chairman: (19) . . . The gentleman from Indiana 
    . . . contends that Public Law 92-342 requires ``specific'' 
    approval by Congress of prepara

[[Page 4990]]

    tion of final plans or initiation of construction prior to an 
    appropriation therefor. The Chair has examined the legislative 
    history of the provision relied upon by the gentleman from Indiana 
    in support of his argument that the appropriation must be 
    specifically approved by Congress prior to the appropriation, and 
    it is clear from the debate in the Senate on March 28, 1972, that 
    approval in an appropriation bill was all that was required by the 
    provision in Public Law 92-342. The Chair feels that there is 
    sufficient authorization contained in [Public Law 84-242] as 
    amended by Public Law 84-406 for the appropriation contained in the 
    pending bill, and that no further specific authorization is 
    required prior to an appropriation for final plans and construction 
    for the West Front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. Sec. 2.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing 
    that appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses were 
    to be available for expenses of attendance of officers and 
    employees at meetings or conventions was held to be in order since 
    such provision was authorized to be included in appropriation bills 
    by statutory provisions.

    On May 2, 1951, (20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following proceeding took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 36, 
    line 17, insert the following:

            Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel 
        expenses shall be available for expenses of attendance of 
        officers and employees at meetings or conventions of members of 
        societies or associations concerned with the work of the bureau 
        or office for which the appropriation concerned is made.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it involves 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The gentleman from Washington has 
    called the attention of the Chair to section 83, title 5 of the 
    United States Code. Permit the Chair to read the language contained 
    in that provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            No money appropriated by any act shall be expended for 
        membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the 
        United States or of the District of Columbia, in any society or 
        association or for expenses of attendance of any person at any 
        meeting or convention of members of any society or association 
        unless such fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid 
        by specific appropriations for such purposes or are provided 
        for in express terms in some general appropriation.

        The Chair feels that the language which has just been read 
    governs the matter and overrules the point of order

[[Page 4991]]

    made by the gentleman from New York.

Senate Confirmation of Appointees Required Prior to Appropriation for 
    Positions

Sec. Sec. 2.9 Although the President has the power to appoint foreign 
    ambassadors and ministers, an appropriation to pay such salaries is 
    not in order unless the Senate has confirmed the appointment.

    On Aug. 17, 1937, (22) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8245, a deficiency appropriation bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.  81 Cong. Rec. 9175, 9176, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries of ambassadors and ministers: For an additional amount 
    for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938, for 
    the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
    to Lithuania at $10,000 per annum, $8,333.34: Provided, That the 
    appropriation for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal 
    year 1938, shall be available for payment of the salary of an envoy 
    extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Estonia and Latvia at 
    $10,000 per annum. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point on order against the language on page 28, lines 4 to 12, 
    inclusive, as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    not authorized by law. It creates a new position, that of Minister 
    of Lithuania. The President has no constitutional right and is 
    empowered by no act of Congress to create additional positions. 
    Therefore, I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and if the 
    Chair is in doubt I would like to speak a little further on the 
    matter and cite some precedents. . . .
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the item is subject to a point of order for the reason that the 
    Minister has been appointed but not confirmed. The President has 
    the right to appoint, but if the minister has not been confirmed 
    the Congress would have no right to appropriate. There has been no 
    confirmation. I think the gentleman's point of order is well taken, 
    if he chooses to make it. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule. As 
    stated by the gentleman from Virginia, the President has the right 
    to appoint. At the present time, however, the Senate has not 
    confirmed the appointment. The appropriation, therefore, is subject 
    to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Implied Authorization

Sec. Sec. 2.10 Appropriations for travel expenses, including 
    examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, under the 
    heading ``Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture,'' 
    were held authorized by law as necessary

[[Page 4992]]

    to carry out the basic law setting up the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter of the 
general appropriation bill of 1951. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing in lines 6 to 7, page 
    204, ``travel expenses, including examination of estimates for 
    appropriations in the field.''. . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] has made a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 204 of the chapter 
    beginning in line 6, which has been quoted by him, on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House. The Chair has examined the language and has 
    listened attentively to the arguments presented and has also made 
    an examination of the precedents and decisions of the House. It 
    appears that in 1938 a point of order was made against language 
    similar to this, and the Chairman, Mr. Jones, of Texas, overruled 
    the point of order. The decision is found on page 2656 of the 
    Record of March 1, 1938. On the basis of that precedent and 
    decision the Chair overrules the point of order.

    The 1938 decision relied on by the Chair took place during 
consideration of H.R. 9621, appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior. An amendment had been offered, reading in part as follows: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 1, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: Page 72, beginning with line 
    12, insert the following:

            Administration provisions and limitations: For all 
        expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts 
        amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the 
        reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures 
        from said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 
        for personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the 
        office of the chief engineer . . .; examination of estimates 
        for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and 
        deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for 
        lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding.

    The following exchange took place:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not 
    authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic 
    prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision 
    for examination of estimates for appropriations in

[[Page 4993]]

     the field, which is not authorized by law; $15,000 for 
    lithographing and engraving, not authorized by law; the purchase of 
    ice, the purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees, 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment 
    provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 
    1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemenatary thereto, known 
    as the reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures 
    from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The Chair thinks that 
    the items to which the gentleman from New York objects specifically 
    are incidental to the main purpose of carrying out the reclamation 
    law. These incidental items it seems to the Chair are necessary to 
    carry out the major purposes of the reclamation law, and the Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Mr. Taber offered an amendment to strike the words ``examination of 
estimates for appropriations in the field,'' which amendment was 
rejected.

Specific Project Authorized by General Grant of Authority

Sec. 2.11 Legislation authorizing the Administrator of the Federal 
    Aviation Administration to develop and test improved aircraft, and 
    legislation transferring and vesting those functions ``including 
    the development and construction of a civil supersonic aircraft'' 
    in the Secretary of Transportation was held to authorize an 
    appropriation for the construction of prototypes of the civil 
    supersonic aircraft.

    On May 27, 1970,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17755), Mr. Sidney R. Yates, 
of Illinois, raised a point of order against certain language in the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 17310, 17311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For an additional amount for expenses, not otherwise provided 
    for, necessary for the development of a civil supersonic aircraft, 
    including the construction of two prototype aircraft of the same 
    design, and advances of funds without regard to the provisions of 
    section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529), 
    $289,965,000, to remain available until expended. . . .
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation for the 
    development of a supersonic aircraft under the terms of a contract 
    between the Government and the Boeing Co. The authorization for the 
    appropriation is admittedly section 312(b) of the Federal Aviation 
    Act, which provides as follows:

            The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise 
        such development work and service testing as tends to the 
        creation of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, 
        and appliances.
            For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make 
        pur

[[Page 4994]]

        chases--including exchange--by negotiation, or otherwise, of 
        experimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and 
        appliances, which seem to offer special advantages to 
        aeronautics.

        There is nothing in either provision which authorizes the 
    spending of public funds for private purposes or private gains. 
    There is nothing in either provision which gives the benefits of 
    whatever development or testing is undertaken to the person or the 
    company doing the work. My point here is if the Government pays for 
    the work, as it is in this case, then the Government is entitled to 
    the product. The Government owns the product because it has paid 
    for it. There is no provision in the law which permits gifts or for 
    making grants. That is not the case in this contract because the 
    plane when built will belong to Boeing. Under the contract, 
    whatever results from the development belongs to Boeing, which has 
    the burden of producing the SST. Under the contract the Government 
    is to be repaid for its money through royalties from the sale of 
    planes, but the planes when completed will belong to the Boeing Co. 
    Yet, as I said, there is no authority on the statute books for 
    loans or grants to the contractor. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raised the point of 
    order against the appropriation appearing on page 2 of the bill, 
    entitled ``Civil Supersonic Aircraft Development,'' on the ground 
    that there is no authorization in law for the development of such 
    an aircraft, and for the expenditure provided herein.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) in responding to 
    the point of order has cited certain provisions of law which have 
    been recognized by the gentleman from Illinois as pertaining 
    directly to the authorization of the civil supersonic aircraft 
    development program.
        The Chair has examined the laws to which attention has been 
    directed. Chapter 20 of title 49, United States Code, relates to 
    the Federal aviation program of the Federal Government, and sets 
    forth the powers and duties of the Federal Aviation Agency and, as 
    has been pointed out, empowers the Administrator to ``undertake or 
    supervise such developmental work and service testing as tends to 
    the creation of improved aircraft. For such purpose, the 
    Administrator is empowered to make purchases--of experimental 
    aircraft.''
        Even broader, I think, is the delegation of authority that 
    appears in Public Law 89-670, establishing the Department of 
    Transportation. Section 6(c)(1) of that act states as follows:

            There are hereby transferred to and vested in the Secretary 
        (of Transportation) all functions, powers, and duties of the 
        Federal Aviation Agency, and of the Administrator and other 
        officers and offices thereof, including the development and 
        construction of a civil supersonic aircraft.

        The Chair has heard the argument of the gentleman from Illinois 
    with reference to his contention that this must be construed 
    narrowly, but does not find in the law or in the precedents any 
    requirement for as narrow a construction as the gentleman has 
    contended for. It is a broad delegation of

[[Page 4995]]

    authority, and must not be construed as narrowly as the gentleman 
    has sought.
        In view of these citations, which give the Secretary a broad 
    experimental and development authority and bestow upon him in 
    explicit terms the authority to develop and construct a Civil 
    Supersonic Aircraft, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

``Miscellaneous'' Items as Authorized

Sec. 2.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    certain items ``and other miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise 
    provided for'' was held to apply to regular expenses that are 
    authorized by law, and in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, a State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and 
Federal Loan Agency appropriation. A provision was read as follows, and 
a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2378, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miscellaneous expenses: For stationery, supplies, materials and 
    equipment, freight, express, and drayage charges, washing towels, 
    advertising, purchase of lawbooks and books of reference, 
    periodicals and newspapers, communication service and postage; for 
    the maintenance, repair, and operation of one motor-propelled 
    delivery truck; for rent in the District of Columbia, and 
    elsewhere; for official traveling expenses, including examination 
    of estimates for appropriations in the field, and other 
    miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
    effectively carry out the provisions of the act providing for the 
    administration of the United States courts, and for other purposes, 
    $26,000. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: . . . I make a point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 15 with the word ``and'' and 
    ending in line 16 with the word ``for.''
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman makes a point of 
    order against the language reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And other miscellaneous expenses not otherwise provided 
        for?

        Mr. Jones: That is right.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    provides merely for regular expenses that are authorized by law. I 
    do not see anything in this subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair fails to see any reason why the 
    language referred to should be subject to a point of order, and 
    unless the gentleman from Ohio can be more specific in his 
    objection the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 4996]]

Increasing Appropriation Within Authorized Limits

Sec. 2.13 It is in order to increase the appropriation in an 
    appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law if such increase 
    does not exceed the amount authorized for such objects.

    On Mar. 10, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation 
bill. An amendment was allowed which restored part of a sum which had 
previously been stricken from the bill, where such amendment did not 
cause the appropriation for the objects under consideration to exceed 
the total amount for such objects authorized by law. The portion of the 
bill in question, and proceedings relating to it, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2224, 2225, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Flood control, general: For the construction and maintenance of 
    certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 
    for other purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Flood 
    Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented, 
    including printing and binding, newspapers, lawbooks, books of 
    reference, periodicals, and office supplies and equipment required 
    in the Office of the Chief of Engineers to carry out the purposes 
    of this appropriation, and for preliminary examinations and surveys 
    of and contingencies in connection with flood-control projects 
    authorized by law, $144,973,700: . . .
        Mr. [David D.] Terry [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Terry: ``On page 7, line 5, strike 
        out $144,973,700 and insert $147,078,700.''

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
    raise the amount carried in the bill, $144,973,000 for flood 
    control to an amount that will be sufficient to include the 
    beginning of the work on the Table Rock Reservoir.
        Congress has authorized for the White River Basin $49,000,000 
    to be appropriated for the prosecution of a comprehensive dual 
    purpose flood control and power program in the White River Basin. 
    According to the testimony in the hearings, $15,870,000 was 
    allocated from funds previously appropriated against this 
    authorization. The Budget has presented four projects in the White 
    River Basin which total $37,525,000.
        The appropriation of this amount, in conjunction with the 
    $15,870,000, would result in a total of $53,395,000, or $4,395,000 
    in excess of the $49,000,000 that has been authorized to be 
    appropriated.
        The Committee of the Whole eliminated the $6,500,000 which was 
    included in the Budget sent down on

[[Page 4997]]

    February 20 for the construction of Table Rock Reservoir. When this 
    matter was up in the subcommittee at the time of the marking up of 
    the bill, a motion was made by a committee member to eliminate 
    Table Rock, but the subcommittee voted against cutting out the 
    Table Rock item. When the bill came up in the full committee on 
    appropriations, on a very close vote, the committee eliminated 
    Table Rock on the theory that--and it was a fact--the appropriation 
    was over the authorization. So the Table Rock item was eliminated, 
    as I say, by a very close vote.

        My amendment merely seeks to raise the amount to the limit of 
    the congressional authorization. If we adopt my amendment we add 
    $2,105,000 to the amount in the bill for flood control, but it will 
    permit considerable work to be done on the Table Rock project this 
    year and the coming fiscal year, and we shall still be within the 
    authorized appropriation limit carried in the Budget estimate for 
    the whole bill, and we shall not be above the $49,000,000 which has 
    been authorized by the Congress for the White River Basin. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The authorization for these two projects was only $49,000,000. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this exceeds the total amount authorized. . . .
        Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the committee in charge of the bill 
    has checked those figures with the Army engineers in charge of 
    flood control, and the figure that I have included in the amendment 
    is the figure given by the engineers. It shows a total of 
    $53,395,000 will be appropriated, including $15,870,000 past 
    amounts, and those in the Budget estimates for 1943, in the sum of 
    $37,525,000, with a $49,000,000 authorization. That would exceed 
    the authorization $4,395,000. If $6,500,000 for Table Rock is 
    stricken out, the authorizations will exceed the appropriations in 
    an amount of $2,105,000, which is the amount of my amendment, and 
    is an amount that will not exceed the Budget estimate and will not 
    exceed the $49,000,000 authorized by the Legislative Committee of 
    this House for the comprehensive plan for the White River Basin.
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I may say the gentleman's own figures 
    show that these are the items to begin the project and they will 
    exceed the amount of the Budget estimate.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        This section of the bill, lines 4 and 5, is for preliminary 
    examination, surveys, or for contingencies in connection with 
    flood-control projects authorized by law.
        The gentleman from Arkansas in his amendment raises the 
    appropriation, but in that raise it only applies to those projects 
    which are authorized by law; therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.

Sec. 2.14 An amendment proposing simply to increase an appropriation 
    for a specific object over the amount car

[[Page 4998]]

    ried in the appropriation bill does not constitute a change in law 
    unless such increase is in excess of that authorized.

    On Feb. 28, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office appropriation bill. 
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2029, 2030, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Construction of public buildings outside of the District of 
    Columbia: For continuation of construction of, and acquisition of 
    sites for, public buildings outside of the District of Columbia, 
    including the purposes and objects, and subject to the limitations, 
    specified under this head in the Third Deficiency Appropriation 
    Act, fiscal year 1937, and also including those increases in the 
    limits of cost of certain authorized projects, 25 in number, as 
    specified in House Document No. 177, Seventy-sixth Congress, 
    $30,000,000: Provided, That the provisions of section 322 of the 
    act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412), shall not apply with respect 
    to the rental of temporary quarters for housing Federal activities 
    during the replacement or remodeling of buildings authorized under 
    this or previous acts.
        Mr. [James F.] O'Connor [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Connor: Page 51, line 8, 
        strikeout ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$60,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that it is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Montana [Mr. O'Connor] offers an amendment 
    on page 51, line 8, seeking to increase the appropriation there 
    stated, $30,000,000, to the figure of $60,000,000, to which 
    amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of 
    order on the ground that the increase in the item sought to be made 
    is not authorized by law.
        The Chair invites attention to Public Resolution 122, Seventy-
    fifth Congress, title III, Federal Public Buildings, and quotes in 
    part as follows:

            . . . is hereby increased from $70,000,000 to $130,000,000.

        There is a balance remaining of that authorization of 
    $71,000,000. The pending bill carries an appropriation of 
    $30,000,000, which would leave $41,000,000 unappropriated. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Montana seeks to increase the 
    $30,000,000 appropriation to $60,000,000, or seeks to appropriate 
    $30,000,000 of the remaining $41,000,000 authorized by law. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing an additional 
    amount within the total authorized was held to be in order.

[[Page 4999]]

    On Feb. 25, 1958, (13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10881, a bill making supplemental appropriations. The 
following provision was read and a point of order was raised as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For an additional amount for ``Acreage reserve program,'' 
    fiscal year 1958, $250,000, which shall be available to formulate 
    and administer an acreage reserve program in accord with the 
    provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 
    1821-1824 and 1802-1814), with respect to the 1958 crops, in an 
    amount not to exceed $175 million in addition to the amount 
    specified for such purposes in Public Law 85-118.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on page 4, lines 1 to 9 of the bill on 
    the ground that it changes existing law. I refer the chairman to 
    the language of the appropriation bill which became law on the 2d 
    day of August. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language objected to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] provides for an additional amount. This of course means an 
    additional amount to that provided for in the authorization 
    contained in Public Law 540 of the 84th Congress.
        The Chair therefore feels that in view of the fact that there 
    are ample funds authorized to carry out this program, and that the 
    appropriation herein proposed is within the authorized amount, the 
    point of order cannot be sustained.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The law referred to in the point of order 
was contained in Pub. L. No. 85-118 which provided, ``That no part of 
this appropriation shall be used to formulate and administer an acreage 
reserve program which would result in total compensation being paid to 
producers in excess of'' a designated amount. That limitation, since it 
applied only to the appropriation in that act, had no applicability to 
the supplemental appropriation which was in dispute here.

Appropriation of Total Authorization

Sec. 2.16 Where the law authorizes an appropriation of a specific 
    amount and a paragraph of an appropriation bill appropriates a 
    portion thereof, an amendment changing the figure in the bill to 
    the full amount authorized is in order.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an agricultural

[[Page 5000]]

appropriation bill. The following portion of the bill was before the 
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 3454, 3455, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Farm Tenancy

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the 
    provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, 
    approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), including the 
    employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and 
    elsewhere, exclusive of printing and binding, as authorized by said 
    act, $24,984,500, together with the unexpended balance of the 
    appropriation made under said act for the fiscal year 1939.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 93, line 
        22, after the word ``Act'', strike ``$24,584,500'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$50,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the $50,000,000 is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma provides that the figures, $24,984,500, be 
    stricken out and $50,000,000 inserted in lieu thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill is making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, and for the Farm Credit Administration, for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1940. The Chair has examined the law, and the 
    law provides, on the question of farm tenancy, that not to exceed 
    $10,000,000 shall be appropriated for the year ending June 30, 
    1938; not to exceed $25,000,000 for the year ending June 30, 1939; 
    and not to exceed $50,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

Effect of Language Limiting Appropriations to Purposes Authorized by 
    Law

Sec. 2.17 A point of order will not lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some 
    of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation 
    of funds have not been authorized, since language in the bill 
    limits use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''

    On June 18, 1958,(17) a point of order was made against 
provisions of H.R. 12858 (appropriations for civil functions 
administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies of the 
Department of the Interior), as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           construction, general

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized

[[Page 5001]]

        by law; detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
        projects (including those for development with participation or 
        under consideration for participation by States, local 
        governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible for 
        selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
        commitment of the Government to construction); and not to 
        exceed $1,600,000 for transfer to the Secretary of the Interior 
        for conservation of fish and wildlife as authorized by law; to 
        remain available until expended $577,085,500: . . . Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for 
        projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by a law 
        limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may 
        be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
        to be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: [I make a point of order 
    against the] paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending on page 
    5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the appropriation which 
    has not been authorized by law. The figure there is $577,085,500. I 
    am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by letter dated June 11, 
    1958, that there is contained here $57,702,253 in projects which 
    are not authorized by law.
        I am able by referring to the different items on page 5 of the 
    Report that there are the Beaver Reservoir in Arkansas, the Bull 
    Shoals Reservoir, Arkansas and Missouri. . . . There are probably 
    15 or 20 of those items. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: [The] gentleman makes a 
    point of order against the figure $577,085,500 in line 8 on page 4. 
    But the point of order does not lie for the reason that in the 
    proviso at the bottom of page 4 it is specifically provided:
        Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by 
    a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated.
        So the point of order is not well taken, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, these projects are without and beyond 
    the limits of the authorization. That is the point of order.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, may I also call attention to the 
    language beginning on page 3 as follows:

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.

        The figure the gentleman refers to is for this specific 
    purpose.
        The Chairman [Hale Boggs, of Louisiana]: The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
        The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23, 
    page 3, the language is as follows:

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.

        Then further, as again pointed out by the chairman, there is 
    this language on the bottom of page 4:

            That no part of this appropriation shall be used for 
        projects not authorized by law.

        Now, that language, in the opinion of the Chair, is quite 
    specific in that none

[[Page 5002]]

    of these funds regardless of the amount involved, can be used for 
    any project which is not authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.18 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds 
    appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by law ``or 
    which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be 
    appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the 
    amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to 
    limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order 
    against the language as legislation was overruled.

    On May 24, 1960,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 12326), the 
following paragraph of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the prosecution of river and harbor . . . and related 
    projects authorized by law; detailed studies, and plans and 
    specifications, of projects . . . authorized or made eligible for 
    selection by law . . .; and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer 
    to the Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and 
    wildlife as authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available 
    until expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall 
    be used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized 
    by a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated: . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman to make (a) point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line 
    18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a law limiting 
    the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may be within the 
    limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be 
    appropriated.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    make the further point of order that this is authorizing 
    appropriations for projects not authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote briefly from ``Cannon's 
    Precedents,'' page 63:

            As a general proposition whenever a limitation is 
        accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' ``until,'' 
        ``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-called 
        limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to its 
        ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the 
        conservative side. By doing so appropriation bills will be 
        relieved of much of the legislation which is being constantly 
        grafted

[[Page 5003]]

        upon them and a check given a practice which seems to the 
        Chair, both unwise and in violation of the spirit, as well as 
        the substance, of our rules.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the 
    language. The legislative committee has placed outside limits on 
    the amount of money which can be spent in a given river basin. Such 
    basin may have a number of dams or projects in it. Without the 
    language these monetary limits could be exceeded by action on an 
    appropriation bill, thus setting aside the action of the 
    legislative committee.
        This is strictly a limitation.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the 
    Chair that more than one member of the committee has admitted that 
    there are appropriations not authorized by law, that this is a 
    subterfuge, and I say, Mr. Chairman, designed to controvert the 
    rule of the House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on Appropriations 
    for the past 18 years. I cannot recall when a point of order has 
    ever been raised against similar language in an appropriation bill. 
    The language is simply limiting an appropriation expenditure, 
    providing that the expenditure shall not be made until such project 
    is authorized by law. I fail to see, Mr. Chairman, where a point of 
    order could lie against this language because it is purely a simple 
    limitation of expenditure on an appropriation bill; nothing more, 
    nothing less.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958, by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Taber). It also happens that the present 
    occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The Chair 
    ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no 
    question about its referring to the controlling phase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the preceding one 
demonstrate that when a lumpsum appropriation is restricted by specific 
language in the bill to projects authorized by law, indications in the 
committee report to the effect that certain unauthorized projects may 
be contemplated must be conceded to be without legislative effect. 
Where there is such a conflict in language, the language in the bill 
itself would prevail. Further discussion of this concept appears in 
Chapter 26, infra.

[[Page 5004]]

Sec. 2.19 A point of order will not lie against an amendment proposing 
    to increase a lump-sum appropriation for construction and 
    rehabilitation of public works projects when language in the bill 
    limits use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects . . . as 
    authorized by law.''

    On June 5, 1959,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for 
civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Budge: On page 8, line 5, strike 
        out ``$128,473,239'' and insert ``$128,973,-239.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The amendment has just 
    been read and I am reserving a point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman: (21) Will the gentleman from Missouri 
    state his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: The point of order is that the project is 
    unauthorized.
        Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order without further discussion, because the amendment simply 
    changes the amount of the bill without specific reference to any 
    project.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The paragraph to which this amendment was 
offered began as follows: ``Construction and Rehabilitation. For 
construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation projects or 
parts thereof (including power transmission facilities) and for other 
related activities, as authorized by law to remain available until 
expended, $128,473,239 . . .''

Sec. 2.20 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for increased pay costs, where the objection was 
    based on the ground that a portion of the increase was not yet 
    authorized by law; it was noted that language in the bill limited 
    use of the appropriation to pay costs ``authorized by or pursuant 
    to law.''

    On May 21, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11400, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following

[[Page 5005]]

paragraphs of the bill were read for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                          House of Representatives

                          compensation of members

                      Compensation of Members, $1,975,000

                     salaries, officers, and employees

                       ``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the 
    ground that, as admitted by the committee, this contains moneys to 
    be appropriated that have not been authorized by Congress.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will inquire: Does the 
    gentleman's point of order refer to lines 12, 13, and 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, 
    I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the 
    Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is, I believe, only 
    referring to the pay increase for the Speaker and other Members-- 
    the item on line 12.
        Mr. Gross: Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line 
    items contains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much 
    as I can to be sure I get the funds covered. If the gentleman will 
    tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with 
    the permission of the Chair.
        Mr. Mahon: The funds which have not been authorized are 
    included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.
        Mr. Gross: Those are the only funds that have not been 
    authorized?
        Mr. Mahon: Yes; that is the figure involved. A small portion of 
    that has not been authorized. . . .
        The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That 
    is correct.
        Mr. Gross: You mean the $1,975,000?
        Mr. Mahon: No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But it cannot 
    be paid unless it is authorized. Otherwise, it would revert unused 
    to the Treasury.
        The Chairman: The Chair again is confused. The Chair sees no 
    reference to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language 
    referred to here.
        Mr. Mahon: It is part of the figure of $1,975,000. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is still in a quandary because the 
    language in line 7 says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or 
    pursuant to law.''
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, all compensation due by law to Members 
    of Congress is authorized. If it is not authorized, it cannot be 
    paid.
        The Chairman: Yes. . . .
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the gentleman's point of 
    order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot 
    be used for any other purpose than increased pay costs authorized 
    by or pursuant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is 
    overruled.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1960 
        [H.R. 11666], where a point of order was made against a 
        paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that the lump-
        sum figure therein contained, according to the report, funds 
        for one organization in excess of the authorization. Although 
        the point of order was conceded, the language of the bill 
        specified that appropriations in the paragraph were available 
        only for ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts'' 
        providing for U.S. participation in certain organizations, and, 
        under the precedents, the quoted language would limit the 
        amount which could be used to the amount actually authorized, 
        so that the point of order would not lie.

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

[[Page 5006]]

Authorizations Enacted After Reporting Appropriation Bill

Sec. 2.21 A point of order against an item in a general appropriation 
    bill was overruled when it became apparent that the authorizing 
    legislation had been enacted into law between the time the 
    appropriation bill was reported and the time it was considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 19, 1970,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17619) a point of order was raised against 
certain language in the bill as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 16164, 16165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation

        For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act 
    of October 30, 1965 (16 U.S.C. 757), $2,168,000.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on lines 1 through 3 of page 19 
    as unauthorized for an appropriation.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentlewoman from 
    Washington desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Yes, I do, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        May I say, relative to the Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries 
    Conservation, the bill was signed by the President of the United 
    States on May 14.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The language in the bill indicates that this is under the 
    provisions of the act of October 30, 1965. As the gentlewoman from 
    Washington points out, the program has recently been reauthorized--
    Public Law 91-249.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Repeal of Prior Authorization

Sec. 2.22 An act providing that notwithstanding any other law, ``no 
    appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
    Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
    hereafter enacted by the Con

[[Page 5007]]

    gress,'' was construed to have voided all previous authorizations 
    for appropriations to that agency; hence an appropriation was held 
    not to be in order since not authorized by law enacted after the 
    repeal.

    On June 29, 1959,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against certain provisions of the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Research and Development

            For an additional amount for ``Research and development,'' 
        fiscal year 1959, $18,675,000, to remain available until 
        expended.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point [of] order against 
    the language on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, on the ground that there 
    is no authorization in basic law for this appropriation to be made.
        In connection with that, I send a copy of Public Law 86-45 of 
    the 86th Congress to the Chair. I make the point of order on the 
    ground that there is no authorization in basic law for this 
    appropriation to be made. The authorization for this appropriation 
    did exist at one time, but it was repealed by the act of June 15, 
    1959, Public Law 86-45, section 4, which reads as follows:

            Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no 
        appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
        hereafter enacted by the Congress.

        This law, Mr. Chairman, was approved on June 15, 1959. This 
    language clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that appropriations can 
    be made for items authorized by legislation which is hereafter 
    enacted, meaning after June 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly states that 
    appropriations can be made only for items authorized after June 15, 
    1959, hence all previous authorizations are voided. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa has made a point of order 
    against that portion of the bill appearing in lines 2, 3, and 4, 
    page 4, and has called the attention of the Chair to section 4 of 
    Public Law 86-45. In view of the language cited, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 3. Reappropriations

    A House rule states:

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

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

[[Page 5008]]

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

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

[[Page 5009]]

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

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

Generally

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

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

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

    An amendment was offered as indicated below:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten:

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

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

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

[[Page 5010]]

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

    A point of order was made as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5011]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            Members' Clerk Hire

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

                               Point of Order

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

[[Page 5012]]

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

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

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

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

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

                                Reserve Training

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

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

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

[[Page 5013]]

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

Later Rule as Superseding Statute

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5014]]

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

Later Statute as Superseding Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5015]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5016]]

    the reappropriation of unexpended balances of prior year funds.

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

        Page 3, line 19:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5017]]

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

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

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

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

 Transfer of Funds

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

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

[[Page 5018]]

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

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

Holman Rule Not Applicable

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5019]]

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

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

[[Page 5020]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5021]]

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

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

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

Reappropriations Permitted Prior to Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1946

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

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

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

           ``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources

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

[[Page 5022]]

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

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

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

                         Federal-Aid Highway System

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5023]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5024]]

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

Works in Progress

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5025]]

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

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


 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 5. Contingent Fund Expenditures

    Money appropriated for the contingent fund of the House is used for 
such miscellaneous purposes as employees salaries or salary increases, 
including those of committee investigative personnel; certain 
allowances (12) housekeeping actions (13) and the 
like. Simple House resolutions, which provide for expenditures from the 
contingent fund, are reported by the Committee on House Administration 
and called up as privileged.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. On one occasion, expenses incident to a special session of 
        Congress, including mileage for the Vice President, Senators, 
        and Representatives, and payments to pages, were provided for 
        by appropriations made in a joint resolution. See Sec. 8.21, 
        infra.
13. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ch. 6 
        Sec. Sec. 10-13 (4th ed.).
14. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, a resolution not formally reported by the Committee on 
House Administration, providing for payment from the contingent fund of 
salaries of in

[[Page 5085]]

vestigative personnel of standing and select committees for a three 
months period (pending adoption of annual committee funding 
resolution), is called up and agreed to by unanimous 
consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 4.4 
        (4th ed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on House Administration formerly had authority to fix 
allowances without subsequent House approval. Such authority, except 
for cost of living adjustments, was withdrawn on July 1, 1976, by a 
House resolution thereafter enacted into law. Subsequent House approval 
is presently required for Committee on House Administration orders 
fixing allowances beyond the 94th Congress.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 4.5 
        (4th ed.)                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged Resolution

Sec. 5.1 A resolution reported by the Committee on House Administration 
    providing for an expenditure from the contingent fund is called up 
    as privileged.

    On June 16, 1965,(1) a resolution (2) 
authorizing each Member and the Resident Commissioner to employ a 
``summer Congressional Intern'' and permitting payment from the 
contingent fund of amounts required to carry out the resolution, was 
reported by the Committee on House Administration and called up as 
privileged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H. Res. 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up House 
    Resolution 416, with amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 416

            Resolved, That (a) notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, each Member of the House of Representatives and the 
        Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico are authorized to hire . 
        . . one additional employee. . . . For this purpose each Member 
        of the House of Representatives and the Resident Commissioner 
        from Puerto Rico shall have available for payment to such 
        intern a gross allowance of $750 . . . payable from the 
        contingent fund of the House until otherwise provided by law.

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, indicated that such a report, privileged under Rule 
XI, may be called up for consideration on the same day reported, and 
unanimous consent is not required.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Such reports are now subject to the

[[Page 5086]]

three-day layover requirement of Rule XI clause 2(l)(6).

Sec. 5.2 A resolution reported by the Committee on House 
    Administration, providing for payment from the contingent fund of 
    additional compensation for certain positions created by House 
    resolution, was called up as privileged.

    On Aug. 5, 1970,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27449-51, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on House Administration, I [call up] a privileged report 
    (Rept. No. 91-1378) on the resolution (H. Res. 1117) relating to 
    the compensation of two positions created by House Resolution 543, 
    89th Congress, and ask for immediate consideration of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1171

            Resolved, That, until otherwise provided by law, effective 
        as of January 1, 1970, the per annum (gross) rate of 
        compensation (basic compensation plus additional compensation 
        authorized by law) of each of the two positions referred to in 
        House Resolution 543, Eighty-ninth Congress, shall not exceed 
        the annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive 
        Schedule of section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. The 
        contingent fund of the House of Representatives is made 
        available to carry out the purposes of this resolution.

        [The resolution was rejected.]

Surplus Contingent Funds

Sec. 5.3 The House agreed to a resolution authorizing the transfer of 
    surplus 1960 contingent funds to liquidate 1962 contingent fund 
    obligations of the House.

    On June 21, 1962,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 11314, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
See also 109 Cong. Rec. 11462, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1963, for 
        a resolution authorizing transfer of surplus 1961 contingent 
        funds to liquidate 1963 contingent fund obligations of the 
        House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 694) authorizing the transfer of certain funds 
    within the contingent fund of the House of Representatives, and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That such funds as may be necessary to liquidate 
        the 1962 obligations may be transferred, within the contingent 
        fund of the House of Representatives, from ``Miscellaneous 
        Items, 1960'', to ``Special and Select Committees, 1962''.

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

[[Page 5087]]



 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status


    The rules (5) give a privileged status to reports on 
general appropriation bills. Under the rules, the Committee on 
Appropriations is given ``leave to report at any time'' on general 
appropriation bills. But the privilege is subject to the requirement 
under another rule (6) that general appropriation bills not 
be considered in the House until printed committee hearings and a 
committee report thereon have been available for the Members for at 
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays). Of course, the rule requiring printed hearings and the 
committee report to have been available for three days may be waived by 
unanimous consent.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1981).
            See Sec. 5, supra, for discussion of the privileged status 
        of resolutions reported by the Committee on House 
        Administration that provide for expenditures from the 
        contingent fund of the House.
 6. Rule XXI clause 6 (subsequently clause 7), House Rules and Manuals 
        Sec. 848 (1981).
 7. See 108 Cong. Rec. 19237, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962 
        (proceedings relating to H.R. 13175).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedence of appropriation bills is also recognized in 
provisions relating to the order of business in Committee of the 
Whole.(8) But the usual practice is to consider general 
appropriation bills under the rule giving privileged status to a motion 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
purpose of considering general appropriation bills.(9) The 
motion ordinarily designates the particular bill to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XXIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (1981).
 9. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1981). Under 
        the rule, the motion to consider general appropriation bills 
        and the motion to consider revenue bills are of equal 
        privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be emphasized that the right of the Committee on 
Appropriations to report at any time is confined strictly to general 
appropriation bills, and does not include appropriations for specific 
purposes or resolutions extending appropriations. An example of 
measures not considered ``general appropriation bills,''and therefore 
not reported or called up as privileged, is a joint resolution 
providing continuing appropriations for departments and agencies of

[[Page 5088]]

government, to provide funds until the regular appropriation bills are 
enacted.(10) Similarly, a joint resolution providing an 
appropriation for a single government agency is not a general 
appropriation bill and is not reported as privileged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 8.9, infra.
11. See Sec. 7.4, infra; and 111 Cong. Rec. 9518, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 5, 1965.
            The Committee on Appropriations filed as privileged a joint 
        resolution making supplemental appropriations to two diverse 
        departments for the balance of the fiscal year. See Procedure 
        in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 1.2 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, consideration of nonprivileged appropriation bills may 
be made in order by unanimous consent. Thus, a joint resolution 
continuing appropriations for a fiscal year may be called up as if 
privileged pursuant to a special order entered into by unanimous 
consent, even where such joint resolution has been reported pursuant to 
the rule (12) relating to the filing of nonprivileged 
reports.(13) Similarly, by unanimous consent, the House may 
make in order the consideration of a resolution providing supplemental 
appropriations for a single government agency.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1981).
13. See Sec. 8.8, infra. Joint resolutions continuing appropriations 
        pending enactment of regular annual appropriation measures are, 
        by unanimous consent, generally considered ``in the House as in 
        Committee of the Whole,'' but are sometimes considered in 
        Committee of the Whole to permit more extensive general debate. 
        See 115 Cong. Rec. 31867, 31886, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 
        1969 (H.J. Res. 966).
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 30, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All bills that make appropriations--in fact all proceedings 
touching appropriations of money--require consideration first in 
Committee of the Whole, and a point of order made pursuant to this rule 
is good at any time before the consideration of a bill has 
commenced.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 
        (1981).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relative Privilege

Sec. 6.1 The House having agreed that consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill take priority over all business except 
    conference reports, it was held that such agreement gave a higher 
    privilege to the appropriation bill than to consideration of a 
    resolution disapproving reorganization plans of the Presi

[[Page 5089]]

    dent, business in order under the ``21-day rule,'' and other 
    business

    On May 9, 1950 (16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the House is not proceeding in the regular 
    order because under section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which 
    is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any 
    Member of the House is privileged, and this is a highly privileged 
    motion, to make the motion that the House proceed to the 
    consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) That is the resolution 
    disapproving one of the reorganization plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon (of Texas): Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 
    1960, as shown at page 4835 of the daily Record of that day, the 
    chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Cannon) asked and received unanimous consent that the 
    appropriation bill should have the right-of-way over other 
    privileged business under the rules until disposition, with the 
    exception of conference reports. Therefore, I believe the regular 
    order would be to proceed with the further consideration of H.R. 
    7786. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Under the estabished rules of 
    practice of the House, when a special order like that is granted, 
    like that which was granted at the request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Cannon), if those in charge of the bill do not 
    present on any occasion a motion to go into Committee of the Whole, 
    it is in order for the Speaker to recognize other Members for other 
    items that are in order on the calendar. That does not deprive the 
    holder of that special order of the right, when those items are 
    disposed of, to move that the bill be considered further in 
    Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: If the 21 resolutions 
    that were presented to the House by the President, a great many of 
    which have been considered by the Committee on Expenditures in the 
    Executive Departments--of which the chairman is a member, and which 
    have been acted on by that committee--are not presented to the 
    House before the twenty-fourth of this month, they become law. The 
    general appropriation bill does not necessarily have to be passed 
    until the 30th of June, but it is necessary that the 21 orders of 
    the President be brought before the House so they can be acted on 
    by the twenty-fourth of this month, and it seems to me that they 
    ought to take precedence over any other bill. . . .

[[Page 5090]]

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rankin: I was going to say that if this is of the highest 
    constitutional privilege it comes ahead of the present legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the 
    substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that 
    someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a 
    disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes 
    precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by 
    the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very 
    serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that 
    it is well that he did so.
        The question involved is not a constitutional question but one 
    relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1949.
        . . . The Chair calls attention to the language of paragraph 
    (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization Act of 1949 
    which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the 
    constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as 
    relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner 
    and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such 
    House.''. . .
        On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent 
    request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a 
    rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the 
    consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before 
    the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation. 
    The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was 
    ``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have 
    right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
        That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and 
    interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a 
    further unanimous-consent request.
        The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

            Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday, 
        the first column carrying the special order made by the House 
        last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a 
        special order privileged above all other business of the House 
        under the rule until disposition. The order made was until 
        final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
        Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the 
        floor of the House yesterday.

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        We for the first time this year have all the appropriations in 
    one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration under the 5-minute 
    rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the Congress off

[[Page 5091]]

    entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? So we do have 
    a constitutional right to consider these propositions without 
    having them smothered in this way.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into 
    the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any Member, so 
    that the House is capable of carrying out its will, whatever may be 
    the will of the majority of the House.
        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.
        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understood the statement of the gentleman from Missouri on 
    April 6 was that the appropriation bill would take precedence over 
    all legislation and special orders until entirely disposed of. Does 
    that include conference reports?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A conference report is in a privileged 
    status in any event.
        Mr. Taber: They were specifically exempted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: They were specifically exempted. In 
    relation to the observation made by the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman) that because other business has been brought up and 
    that therefore constitutes a violation of the unanimous-consent 
    request, the Chair, recognizing the logic of the argument, 
    disagrees with it because that action was done through the 
    sufference of the Appropriations Committee and, in the opinion of 
    the Chair, does not constitute a violation in any way; therefore 
    does not obviate the meaning and effect of the unanimous-consent 
    request heretofore entered into, and which the Chair has referred 
    to.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: I believe I am correct, Mr. Speaker, in stating 
    that since the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] was granted, that the House took up a measure 
    under the new 21-day rule. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, 
    whether or not that was taken up because of its high privilege or 
    whether it was taken up because of the sufferance of the chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Cannon].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair, of 
    course, is unable to look into the mind of the Speaker who was 
    presiding at the time. But from the knowledge that the Chair has, 
    which, of course, is

[[Page 5092]]

    rather close, it was because the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations permitted it to be done through sufferance. In other 
    words, if the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations had 
    insisted on going into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union, and if the present occupant of the chair had 
    been presiding, there is nothing else that could have been done 
    under the unanimous-consent request, in the Chair's opinion, but to 
    recognize the motion.
        Mr. Eberharter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . 
    . .
        As I understand the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri, it was that the appropriation bill would take 
    preference over any other matters having a high privilege. My 
    understanding of the new 21-day rule is that that is a matter of 
    the highest privilege, and therefore I am wondering whether the 
    same rule applies.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct, but that 
    rule can be changed just like any other rule of the House can be 
    changed. . . .
        The unanimous-consent request . . . appears in the Record of 
    April 6, that the general appropriation bill shall be a special 
    order privileged above all other business of the House under the 
    rule until disposition. The order made was ``until final 
    disposition.''

House Determines Question of Consideration

Sec. 6.2 An automatic roll call was had on the motion to go into the 
    Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill after a 
    motion to adjourn was rejected.

    On Feb. 14, 1946,(18) a Member addressed Speaker pro 
tempore John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1324, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis T.] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (H.R. 5452) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana.
        Te question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cochran) there were--ayes 103, no 1.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. (After 
    counting.) One hundred and seventy-four Members present; not a 
    quorum.
        Mr. [Compton I.] White [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.

    The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. White) 
there were--ayes 31, noes 103.

        So the motion was rejected.

[[Page 5093]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow].
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 243, nays 16, not 
    voting 171.



 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations--``Continuing'' Appropriations

    The right of the Committee on Appropriations to report at any time 
is confined strictly to general appropriation bills.(19) 
This section discusses the consideration of appropriations not falling 
within the category of general appropriation bills. For example, joint 
resolutions continuing appropriations pending enactment of general 
appropriation bills for the ensuing fiscal year are not ``general'' 
appropriation bills and therefore are not reported or called up as 
privileged.(20) Similarly, supplemental appropriations for a 
single agency or department of government do not comprise a ``general'' 
appropriation bill, though bills making supplemental appropriations for 
diverse agencies are considered general appropriation 
bills.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the discussion at the beginning of Sec. 6, supra; and the 
        precedents in this section.
20. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2 
        (4th ed.). See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2282, et seq. In 
        1981, rule XI clause 4, was amended to allow continuing 
        appropriation bills to be reported as privileged after 
        September 15 (H. Res. 5, 97th Cong.). Precedents arrising under 
        this new rule will appear in later volumes.
 1. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Continuing Appropriations

Sec. 7.1 Where appropriations for certain operations of the Federal 
    Government have remained unprovided for at the beginning of a 
    fiscal year, through the failure of enactment of the supply bills 
    customarily providing for such operations, a bill to extend 
    appropriations for a limited time period for the same operations as 
    those previously provided for, and under the same conditions, 
    restrictions, and limitations has been considered by unanimous 
    consent.

    On June 30, 1937,(2) the following actions took place in 
the

[[Page 5094]]

House prior to passage of H.R. 7726:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 6611, 6612, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I call up . . . 
    H.R. 7726 . . . and ask unanimous consent that the bill may be 
    considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, as I understand it, the Senate has adjourned until 
    tomorrow, so that it is absolutely impossible to have all the 
    appropriation bills passed before the 1st of July. I have never 
    known of this kind of a situation arising before.
        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Be it enacted, etc., That for defraying during the first 
        half of the month of July 1937 all expenses of the necessary 
        operations of the Federal Government, which, on July 1, 1937, 
        remain unprovided with appropriations through the failure of 
        enactment on or before such date of the supply bills 
        customarily providing for such operations, there are hereby 
        extended for and during such period all appropriations 
        available for obligation for such expenses during the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1937, in the same detail and under the 
        same conditions, restrictions, and limitations as such 
        appropriations were provided for on account of such fiscal 
        year. . . .

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year ends at 
    midnight tonight, and all departments for which supply bills have 
    not been enacted by that time are without authority to operate. 
    They can spend no money; they cannot enter into contracts; they 
    cannot employ assistants, rent quarters, buy supplies, or legally 
    transact business of any character.
        All of the supply bills have been enacted with the exception of 
    two War Department bills and the Interior bill.
        It is our hope that they will be ready, in the next day or two, 
    but in the meantime, in order to provide for the maintenance of the 
    War Department and the Interior Department, it is necessary to pass 
    a continuing resolution.
        This is the usual bill, prepared in the regular form, and has 
    been submitted to, and approved by, the Comptroller and the 
    Director of the Budget.

Continuing Appropriations Not Privileged

Sec. 7.2 A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
    departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until the 
    regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
    appropriation bill,'' and is not reported as privileged.

    Whereas general appropriation bills are normally called up as 
privileged, consideration of joint resolutions continuing 
appropriations is usually made in order by unanimous consent, since 
such resolutions are not reported as privileged. The following pro

[[Page 5095]]

ceedings (4) are illustrative of the manner in which bills 
providing for continuing appropriations for departments or agencies of 
government are made in order for consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1967. See 
        also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2282 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Wednesday, September 27, or any 
    day thereafter, for the House to consider a joint resolution making 
    continuing appropriations.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, I wish to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is this: Is a 
    continuing resolution subject to amendment when it is brought onto 
    the floor of the House, if the amendment is germane?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any germane amendment 
    will be in order. It would have to be a germane amendment.
        Mr. Bow: I thank the Speaker, and I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, I would assume the Speaker could add to that the 
    statement: ``If the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.''
        Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry is that not correct? . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers 
    itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of 
    recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the Speaker. 
    . . .
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this is the third continuing resolution 
    to be considered by the House this year.
        I would also say in this case, as in former cases, that the 
    continuing resolution would be considered in the House under the 5-
    minute rule, and I assume any relevant amendment could be offered. 
    . . .
        Mr. Gross: . . . I assume the continuing resolution is for a 
    month or is it for a longer period?
        Mr. Mahon: It would probably be for 1 month. The committee 
    meets next week to consider the matter. We are pushing to get our 
    bills through, but there are three appropriation bills which we 
    have not been able to report. One of them is military construction; 
    another is foreign assistance; both of these are awaiting 
    authorization; another is the final supplemental which will include 
    the poverty program for which authorization legislation has not 
    been considered. There is other legislation to be worked on before 
    the supplemental appropriation bill can be reported. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman 
    says the 5-

[[Page 5096]]

    minute rule will prevail and that any germane amendments will be in 
    order to the continuing resolution, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Mahon]?
        There was no objection.

Appropriation for Specific Purpose

Sec. 7.3 A joint resolution making an appropriation to a department for 
    a specific purpose is not a ``general'' appropriation bill within 
    the meaning of Rule XI clause 22 [now clause 4(a)] and is therefore 
    not privileged for consideration when reported by the Committee on 
    Appropriations. For this reason the Committee on Rules may provide 
    for the immediate consideration of a special bill reported from the 
    Committee on Appropriations.

    On Aug. 4, 1971,(6) the following proceedings took place 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 29384, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up [House Resolution 577] and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 577

            Resolved, That immediately 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 joint resolution (H.J. 
        Res. 833) making an appropriation for the Department of Labor 
        for the fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes. . . .

        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sisk: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 577 provides an 
    open rule with 1 hour of debate on House Joint Resolution 833, 
    which implements the emergency assistance Employment Act of 1971.
        House Joint Resolution 833, being for a single purpose, is not 
    regarded as a general appropriation bill. For this reason it was 
    necessary to grant a rule providing for its consideration.

Supplemental Appropriations

Sec. 7.4 A joint resolution making a supplemental appropriation for a 
    single department of the government is not a ``general 
    appropriation bill,'' and not reported as privileged, and is 
    therefore brought up for consideration in a different manner.

    On Jan. 30, 1962,(8) a joint resolution was made in 
order by unanimous consent, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 5097]]

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that a joint resolution providing appropriations for the 
    Veterans' Administration may be in order for consideration 
    tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    On the next day,(10) proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 1385, 87th Cong. 2d Sess, Jan. 31, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with 
    the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 612) making supplemental appropriations for 
    the Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1962, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it be 
    considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?

    The reference of the joint resolution to the Union Calendar was 
carried in the Record as follows:

        Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were 
    delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper 
    calendar, as follows:
        Mr. Thomas: Committee on Appropriations. House Joint Resolution 
    612. Joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for the 
    Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, 
    and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1294). 
    Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: Proposals for supplemental appropriations, normally requested 
        by a communication from the President (31 USC Sec. 14) are 
        sometimes requested by message. The usual practice is for the 
        President to transmit letters requesting such appropriations to 
        the Speaker, who refers them to the Committee on Appropriations 
        and orders them printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Supplemental Appropriations

Sec. 7.5 The House has given unanimous consent to make in order 
    ``tomorrow, or on a subsequent day this week,'' consideration of a 
    joint resolution providing supplemental appropriations for the 
    Department of Defense, pursuant to a message from the President.

    On May 4, 1965,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 9390, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order tomorrow, or on a subsequent day 
    this week, to consider a House joint resolution making

[[Page 5098]]

    a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Defense.
        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, it is my understanding that the message from 
    the President of the United States which has been just submitted 
    will satisfy the Budget and Accounting Act as far as a budget 
    estimate is concerned.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
    certainly my opinion, and I am sure the gentleman is correct. This 
    is a request for $700 million by the President. It follows one of 
    the procedures used by the Executive in submitting budget estimates 
    and I consider this, and I am sure the gentleman does, a budget 
    request from the President.
        Mr. Laird: I would like to state to the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Mahon] that it was my understanding yesterday that before we 
    considered this we would have a budget estimate. I wholeheartedly 
    support the principle of following the regular procedure in seeing 
    that these funds are appropriated, and if this satisfies the Budget 
    and Accounting Act, I certainly would have no objection to its 
    being considered either tomorrow or the next day.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Bill Reducing Appropriations

Sec. 7.6 A bill reported from the Committee on Appropriations reducing 
    certain appropriations and contract authorizations available for 
    fiscal 1946 was held not to be a general appropriation bill and a 
    germane amendment rescinding appropriations was permitted.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(14) a bill (15) as 
described above was under consideration. The bill contained a paragraph 
appropriating money for grants to states for unemployment compensation 
benefits and related expenses. During consideration of the bill, an 
amendment was offered, and a point of order made against the amendment. 
During the ensuing debate on a point of order, a question arose as to 
the nature of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 9851, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.  H.R. 4407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                             social security board

            There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
        otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1946, for grants to States for administration of unemployment 
        compensation and employment service facilities operated in 
        conjunction therewith, as authorized in title III of the Social 
        Security Act, approved August 14, 1935, as amended, 
        $30,000,000, which shall be in addition to the amounts 
        appropriated for such purposes in title II

[[Page 5099]]

        of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1946.

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: On page 8, line 10, 
        after the period, strike out lines 11 through 20 and insert the 
        following:
            ``On July 1, 1946, any unobligated balance of the 
        appropriation made in the first paragraph under the heading 
        `Employment Office Facilities and Services' in title VII of the 
        Labor-Federal Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the 
        surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, and after June 30, 
        1946, appropriations shall be made only for grants to States 
        for administration of unemployment compensation and employment 
        service facilities as authorized in title III of the Social 
        Security Act, approved August 11, 1935, as amended, and in the 
        act of June 6, 1933, as amended, known as the Wagner-Peyser 
        Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Everett M.]. Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane, that it is 
    legislative in character.
        The Chairman: (16) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment is obviously germane. It relates to the same subject as 
    specified in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    an additional point of order. If I understood the amendment 
    correctly, it makes an appropriation. Has this bill not been 
    regarded as a legislative bill?
        The Chairman: The paragraph under consideration makes an 
    appropriation of $30,000,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind, 
    is the situation: The amendment is a rescission. The paragraph 
    which is made in order under the rule is an appropriation; 
    therefore the amendment is not in order.
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment 
    offered is germane to the paragraph which deals with appropriations 
    for this purpose. The amendment offered also deals with 
    appropriations for the same purpose. In the opinion of the Chair 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    clearly germane and the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Has the Chair ruled at any time 
    whether this is an appropriation bill or a legislative bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have to rule upon that 
    question. This is a question with reference to rescission of funds 
    and incidentally involves appropriations, as does this particular 
    paragraph. The Chair, in a bill of this character, which is not a 
    general appropriation bill, is simply called upon to pass upon the 
    question of germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I do not question the germaneness, 
    but I heard the bill referred to as a legislative bill, and if it 
    is interpreted as a legislative bill, the amendment making an 
    appropriation, of course, would not be in order.
        The Chairman: This certainly is not a general appropriation 
    bill but a bill with reference to rescission of appropriations. The 
    only question which could occur from a parliamentary

[[Page 5100]]

     standpoint would be the question of germaneness. . . . The Chair 
    overruled the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As a matter of fact, the 
    rule waiving points of order would apply to any point of order that 
    an amendment was legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is not at all passing upon that 
    question. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, since that question has 
    been raised, may we have a ruling on the question whether or not 
    the rule waives points of order as against amendments or merely 
    waives points of order against the contents of the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair is called upon to rule only upon the 
    point of order made and cannot rule upon other points of order not 
    pertinent to the pending amendment. The Chair has overruled the 
    point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: A special rule (see 91 Cong. Rec. 9813, 
        79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945) had provided that the 
        above bill be considered for amendment by appropriation titles. 
        Appropriation bills are, of course, generally read for 
        amendment by paragraphs. See Sec. Sec. 11.8-11.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 8. Consideration Made in Order by Special Rule or Unanimous 
    Consent

Special Orders

Sec. 8.1 The form of a modified closed rule reported from the Committee 
    on Rules making in order consideration of a joint resolution 
    providing temporary appropriations, fixing debate, and limiting 
    amendments to those offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Appropriations.

    On June 28, 1951,(18) a resolution was called up as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 7408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately 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 joint resolution (H.J 
        Res. 277) making temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 
        1952, and for other purposes. That after general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the joint resolution and continue not to 
        exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the joint resolution shall be read for 
        amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said joint 
        resolution except amendments offered by the direction of the 
        Committee on Appropriations. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the joint resolution for amendment, the 
        Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        pre

[[Page 5101]]

        vious questions shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
        resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 8.2 The form of a resolution providing for consideration of a 
    general appropriation bill and waiving points of order against the 
    bill or any of the provisions contained therein, excepting a 
    specific paragraph, is set out below.

    On Apr. 7, 1949,(1) the following resolution was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 4113, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, 
    notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, 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. 4046) making appropriations to supply 
    deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1949, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein are 
    hereby waived excepting the provision appearing on page 19, lines 
    18 to 21, inclusive, in the paragraph under the heading ``General 
    Provisions.'' That after general debate, which shall be confined to 
    the bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same 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.

Deficiency Appropriations

Sec. 8.3 An illustrative resolution, making in order consideration of 
    the first deficiency appropriation bill of 1949, notwithstanding 
    the requirement that committee reports and hearings on 
    appropriation bills be made available three calendar days before 
    consideration, is set out below.

    On Feb. 15, 1949,(2) a resolution was called up as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under Sec. 139(a) of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, committee reports and 
        hearings were required to be made available three calendar days 
        before general appropriation bills were to be considered. See 
        Rule XXI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 (1981)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adoplh J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 5102]]

            Resolved, That, notwithstanding any rule of the House to 
        the contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, February 15, 
        1949, to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
        of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration 
        of the bill (H.R. 2632) making appropriations to supply urgent 
        deficiencies for the fiscal year 1949, and for other purposes, 
        and all points of order against the bill or any of the 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived. That after 
        general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
        not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled 
        by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 
        5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same 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.

Sec. 8.4 Pursuant to a special order previously agreed to, a joint 
    resolution continuing appropriations has been called up as if 
    privileged and considered in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On June 24, 1969,(3) the following proceedings took 
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 17015-17, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. 
        Rec. 20361, 20362, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 1963
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    order of the House of June 19, 1969, I call up House Joint 
    Resolution 790, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
    year 1970 and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it 
    be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution.

Special Order Rejected

Sec. 8.5 The House has rejected a resolution providing for 
    consideration of a joint resolution continuing appropriations.

    On Oct. 1, 1964,(5) a Member called up a resolution as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23363, 23364, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 892, and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately 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 consider

[[Page 5103]]

        ation of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1183), making 
        continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1965, and for 
        other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the joint resolution and continue not to exceed one 
        hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
        joint resolution shall be read for amendment. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the joint resolution for amendment, the 
        Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
        resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit. . . .

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question
        The previous question was ordered
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The question is on the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 160, nays 193, not 
    voting 78. . . .
        So the resolution was rejected.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Note: A prior continuing resolution had expired, and the chairman 
        of the Committee on Appropriations had requested a special rule 
        from the Committee on Rules for consideration of a resolution 
        to extend the continuing resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Special Orders

Sec. 8.6 Rejection of the previous question on a special rule was 
    sought for purposes of opening the special rule to amendment and 
    further debate.

    On Oct. 3, 1967,(8) a simple resolution was called up 
providing for consideration of a joint resolution continuing certain 
appropriations. It was desired by some Members to vote down the 
previous question on the special rule, thereby opening it for amendment 
and debate.(9) The following proceedings took place during 
consideration of the special rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 27644, 27652, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. For discussion of special rules and their consideration, generally, 
        see Ch. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 938 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 938

            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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 853) 
        making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1968, and 
        for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to 
        exceed one hour, to be equally divided and con

[[Page 5104]]

        trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Appropriations, the joint resolution shall be read 
        for amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
        joint resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
        report the joint resolution to the House with such amendment as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the joint resolution and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman from Mississippi is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the previous question is rejected, then 
    the rule will be open to amendment and there will be debate on any 
    amendments to the rule. Is that correct?
        The Speaker: Of course, the gentleman's question answers 
    itself. But the answer, specifically and directly, is ``Yes.''
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I thank the Speaker
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 205, not 
    voting 14. . . .
        So the previous question was ordered. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Consideration by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 8.7 Pursuant to unanimous consent previously obtained, a joint 
    resolution continuing appropriations (or making a special 
    supplemental appropriation) may be called up as if privileged and 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole

    On Aug. 18, 1964,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 20055, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 116 Cong. Rec. 21239, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        24, 1970 [H.J. Res. 1264]; 115 Cong. Rec. 17015-17, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess., June 24, 1969 [H.J. Res. 790]; 111 Cong. Rec. 26881, 
        89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1965; and 111 Cong. Rec. 25342, 
        89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    unanimous-consent agreement obtained yesterday, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 1160) making continuing appropriations for 
    the fiscal year 1965, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous 
    consent that it be considered in the House as in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

[[Page 5105]]

        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (c) 
        of section 102 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1964 (Public 
        Law 88-325), is hereby amended by striking out ``August 31, 
        1964'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1964''.

        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word.

    On Mar. 25, 1969,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House with respect to a joint resolution making a supplemental 
appropriation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 7378, 7383, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent 
    agreement on yesterday, I call up House Joint Resolution 584, 
    making a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1969, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that 
    the joint resolution be considered in the House as in the Committee 
    of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 584

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sum is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated, to supply a supplemental 
        appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for 
        other purposes; namely:

                           Department of Agriculture

                          Commodity Credit Corporation

            For partial restoration of capital impairment of the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation for costs heretofore incurred, 
        $1,000,000,000.

Sec. 8.8 Parliamentarian's Note: A joint resolution continuing 
    appropriations for a fiscal year may be called up as if privileged 
    pursuant to a previous order entered into by unanimous consent, 
    although it had been reported pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2 as 
    nonprivileged by filing in the hopper.

    Procedures like those described above took place on June 28, 
1965,(14) with respect to a joint resolution making 
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1966:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 111 Cong. Rec. 14846-50, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Joint

[[Page 5106]]

    Resolution 553 making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
    1966, and for other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that it 
    be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union.
        The Clerk read the House joint resolution as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or 
        other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several 
        departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational 
        units of the Government for the fiscal year 1966, namely: . . .

        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to strike out the last word. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Consideration on Specified Day

Sec. 8.9 A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
    departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until the 
    regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
    appropriation bill,'' and not called up as privileged, but a 
    unanimous-consent request may be granted that it be in order for 
    the House to consider such a resolution on a specified day.

    On Sept. 21, 1967,(16) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
made the following unanimous-consent request, which was granted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on 
    Wednesday, September 27, or any day thereafter, for the House to 
    consider a joint resolution making continuing appropriations.

Sec. 8.10 Unanimous consent of the House has been obtained on one day 
    to make in order on the following day consideration of a joint 
    resolution providing for continuing appropriations.

    On July 25, 1962,(1) the following unanimous-consent 
request was made and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 14731, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it may be in order tomorrow to take up for 
    consideration a House joint resolution to provide con

[[Page 5107]]

    tinuing appropriations for the month of August.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.11 Consideration of a bill making appropriations for a single 
    agency of government for the fiscal year was, by unanimous consent, 
    made in order on a designated day, or any day thereafter.

    On Aug. 15, 1967,(3) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  113 Cong. Rec. 22678, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it may be in order on Tuesday next or any 
    day thereafter for the House to consider the National Aeronautics 
    and Space Administration appropriation bill for 1968.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.12 A unanimous-consent request has been granted making in order, 
    on a specified day or on any day subsequent thereto, consideration 
    of a joint resolution continuing appropriations.

    On Aug. 21, 1967,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 23279, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it be in order on Thursday, August 24, or any 
    subsequent day, to consider a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations for the month of September.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.13 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill, providing 
    funds for a single government agency, was made in order on a 
    designated day by unanimous consent of the House.

    On Mar. 24, 1969,(7) a unanimous-consent request was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 7147, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 
        23971, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1963 (foreign aid 
        appropriation bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Tuesday, March 25, for the House 
    to consider a House joint resolution making appropriations for the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 5108]]

        There was no objection

Special Order Superseded

Sec. 8.14 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill was made 
    in order, by unanimous consent, on a day certain, even though the 
    House had earlier agreed to a special order establishing a 
    different date for taking up the bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1965,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 26528, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Thursday, October 14, to 
    consider the supplemental appropriation bill for 1966.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: The House had, on Oct. 7, agreed to take up this bill on Oct. 
        15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Not Available for Three Days

Sec. 8.15 General debate on two general appropriation bills was made in 
    order on a day certain during the following week by unanimous 
    consent, although reports on those bills would not be available for 
    the three days required by the rule.

    On June 15, 1972,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 21150, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 94 Cong. Rec 
        2844, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1948 (agriculture 
        appropriations bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order in the House on Tuesday next-- 
    clause 6 of rule XXI to the contrary notwithstanding--to have 
    general debate only on the bill making appropriations for public 
    works for water and power development, the Atomic Energy 
    Commission, and certain other agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1973, and to have general debate only on the bill making 
    appropriations for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the 
    Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
    agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Consideration Within Same Week

Sec. 8.16 The House has given unanimous consent making in order ``on 
    any day later this week'' consideration of a joint resolution 
    continuing appropriations.

[[Page 5109]]

    On Aug. 24, 1965,(14) a unanimous-consent request was 
made and agreed to as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 21545, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on any day later this week to 
    consider a House joint resolution making continuing appropriations 
    for the month of September.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.17 The unanimous consent of the House has been obtained to make 
    it in order to call up at any time during the week a joint 
    resolution providing continuing appropriations for departments and 
    agencies of government where the regular appropriation bills had 
    not been passed for the fiscal year.

    On June 22, 1962,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 11410, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it may be in order any time next week to 
    call up a joint resolution to provide continuing appropriations for 
    the various Government departments and agencies for the fiscal year 
    beginning July 1.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Missouri? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

During Following Week

Sec. 8.18 The House has given its consent to make in order 
    consideration during the following week of a joint resolution 
    providing for continuing appropriations

    On June 20, 1963,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 11236, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 Cong Rec. 
        16630, 16631, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it may be in order during the coming week to 
    consider a joint resolution providing continuing appropriations.
        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, what is the nature of the continuing resolution?
        Mr. Cannon: I will say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
    it is the stereotyped continuing resolution such as has been 
    presented, I am sorry to say, every year for a number of years, due 
    to our failure to get all of the appropriation bills through before 
    the

[[Page 5110]]

    end of the fiscal year. It follows in general the language of every 
    previous continuing resolution.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Consideration During Current Month

Sec. 8.19 Consideration of a joint resolution providing continuing 
    appropriations was made in order, by unanimous consent, on any day 
    during the current month

    On June 20, 1967,(4) the following proceedings took 
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 16420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Monday, June 26, or any 
    succeeding day in June, to consider a joint resolution making 
    continuing appropriations.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

At Any Time

Sec. 8.20 By unanimous consent, a House joint resolution continuing 
    certain appropriations for a department of the government has been 
    made in order for consideration at any time.

    On Oct. 11, 1962,(6) a Member addressed Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 23206, 23207, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Appropriations I submit a report 
    (Rept. No. 2551) on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 903) making 
    continuing appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and 
    related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for 
    other purposes and ask unanimous consent that it may be taken up at 
    any time
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is 
        appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, and out of applicable corporate and other 
        revenues, receipts, and funds, such amounts as may be necessary 
        for continuing projects or activities which were conducted in 
        the fiscal year 1962 by the Department of Agriculture. . . . 

        The Speaker: The joint resolution is referred to the Union 
    Calendar and ordered to be printed.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] that it be in order to consider the joint 
    resolution at any time? . . .

[[Page 5111]]

        There was no objection.

Immediate Consideration When Introduced

Sec. 8.21 A joint resolution providing appropriations for mileage for 
    the Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and for other 
    expenses incident to a special session of Congress, was given 
    immediate consideration.

    On Sept. 25, 1939,(7) a Member introduced a resolution 
as follows, and proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 85 Cong. Rec. 16, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I send to 
    the desk a joint resolution and ask unanimous consent for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                           House Joint Resolution 384

            Resolved, etc., That the following sums are hereby 
        appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, for the payment of expenses incident to the 
        second session of the Seventy-sixth Congress, namely:
            For mileage of the President of the Senate and of Senators, 
        $51,000.
            For mileage of Representatives, the Delegate from Hawaii, 
        and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and for 
        expenses of the Delegate from Alaska, $171,000.
            For the payment of 21 pages for the Senate and 48 pages for 
        the House of Representatives, at $4 per day each, for the 
        period commencing September 21, 1939, and ending with the last 
        day of the month in which the Seventy-sixth Congress adjourns 
        sine die at the second session thereof, so much as may be 
        necessary for each the Senate and House of Representatives.

        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Colorado?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.


                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 9. Waiver of Points of Order--by Resolution

Waiver Agreed to After General Debate

Sec. 9.1 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a supplemental appropriation bill was considered and 
    agreed to by the House after general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On May 21, 1969,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246, 13251, 13252, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 5112]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: . . . The language that the rule waives the point 
    of order against is found in title IV of the bill. Title IV of the 
    bill places a ceiling upon the amount of the expenditures that the 
    Chief Executive can make within the fiscal year. Now, that amount 
    is, roughly, $192 billion. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The question is on the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 326, nays 53, not 
    voting 54. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 11400, with Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California] 
    in the chair.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday, the Clerk 
    had read through line 7 on page 2 of the bill.

Points of Order Against All Provisions But One

Sec. 9.2 The form of a resolution waiving all points of order against 
    consideration of an appropriation bill, waiving points of order 
    against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein 
    excepting a specific paragraph is set out below.

    On Apr. 7, 1949,(2) the Clerk read the following 
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 95 Cong. Rec. 4113, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, 
        notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, 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. 4046) making appropriations to 
        supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1949, and for other purposes, and all 
        points of order against the bill or any of the provisions 
        contained therein are hereby waived excepting the provision 
        appearing on page 19, lines 18 to 21, inclusive, in the 
        paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions.'' That after 
        general de

[[Page 5113]]

        bate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 
        5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same 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.

Certain Legislative Language Made in Order

Sec. 9.3 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against the 
    independent offices appropriation bill, and making in order a 
    legislative amendment described in general terms in the text of the 
    resolution is set out below.

    On June 17, 1947,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7166, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        3839) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
        independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and 
        offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for 
        other purposes, all points of order against the bill or any 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived; and it shall 
        also be in order to consider without the intervention of any 
        point of order any amendment to said bill prohibiting the use 
        of the funds appropriated in such bill or any funds heretofore 
        made available, including contract authorizations, for the 
        purchase of any particular site or for the erection of any 
        particular hospital.

Waiver of Three-day Availability Requirement

Sec. 9.4 The House has considered a resolution on the same day reported 
    making in order consideration of an appropriation bill, 
    notwithstanding the fact that the bill and report have not been 
    available for three calendar days as required by Rule XXI clause 6 
    (subsequently clause 7) and waiving all points of order against the 
    bill.

    On Sept. 19, 1968,(4) a Member addressed Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 27646, 27647, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    1308 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 5114]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1308

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, 
        notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, 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. 19908) making appropriations 
        for Foreign Assistance and related agencies for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived.

        The Speaker: The question is, will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 1308?
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 293, nays 58, not 
    voting 80. . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed 
    to consider House Resolution 1308. . . .
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, the House has just voted to consider 
    the resolution which provides for consideration, in turn, of the 
    foreign aid appropriation bill.
        Frankly, I do not subscribe to this procedure generally. I do 
    subscribe to this procedure in this particular instance.
        This matter was presented to the committee only this morning 
    The conference report on the authorization bill was adopted only a 
    few hours ago by the House. But it is anticipated that the other 
    body will approve it and that it will go to the White House for the 
    President's signature. . . .
        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith [of California]: . . . [B]y way of a 
    simple review of the matter, the last vote was for two-thirds to 
    consider this particular resolution, House Resolution 1308. 
    Otherwise it would have had to have laid over until tomorrow or 
    next week.
        Mr. Speaker, this procedure is as the chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules said, unorthodox and unusual, and insofar as I am 
    concerned I doubt that there will be any other type of piece of 
    legislation that I would agree to this particular procedure being 
    worked upon a bill.
        After all, the bill is here and the conference report has been 
    adopted. Further, if we are ever going to adjourn we will have to 
    proceed in this particular manner even though it is a little 
    unusual.
        The matter we have under consideration right now is House 
    Resolution 1308 that waives points of order on the foreign 
    assistance bill; namely, H.R. 19908. If this rule is adopted by a 
    majority vote then we can proceed to its consideration with 2 hours 
    of debate, proceed to the consideration of the Foreign Assistance 
    Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, with the time equally 
    divided.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Bill or Provisions

Sec. 9.5 The form of a resolution waiving all points of order

[[Page 5115]]

    against a general appropriation bill or any provisions contained 
    therein is set out below.

    On June 26, 1945,(5) a resolution was called up, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 6766, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 301 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        3579) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain 
        appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, and 
        for prior fiscal years, to provide supplemental appropriations 
        for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1945, and June 30, 1946, 
        to provide appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1946, and for other purposes all points of order against the 
        bill or any provisions contained therein are hereby waived.

Specific Paragraph of Supplemental Appropriation Bill Protected

Sec. 9.6 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against a 
    specific paragraph of a supplemental appropriation bill (language 
    making certain funds that were available for construction also 
    available for purchase of furniture for the new Rayburn Office 
    Building) is set out below.

    On Apr. 9, 1963,(6) a Member called up a resolution, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 6043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 311 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        5517) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against the provisions contained in lines 5 through 10, 
        page 22, are hereby waived.

Points of Order Against Committee Amendments

Sec. 9.7 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against a 
    supplemental appropriation bill or any of the provisions contained 
    therein, and waiving points of order against any amendment offered 
    by direction of the Committee on Appropriations is set out below.

    On June 9, 1948,(7) the following resolution was called 
up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 7603, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 83 Cong. Rec 6777, 
        75th Cong. 3d Sess., May 12, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution

[[Page 5116]]

    651 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        6829) making supplemental appropriations for the Executive 
        Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, 
        commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1949, and for other purposes, all points of order against the 
        bill or any provisions contained therein are hereby waived, and 
        it shall be in order to consider without the intervention of 
        any point of order any amendment offered by direction of the 
        Committee on Appropriations.

Waiver Against One Title of Bill

Sec. 9.8 The form of a resolution waiving points of order against part 
    of a military establishment appropriation bill is set out below.

    On June 4, 1947,(8) a resolution was called up, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 6346, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R 
        3678) making appropriations for the Military Establishment for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against title II of said bill or any 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived.


 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 10. General Appropriation Bills Considered by Unanimous Consent

Generally

Sec. 10.1 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill, without 
    the intervention of any point of order against the provisions of 
    the bill, was made in order on the following Tuesday or any day 
    thereafter, by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 6, 1967,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 35164, 35165, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the 
        unanimous-consent requests in Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Tuesday next or any subsequent 
    day next week to consider a bill making supplemental appropriations 
    for fiscal year 1968 and that all points of order against the bill 
    or any provisions contained therein be considered as waived.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: I am glad that point has just 
    been clarified. As I understand it, the reason for waiving points 
    of order is be

[[Page 5117]]

    cause the authorization bill for the Office of Economic Opportunity 
    will not have become law through the signature of the President at 
    the time specified? In other words, that is the only reason that 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon] asks to waive all points of 
    order?
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio will yield 
    further, the gentleman from Michigan is correct. This is the only 
    reason for the request. There is nothing else that I can envisage 
    in the appropriation bill where a point of order might obtain.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
    reservation of objection.

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Mahon].
        There was no objection.

Three-day Availability Requirement

Sec. 10.2 Consideration of a supplemental appropriation bill was made 
    in order on the following Tuesday or any day thereafter, by 
    unanimous consent, despite the fact that the bill and report would 
    not be available for three calendar days as required by Rule XXI 
    clause 6 (now clause 7).

    On Feb. 15, 1968,(11) a Member addressed Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 3022, 3023, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until 
    midnight Monday, February 19, to file a privileged report on the 
    urgent supplemental appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1968.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas? . . .
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
    extend my remarks during the colloquy just held to make it in order 
    for the House to consider the urgent supplemental appropriations 
    bill for 1968 on Tuesday, February 20, or any day subsequent 
    thereto. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 10.3 By unanimous consent, the rule [Rule XXI clause 6 (now clause 
    7)] prohibiting consideration of general appropriation bills until 
    printed committee hearings and the committee report have been 
    available for three days was waived.

    On Sept. 12, 1962,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 19237, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I take this 
    time

[[Page 5118]]

    in order to announce that it is our intention to report the foreign 
    aid appropriation bill for 1963 to the House on Tuesday, September 
    18. I therefore now ask unanimous consent that the 3-day rule be 
    waived and that the bill be considered in the House on Thursday, 
    September 20.
        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.


 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments

Motion to Close Debate

Sec. 11.1 A motion to fix the time of general debate on an 
    appropriation bill is not in order prior to resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole; but after there has been debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises, the motion is in 
    order in the House.

    On Feb. 18, 1947,(14) a Member addressed Speaker Joseph 
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, as follows and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968) 
    making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for 
    other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon] and myself.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, is this the bill that contains the cuts of 
    appropriations for OPA?
        Mr. Taber: Yes.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then I object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: The House may go into the Committee of the Whole and 
    later, after debate has occurred, rise, and then a motion would be 
    in order to close debate; but otherwise a motion would not be in 
    order at this time to close?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York states the situation 
    accurately. The House must first go into Committee and have general 
    debate, and then rise and fix the time of debate by vote.

Consideration of Senate Amendments

Sec. 11.2 The House has considered Senate amendments to a

[[Page 5119]]

    general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole under the 
    five-minute rule.

    On July 12, 1945,(1) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 7474, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 
        7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945. For further 
        discussion see Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368) 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments. 
    Pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    dispense with general debate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean, 
    of course, that there could be no debate on amendments?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the 
    5-minute rule.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Missouri.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with 
    Senate amendments, with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure is different from 
consideration in the House as in Committee of the Whole, where motions 
under Rule XVI clause 4 are in order.

Terms of Debate

Sec. 11.3 Before consideration of the general appropriation bill, 1951, 
    containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of the 
    government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that general debate 
    run without limit to be equally divided between the Chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and 
    that following the reading of the first chapter of the bill not to 
    exceed two hours general debate be had before the reading of each 
    subsequent chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and 
    one-half by the ranking

[[Page 5120]]

    minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter.

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes; and 
    pending that I ask unanimous consent that time for general debate 
    be equally divided, one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half by myself; that debate be 
    confined to the bill; and that following the reading of the first 
    chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours general debate be had 
    before the reading of each subsequent chapter, one-half to be 
    controlled by the chairman and one-half by the ranking minority 
    member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter. . . .
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will 
    not object, except to say that I trust and am sure the majority of 
    the Members of the House hope that the chairman of the full 
    committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] will not make 
    points of order against Members on the ground that they are 
    speaking out of order when so much is involved in this bill. I 
    think we should have the greatest leeway to discuss these things.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that this appropriation bill 
    actually being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the 
    Government, a Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide 
    range.
        Mr. Jensen: I thank the Speaker. I was hoping the Speaker would 
    say just that.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentlman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 11.4 During the consideration of the general appropriation bill, 
    1951, terms of consideration were agreed upon, including: that a 
    chapter then under consideration be considered as read and open to 
    points of order and amendment; and that a certain Member be 
    authorized to offer a blanket amendment to a part of the chapter.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(3) the following unanimous-consent 
requests were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that--
        The chapter on agricultural appropriations be considered as 
    read and open to points of order and amendment; that the gentleman 
    from Min

[[Page 5121]]

    nesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen] have consent to offer a blanket 
    amendment relating to administrative expenses;
        That when the House adjourns on Friday it adjourn to meet on 
    Monday next;
        That no debate be in order on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday 
    except general debate;
        That general debate on the civil functions appropriations bill 
    be confined to Tuesday;
        That when the House adjourns on Tuesday next all general debate 
    be concluded on the entire bill.

    There was no objection to the request.

House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 11.5 On numerous occasions the House has by unanimous consent 
    provided for the consideration of a nongeneral appropriation bill 
    in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On June 14, 1962,(4) the following request was made in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 10481, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with 
    the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I ask for the 
    immediate consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 745), 
    making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1962; and I 
    ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that it be considered in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 11.6 Unanimous consent was granted that a joint resolution 
    providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of Labor 
    be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 24, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took 
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 6096, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    accordance with the unamimous consent granted yesterday, I call up 
    House Joint Resolution 962, making a supplemental appropriation for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for the Department of Labor, 
    and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the joint 
    resolution be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 5122]]

        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

             Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sum is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1964, namely:

                              department of labor

                         Bureau of Employment Security

            Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and ex-
                                   Servicemen

            For an additional amount for ``Unemployment compensation 
        for Federal employees and ex-servicemen'', $42,000,000.

Suspension of the Rules

Sec. 11.7 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions 
    of the 1943 agriculture appropriation bill, the House adopted a 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass a new bill containing matters 
    in the original bill not in controversy.

    On July 2, 1942,(8) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 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: Is a second demanded?
        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.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Tarver]?
        There was no objection.

    After some discussion,(9) the rules were suspended and 
the bill was passed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 5954-60.
10. Id. at p. 5960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments--Reading Bill

Sec. 11.8 General revenue and appropriation bills are considered by 
    paragraph for amendment and all other bills are considered by 
    sections, including bills making appropriations for specific 
    purposes.

    On May 21, 1940,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 544,

[[Page 5123]]

a relief appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this bill comes from the 
    Appropriations Committee. Ordinarily bills coming from the 
    Appropriations Committee are read by paragraph. Bills coming from 
    other committees are read by sections. I want to ask the Chairman, 
    so that all Members may know as we approach the reading of the 
    bill, how this bill will be read, so that they may know where to 
    offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state, in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, under the 
    rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills are 
    considered by paragraph and that all other measures are considered 
    by sections. Consequently, the pending bill will be considered by 
    sections and amendments offered by sections rather than by 
    paragraphs.

Sec. 11.9 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments are 
    in order only to the paragraph just read, not to the entire subject 
    matter under a heading in an appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill. 
Proceedings took place as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1970 (proceedings relating 
        to H.R. 16916).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: A parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luce: May I ask where the proper place would be to insert 
    an amendment before the next part of the bill headed by capitals?
        The Chairman: The Chair was unable to hear all of the inquiry 
    by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Luce: May I ask how far the bill has been read?
        The Chairman: Down through the bottom of page 50. The only 
    paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing Authority'' 
    that would now be subject to amendment would be the last four lines 
    on page 50.
        Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the 
    House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time 
    immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs

Sec. 11.10 The rule of germaneness applies to amendments to 
    appropriation bills; and an amendment proposing a specific 
    appropriation must be

[[Page 5124]]

    offered when the paragraphs dealing with that subject are being 
    considered

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. An 
amendment was read and a point of order raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        public utilities commission

        For two commissioners, people's counsel, and for other personal 
    services, $76,000, of which amount $1,620 shall be available for 
    the employment of a secretary to the people's counsel, and not to 
    exceed $5,000 may be used for the employment of expert services by 
    contract or otherwise and without reference to the Classification 
    Act of 1923, as amended.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language on page 7, line 3, after 
    ``$76,000'', beginning with the words ``of which'' and ending with 
    the word ``amended.''. . .
        The Chairman: (16) In the opinion of the Chair, very 
    clearly this is an attempt to impose legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and the point of order is therefore sustained. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general advertising, authorized and required by law, 
        and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in 
        regulations, $9,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
        not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers 
        published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding 
        the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law. 
        . . .

        Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On 
    page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs as 
    follows:
        ``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel 
    before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
        ``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel, 
    $5,000.''. . .
        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of order against 
    the language on page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to 
    the end of the paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the 
    ground that it was legislation in an appropriation bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut would restore 
    the language that was stricken out on the point of order; not only 
    that, but we have passed that particular section and the amendment 
    comes too late. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland bases his point of 
    order on two grounds. . . .
        The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that 
    the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.

When Paragraph Is Considered Passed

Sec. 11.11 In reading a general appropriation bill under the

[[Page 5125]]

    five-minute rule, a section or paragraph is considered as having 
    been passed for an amendment when an amendment in the form of a new 
    section or paragraph has been agreed to. On appeal, the Chair's 
    ruling that the adoption of an amendment adding a new paragraph 
    precludes further amendments to the prior paragraph of the bill was 
    sustained.

    On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6448, a supplemental appropriation bill for national 
defense. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 607, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount for 
    the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for (1) the 
    construction of a hydroelectric project on the French Broad River 
    near Dandridge, Tenn., (2) the purchase or building of transmission 
    facilities needed to connect this project to the existing 
    transmission system of the Authority, and (3) the acquisition of 
    land necessary for and the relocation of highways in connection 
    with the accomplishment of the above project; $30,000,000, to be 
    available for the administrative objects of expenditure and subject 
    to the conditions specified under this heading in the Independent 
    Offices Appropriation Act, 1942.
        Mr. Lambertson rose.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Page 4, after 
        line 9, insert:

                             ``Department of State

            ``Transportation Foreign Service: For an additional amount 
        for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942, 
        including the objects specified under this head in the 
        Department of State Appropriation Act, 1942, $800,000.''

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this 
    amendment is to make provision for a deficiency which was not 
    foreseen, and which has occurred as the result of the declaration 
    of war. We have in all parts of Europe and Asia diplomatic and 
    consular representatives and attaches who must be brought home, 
    together with their families and clerks and office staffs. They 
    have to be shifted as a result of a change in the status brought 
    about by the declaration of war. In the original appropriation 
    there was something in excess of $700,000 in this fund--an amount 
    which would have sufficed under normal conditions, but under recent 
    developments there have been such heavy expenditures that only 
    about $17,000 remains, which is insufficient to carry the Service 
    beyond the 1st of the month. I offer this amendment to make 
    provision for the unexpected deficiency.
        The Chairman: (18) The question is on agreeing to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).

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

[[Page 5126]]

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lambertson: Page 3, line 22, 
        strike out lines 22, page 3, to and including line 9 on page 4.

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the amendment comes too late. We have passed that paragraph. 
    We have adopted an amendment since the paragraph was read and it is 
    no longer subject to amendment.
        Mr. Lambertson: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet standing alone 
    before the gentleman from Missouri rose. The Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Missouri, but I had the floor ahead of him.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    impression that the gentleman from Kansas was on his feet, and, 
    seeing that the chairman of the subcommittee rose, he deferred to 
    him to offer an amendment first.
        The Chairman: The chairman of the committee was recognized by 
    the Chair. The Chair asks the gentleman from Missouri if he insists 
    upon his point of order
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must 
    insist on the point of order.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: Certainly.
        Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Kansas was on his feet asking for 
    recognition at the time and on top of that the amendment was 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri, but that would not preclude 
    this amendment from being offered. This is an amendment to strike 
    out the previous paragraph. The amendment that the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon], added was an amendment adding an additional 
    paragraph.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not 
    address the Chair at all. He at no time addressed the Chair until 
    after the Clerk had concluded the reading of the new paragraph and 
    the committee had adopted it.
        Mr. Lambertson: I beg your pardon; I did. I did stand and I did 
    address the Chair. I was standing before he ever started to get up.
        The Chairman: The Chair was aware of the fact that the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] was on his feet, and the 
    Chair would like to overrule the point of order, but feels that 
    technically the point of order is well taken, and it being insisted 
    upon by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Chair 
    is constrained to sustain the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the 
    Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr. 
    Taber] there were ayes 75 and noes 62.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Cannon of 
    Missouri and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were ayes 126 and noes 89.

[[Page 5127]]

        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

Sec. 11.12 If an amendment affects, in part, a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill not yet read by the Clerk, but no point of order 
    is made against the amendment, it is considered, but further 
    amendments to intervening portions of text that have not been read 
    are not precluded.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
Welfare, and related agencies appropriation bill. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pelly: I did not understand that the Clerk had read beyond 
    line 17. May I inquire if this amendment includes the figure on 
    line 20?
        The Chairman: The amendment that the gentleman from Louisiana 
    offered was addressed to the language beginning on line 5 but does 
    touch on a sum included in the next paragraph beginning on line 18.
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which 
    would apply to line 17. If this amendment were acted on, would that 
    prevent my amendment from being offered at the end of the paragraph 
    which begins on line 5 and ends on line 17?
        The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman applies to that 
    portion between line 15 and line 17?
        Mr. Pelly: That is correct.
        The Chairman: It would be in order, because the Clerk has not 
    read the next 3 lines, 18, 19, and 20.
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: May I be heard, Mr. 
    Chairman?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Fogarty: It was my understanding that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Louisiana went down to and included the 
    language at the end of line 20 on page 25.
        The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the 
    Clerk has not read those last three lines.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20 
    on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Hebert] takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down 
    to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his 
    amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
        The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but 
    the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was 
    read.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make is 
    that there were no objections raised when the amendment was offered 
    and considered down through line 20.
        The Chairman: The portion of the gentleman's amendment having 
    to do

[[Page 5128]]

    with those three lines, lines 18, 19, and 20, can have no effect 
    until those lines are read and then considered.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fogarty: Is the gentleman's amendment in order when he has, 
    in one amendment, sought to cut three places in the bill, from 
    lines 5 to 20?
        The Chairman: No point of order was raised against it.
        Mr. Fogarty: I thought that would be a concession that those 
    lines had been read, the lines down to and including line 20.
        The Chairman: It is no concession until such time as that 
    portion of the bill is read
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no 
    objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my 
    amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
        The Chairman: No.

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment

Sec. 11.13 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill which 
    has been passed during the reading of the bill may be offered only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the education appropriation bill (H.R 19616) 
a point of order was raised against an amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec. 
        21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1972 (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 15417).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Esch: Strike out lines 17 and 18 
        on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following ``titles I, 
        III, IV (except part F), part E of title V and title VI of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, title I, including 
        section''.
            And, on line 2 of page 4, strike out ``$899,880,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$992,100,000''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on precisely the same grounds. 
    The Clerk has now read past page 4, line 17, ``Community 
    Education.''
        The gentleman was not on his feet. He did not address the 
    Chair. The amendment is clearly out of order.
        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet, and as soon as the 
    Clerk read ``higher education'' I said, ``Mr. Chairman.''
        Mr. Chairman, I sincerely object to the fact that I am not 
    given recognition. I was on my feet, having recognized the 
    experience of the previous Member.
        As soon as the Clerk read ``higher education,'' I said ``Mr. 
    Chairman'' twice.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would like to protect 
    the gentleman in his

[[Page 5129]]

    rights. If the gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair did not 
    hear the gentleman at that point. The gentleman may make a 
    unanimous-consent request that his amendment be considered although 
    the Clerk had passed it at the time he was recognized by the Chair, 
    and, if there is no objection, the amendment can be considered 
    under those circumstances. Does the gentleman make such a request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
    amendment be considered.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I must protect the bill. I am pained, 
    but I must object.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to uphold the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair wants to be 
    fair, but the gentlemen in the Chamber that wish to offer their 
    amendments must be on their feet.

Amendment Affecting Previous Line in Paragraph

Sec. 11.14 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill being read 
    under the five-minute rule is open to amendment at any point; thus, 
    a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be 
    recognized to offer an amendment, even though an amendment proposed 
    by another Member affects a line occurring earlier in the 
    paragraph.

    On July 23, 1970,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Jonas: May I respectfully remind the Chair that I was 
    recognized, and that the Chair allowed a point of order to 
    intervene only, and I had been recognized. The Chair ruled that 
    since a point of order had been made, the Chair would dispose of 
    the point of order first.
        The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of 
    order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The 
    Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of 
    their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman 
    from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 5130]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding 
    with line 3, page 39?
        The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my 
    amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my 
    information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
        The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the 
    same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the 
    amendment.

Language Previously Stricken

Sec. 11.15 A point of order having been sustained against an entire 
    paragraph in an appropriation bill, it is in order to offer an 
    amendment at that point in the bill to insert a new paragraph 
    containing the stricken language excepting those provisions which 
    were held in violation of the rules.

    On July 23, 1970,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R 18515), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: on 
    page 38, line 1, insert the following:

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

            For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved 
        August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus 
        reimbursements: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
        available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund 
        for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall 
        remain available until expended: Provided further, That this 
        appropriation shall be available for the purchase and hire of 
        passenger motor vehicles, and for construction, alteration, and 
        repair of buildings and other facilities, as authorized by 
        section 602 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Provided 
        further, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        contracts under titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for 
        more than twenty-four months. . . .

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment is that all of the language to which the amendment 
    addresses itself on page 38 of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been 
    stricken.

[[Page 5131]]

        Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can amend something that 
    is not before the House.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 
    offered a separate amendment to insert a new paragraph, and the 
    amendment is in order.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Changing Figures in Bill

Sec. 11.16 To a bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia 
    that were to be chargeable against revenues of the District for the 
    ensuing fiscal year, an amendment increasing the amount of the 
    appropriation for certain items included in the bill was held to be 
    in order.

    On June 14, 1954,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
(H.R. 9517), which made appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1955, a point of order was raised against an amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 8191, 8192, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dewitt S.] Hyde [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
            On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$1,124,365'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$1,393,665.''
            On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$135,406'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$404,706.''

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill. There is no authority of law for the 
    District of Columbia to enter into a new activity of this kind, and 
    a new business venture. Therefore, the subcommittee saw fit to 
    eliminate that from the bill, and I make a point of order against 
    it.
        The Chairman: (8) Permit the Chair to make this 
    statement. The amendment, which is before the Committee and which 
    the Chair now has before him, simply increases the amount of money 
    in the bill. Does the gentleman from Indiana make a point of order 
    against increasing the amount of money in the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression 
    that it was for the purpose of starting the District of Columbia in 
    the parking business. If I may reserve my point of order until the 
    gentleman explains what the purpose of his amendment is, of course 
    I will be in a better position to speak against it. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I still insist on the point of order on the 
    ground that the appropriation is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that if the money is 
    unauthorized it is ineffective. The Chair is also

[[Page 5132]]

    of the opinion that the money can be used only for the items 
    included in the bill and as authorized by law.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a ceiling had been specified on total 
authorized expenditures, an amendment which had the effect of exceeding 
that total would not have been permitted. The amounts added to the 
appropriation here did not cause a specific authorized total to be 
exceeded, and the Chair took the view that the increase in the 
appropriation would apply only to items included in the bill and 
already authorized.

Sec. 11.17 Where the House has adopted an amendment changing a figure 
    in an appropriation bill, it is not in order to further amend such 
    figure.

    On Mar. 11, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2270, 2272, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cochran: On page 7, line 5, after 
        the word ``law'', strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert 
        ``$128,273,700.''

        (The amendment was adopted.)
        Mr. [James] Domengeaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 7, line 5, strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$145,933,700.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that there has been a 
    change already in this figure and another change cannot be 
    considered.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman is correct. The 
    figure cannot now be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.18 Where a figure in an appropriation bill has been agreed to 
    (and hence cannot be altered by an amendment proposing a further 
    change in amount), an amendment inserted following the figure 
    agreed upon and providing funds ``in addition thereto'' is in order 
    if authorized.

    On June 5, 1959,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7509, a bill making appropriations for the civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army. The Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 10057, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Fred) Wampler [of Indiana]: On page 
    21, line

[[Page 5133]]

    7, after the amount shown add the following: ``And in addition 
    $52,000 for the following projects: Sugar Creek, West Terre Haute, 
    Clinton, and Conover Levee.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language has been once amended.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York must have 
    misunderstood the reading of the amendment, because it follows the 
    amount and does not alter the amount.

        The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 11.19 Where an appropriation bill is being read by paragraphs, a 
    subsitute for several paragraphs of the bill may be offered to the 
    first paragraph modified by the amendment only if notice is given 
    that, if the amendment is agreed to, motions will be made 
    subsequently to strike out the remaining paragraphs affected 
    thereby.

    On July 29, 1969,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: 
        On page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``For carrying out titles II, III, V, VII, and section 807 
        of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
        amended, section 402 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Admendments of 1967, and title III-A and V-A of the National 
        Defense Education Act of 1958, $254,163,000. . . . ''

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that the paragraph which it amends has not 
    yet been read. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had 
    finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and 
    concludes on line 24, page 25.
        At that point amendments to that paragraph were in order. But 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois does not change so 
    much as a comma in that paragraph; it repeats it absolutely 
    verbatim. It is not an amendment to that paragraph. It is only in 
    subsequent paragraphs that any amendment is made.

[[Page 5134]]

        I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is 
    read before he can offer an amendment to it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois 
    on the point of order.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I submit that really all I am doing 
    is adding to the first paragraph; therefore, it is very much in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has considered the arguments both for 
    and against the point of order. The Chair sees no inconsistency in 
    the gentleman's amendment repeating the paragraph on page 26 which 
    the Clerk had not yet read. It is a different paragraph, but the 
    Chair feels that the following paragraph can be consolidated with 
    an amendment to the total paragraph. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, when a 
    bill is to be read by paragraph and a Member wishes to amend a 
    paragraph that has been read and several succeeding paragraphs he 
    is permitted to offer an amendment at the time the first of those 
    paragraphs is read that he wants to amend and then at the same time 
    give notice that if his amendment, which goes beyond the first 
    paragraph and into several others, is adopted he will move to 
    strike the succeeding paragraphs.
        In the first place, the gentleman from Illinois gave no such 
    notice, but let us not dwell on that. Let us dwell on the danger of 
    upholding the amendment he is offering.
        The gentleman from Illinois, I am sure, will agree that he 
    makes no change whatsoever in the paragraph just read; absolutely 
    no change.
        If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment 
    at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that 
    comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that 
    is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes 
    nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going 
    to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an 
    amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the 
    thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        I believe this is a very serious problem, and I most earnestly 
    ask the Chair to carefully consider his ruling, because otherwise 
    it might be possible to offer an amendment to repeat the language 
    for the next 25 pages until it gets to the things one seeks to 
    change. I believe it is terribly important that this amendment be 
    considered out of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is 
    presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He has 
    resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedent,'' volume V, page 
    404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:

            When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for 
        several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by 
        paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph 
        with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to 
        strike out the remaining paragraphs.

        The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give 
    such notice. The amendment goes beyond the para

[[Page 5135]]

    graph which has been read and in effect modifies a paragraph which 
    has not yet been read.
        The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        The amendment in the form in which it is offered is not in 
    order.

Sec. 11.20 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several 
    paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been agreed to and notice 
    has been given that motions would be made to strike out ensuing 
    paragraphs of the bill as read, the paragraphs are subject to 
    perfecting amendments while such motions to strike are pending.

    On June 15, 1972, during consideration of the Departments of Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (15) 
Mr. William D. Hathaway, of Maine, offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 15417.
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the 
    paragraph of the bill just read which is a single substitute for 
    several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Office of 
    Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed 
    to I will make motions to strike out the remaining paragraphs 
    beginning with line 14 on page 19 and extending through and 
    including line 17 on page 21.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hathaway: On page 19, strike out 
        lines 6 through 13 and substitute in lieu thereof: . . .

    The amendment was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently,(18) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph 
    beginning on line 16, page 20, and extending down through line 8 on 
    page 21.
        The Chairman: (19) Without objection, the motion is 
    agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman reserving the 
    right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
        . . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21, 
    line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down through the word 
    ``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that amendment now that 
    the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
        The Chairman: It is possible.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
            On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after 
        ``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3.

        The Chairman: The Chair was of the impression that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine had been agreed to, 
    striking out the

[[Page 5136]]

    paragraph to which the amendment is offered. . . .
        Mr. Quie: In my copy of the Hathaway amendment it was not 
    stricken out. If that is correct, the Hathaway amendment would put 
    a period after ``1974'' on line 1 and strike out the rest. It was 
    my understanding the Hathaway amendment put a period after the word 
    ``Act'' on line 3 and struck out the proviso, which is the rest of 
    line 3 down through line 8.

    It then appeared that the Chairman had not heard Mr. Quie's 
reservation of objection. The following exchange occurred:

        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that the gentleman 
    rose too late. The motion had been offered by Mr. Hathaway, and 
    there was no objection and it was acceded to.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, the Chair asked if there was any 
    objection, and I reserved the right to object, which I am still 
    reserving, and on that I asked my parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair must state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman say he was reserving the right to object on the 
    Hathaway motion. . . .
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the basis of his 
    statement which the Chair did not hear.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota.

    Further objection was made to the Quie amendment, however: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, my point 
    of order is that the committee has just agreed to this.
        The Chairman: The committee has agreed to what?
        Mr. Flood: The position taken by my friend, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie). I have here, for instance, that we voted not 
    to exceed $18 million for research and training, under part C of 
    said 1963 act. Now I had the clear impression, I am sorry to say, 
    that the committee just agreed to this. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment 
    offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning 
    on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was 
    agreed to.
        Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the 
    bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a 
    perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a 
    motion to strike out is first offered.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is if a motion to 
    strike has been made, is it not then out of order to try to amend 
    the paragraph that the motion to strike applies to?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting 
    amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending. 
    Therefore the Chair rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) is in order on the basis that 
    it is

[[Page 5137]]

    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph to which the motion to 
    strike is pending.

Separate Votes in House on Amendments

Sec. 11.21 Separate votes have been demanded on amendments adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 4, 1957,(1) H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill was being 
considered in the House after amendments had been adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5162, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Note: The Committee on Appropriations furnished printed forms 
        containing all 18 amendments to the bill adopted in the 
        Committee of the Whole, with further pertinent information. 
        Fourteen rollcalls occurred in one day with respect to such 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 6287, which the Clerk will report by title.
        [The Clerk read the title of the bill.]
        Separate votes having been demanded on all amendments adopted 
    in the Committee of the Whole, the Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote was demanded.

Recommittal of Bill With Instructions

Sec. 11.22 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions was held not to be in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read a motion as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report the 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be reported 
    back to the House within 5 days with amendments which will indicate 
    the places and amounts in the budget where the committee believes, 
    in view of the statements made in the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, that substantial reductions may best be 
    made and will meet the views of the House with the least 
    curtailment

[[Page 5138]]

    of efficient administration by the Departments affected.
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island care to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the 
    motion, there is a matter of wording contained therein that is not 
    permissible under the rules governing procedure in the Committee of 
    the Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the 
    House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want 
    to point out that there is a precedent for the motion and the rules 
    cite a precedent where that motion has been held to be proper in 
    the Committee
        The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent, 
    but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be 
    entertained in the Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the 
    motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the motion that the Committee rise 
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
bill be recommitted may be in order when the bill is being considered 
under the general rules of the House (see 4 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), it is not in 
order in the form presented above (where inconsistent motions are 
joined) nor is it in order when a bill is being considered under a 
special rule (see 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 
1950).

Sec. 11.23 On occasion a general appropriation bill has been 
    recommitted with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
    amendment; the bill has then been so reported, the amendment agreed 
    to, the bill again ordered engrossed and read a third time, and the 
    bill passed, in that order.

    On June 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the House of 
H.R. 3368, a war agencies appropriation bill, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 5832, 5833, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 97 Cong. 
        Rec. 6533, 6534, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

[[Page 5139]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Taber: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taber moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with an amendment reducing the Office of War 
        Information by $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for 
        activities in Europe and the United States.

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided, and there were--ayes 120, noes 108.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 133, nays 128, not 
    voting 166. . . .
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I now report back to the House the bill 
    H.R. 3368, the war agencies appropriation bill, with the amendment 
    incorporated in the motion to recommit, and with the recommendation 
    that the amendment be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            [Amendment reducing the Office of War Information by 
        $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for activities in Europe 
        and the United States.]

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 252, nays 2, not 
    voting 178. . . .
        So the bill was passed.

Sec. 11.24 A deficiency appropriation bill has been recommitted with 
    instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1948,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6055. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 3994, 3995, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri) moves to recommit the bill 
    to

[[Page 5140]]

    the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
    bill back forthwith with an amendment as follows:
        On page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 154, not 
    voting 78. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the instructions of 
    the House, I report the bill back with an amendment which is at the 
    desk.
        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will read the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Reduction of Total Appropriation

Sec. 11.25 The House has agreed to a motion to recommit an 
    appropriation bill with instructions to the Committee on 
    Appropriations to report back forthwith with an amendment reducing 
    the total appropriation to a figure not to exceed 95 percent of the 
    budget estimates.

    On July 18, 1967,(9) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 11456, a Department of Transportation appropriation bill, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 19273-75, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill 
    to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that 
    committee to report it back forthwith with the following amendment: 
    On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new section as 
    follows:

            ``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 95 per centum of the total aggregate 
        net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H. 
        Doc 15).''

        The Speaker: (10) Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 5141]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 188, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to the instructions of the House, in the motion to 
    recommit, I report back the bill H.R. 11456 with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new 
        section as follows:
            ``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 95 percent of the total aggregate 
        net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H. 
        Doc 15).''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 11.26 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill with instructions 
    to the committee to reduce the amount of the appropriation by $50 
    million is in order; but the committee, if the motion is adopted, 
    may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.

    On May 15, 1939,(11) the House was considering H.R 6260, 
a War Department civil functions appropriation bill. The Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey] moves to recommit the bill 
    to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
    same back forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of 
    the bill $50,000,000
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last

[[Page 5142]]

    Wednesday, therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair may state, in connection 
    with the point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, 
    that the Chair understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, 
    one motion to recommit always being in order after the third 
    reading, is to give to those Members opposed to the bill an 
    opportunity to have an expression of opinion by the House upon 
    their proposition. It is true that under the precedents it is not 
    in order by way of a motion to recommit to propose an amendment to 
    an amendment previously adopted by the House, but the motion now 
    pending does not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .

        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the motion is 
    simply to reduce the bill $50,000,000.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands the rule to be that the 
    House can adopt a motion to recommit with instructions to reduce 
    the amount of the appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee, 
    if this motion should be adopted, could not report the bill back to 
    the House with an amendment proposing a change in the amendments 
    adopted by the House.

Prohibition on Use of Appropriations

Sec. 11.27 The House has agreed to a recommittal motion which sought a 
    prohibition on the use of funds in a supplemental appropriation 
    bill (providing funds for the Department of Agriculture) to finance 
    the export of agricultural commodities to the United Arab Republic.

    On Jan. 26, 1965,(13) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 234. The Clerk read a motion to recommit and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois] moves to recommit House 
    Joint Resolution 234 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
    instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with 
    the following amendment: On page 2, line 13, strike the period at 
    the end of the sentence and insert the following: ``: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation shall be used during the fiscal 
    year 1965 to finance the export of any agricultural commodity to 
    the United Arab Republic under the provisions of title I of such 
    Act.''
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 204, nays 177, not 
    voting 53. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 5143]]

        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I report back to the House, House Joint 
    Resolution 234, with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, and was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 11.28 The House adopted an amendment, reported pursuant to a 
    recommittal motion, to prohibit the use of appropriations in the 
    bill to administer any program for the sale of agricultural 
    commodities to nations that sell supplies to North Vietnam.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8972, 8973, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois] moves that the bill be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with 
        instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: On page 36, on line 6 strike the period, insert a 
        colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of 
        agricultural commodities pursuant to title I or IV of Public 
        Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which 
        sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its 
        registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment, 
        materials, or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed 
        by a Communist regime.''

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (16) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 290, nays, 98, not 
    voting 44. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I 
    report back the bill H.R. 14596 with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

[[Page 5144]]

        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 366, nays 23, not 
    voting 43.

Enrollment of Appropriation Bills

Sec. 11.29 Set out below is the form of a concurrent resolution 
    providing that in the enrollment of general appropriation bills 
    enacted during the remainder of a session the Clerk of the House 
    may correct chapter, title, and section numbers.

    On July 4, 1952,(17) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, by 
unanimous consent, submitted the following concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 239]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Jour. 746, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That in the enrollment of general appropriation bills 
    enacted during the remainder of the second session of the Eighty-
    second Congress the Clerk of the House may correct chapter, title, 
    and section numbers.

    The concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to. A motion to 
reconsider the vote whereby the concurrent resolution was agreed to 
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.

                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 12. Points of Order; Timeliness

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole has no authority 
to delete by points of order portions of a bill referred to it by the 
House absent reservation of that authority in the House at the time the 
bill is first referred to the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union (the Union Calendar). Absent reserved 
authority to delete provisions in violation of clauses 2 and 6 of Rule 
XXI, the Committee of the Whole can merely recommend amendments to be 
acted upon by the House to change general appropriation bills committed 
thereto.
                          -------------------

Reservation of Points of Order

Sec. 12.1 Points of order are ordinarily reserved against general 
    appropriation bills prior to referral of the bills to the Committee 
    of the Whole, i.e., when placed upon the Union Calendar, and may be 
    reserved thereafter only by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 26, 1940,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.

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

[[Page 5145]]

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R 8341) 
    making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, to provide 
    supplemental appropriations for such fiscal year, and for other 
    purposes; and pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that 
    general debate shall continue for 2\1/2\ hours, to be confined to 
    the bill and the time to be equally divided between myself and the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
        The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Woodrum)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, has this bill been reported?
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Yes; it has been reported.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I desire to reserve all points of order 
    against the bill.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the gentleman from New York 
    reserves all points of order against the bill.
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous consent was requested since the 
bill had been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the Speaker 
when reported. That is the proper time to reserve points of order in 
the House against a general appropriation bill. Once the bill is 
referred to the Union Calendar, it is then too late absent unanimous 
consent.

Sec. 12.2 The committee chairman obtained unanimous consent that the 
    committee have until midnight to file a report on an appropriation 
    bill, and a Member thereafter obtained unanimous consent to reserve 
    all points of order on the bill.

    On Nov. 26, 1945,(20) the following unanimous-consent 
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 10984, 10993, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have 
    until midnight tonight to file a report on the first deficiency 
    appropriation bill.
        The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: I have been on the floor all morning, but I have 
    been advised that earlier in the day unanimous consent was given to 
    the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to have until 
    midnight to file a report on the deficiency appropriation bill. I 
    did not hear that request.

[[Page 5146]]

        The Speaker: The request was made and the consent was granted.
        Mr. Michener: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the 
    ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, was in the 
    committee room, as I am advised, at the time. Had he been present 
    and known about it, he would have asked permission to reserve all 
    points of order on the bill.
        I now ask unanimous consent to reserve all points of order on 
    the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Precedence Over Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 12.3 A point of order against a paragraph in a general 
    appropriation bill takes precedence over any amendment (including a 
    pro forma amendment) to that paragraph.

    On June 4, 1970,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated or made available in 
    this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
    amended, shall be available for assistance to the United Arab 
    Republic, unless the President determines that such availability is 
    essential to the national interest of the United States.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    on my feet to make a point of order as to section 117 that was just 
    read.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Wisconsin has a 
    point of order on section 117?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    on his point of order.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly defer to the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) if I do not lose my opportunity to 
    make my point of order in so doing.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order 
    takes precedence.

Priority in Recognition

Sec. 12.4 Members of the committee reporting a bill have priority of 
    recognition in making points of order against proposed amendments 
    to bills.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(4) the Committee on the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3838, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The

[[Page 5147]]

Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On 
    page 47, line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon and the 
    following: ``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be 
    used to build, operate, or administer transmission lines to carry 
    power developed at Fort Randall Dam across the boundaries of the 
    State of South Dakota in which the power is produced, unless the 
    power so produced shall exceed the requests for power in that 
    State.''
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Washington, a member of the committee, to state a point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Two Paragraphs

Sec. 12.5 Because a general appropriation bill is read for amendment by 
    paragraphs, a point of order against two consecutive paragraphs 
    comprising a section in the bill can be made only by unanimous 
    consent.

    On June 4, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17867, a foreign assistance appropriation bill. A 
Member stated as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, when the Clerk reads the next section, I propose 
    to raise a point of order against both clauses (a) and (b), and I 
    rise at this time to inquire if I can make the point of order 
    against both clauses and have it considered at the same time.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Minnesota that that can be done only by unanimous 
    consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Assertion That Bill Is Not ``General'' Appropriation Bill.

Sec. 12.6 In response to a point of order based on Rule XXI clause 2, 
    it was asserted that the bill under consideration was not a 
    ``general'' appropriation bill and therefore not subject to the 
    rule; but the Chair ruled that such assertion should have been made 
    when the bill was first taken up as a privileged general 
    appropriation bill and was not timely made after

[[Page 5148]]

    the stage of amendment was reached.

    On June 21, 1939,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering an appropriations bill.(9) A point of order was 
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 7673, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 6791, supplemental military establishment appropriation of 
        1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 10, line 11, after the word ``thereof'', insert ``Provided 
    further, That of the amounts herein appropriated and authorized to 
    be obligated for the procurement of 2,290 airplanes, obligations 
    shall not be incurred for the procurement of more than 1,007 
    airplanes unless and until the President shall determine that the 
    interests of national defense require the procurement of any 
    portion or all of the number in excess of 1,007.''

    A point of order having been raised, the following exchange took 
place:

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, there 
    are two points on which this is in order. In the first place, it 
    proposes retrenchment; and, if so, comes under the Holman Rule. In 
    the second place, the bill before us is not a general appropriation 
    bill. The rule under which the point of order is made is rule XXI, 
    section 2, and that rule specifically says:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill. . . . For any expenditure not previously 
        authorized by law. . . . Nor shall any provision in any such 
        bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order--

        And so forth. The limitations apply only to recognized general 
    appropriation bills. In Cannon's Procedure, which I have in my 
    hand, on page 20, this point is specifically treated, and on page 
    20 the statement is flatly made:

            The rule applies to general appropriation bills only.

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    argument just made, if containing merit, should have been made 
    earlier, when the bill was taken up. It has been reported as a 
    general appropriation bill and so considered, and was reported 
    under the rules as a general appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order That Paragraph Has Been Passed

Sec. 12.7 A point of order that a paragraph has been passed and is 
    therefore not subject to amendment will not lie where a Member was 
    on his feet seeking recognition to offer an amendment, while the 
    Clerk continued to read.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(11) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,

[[Page 5149]]

and Welfare appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from North Carolina rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Idaho 
    rise?
        Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has just been 
    recognized to offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 32, after line 21, 
        insert the following paragraph: ``Grants to States for training 
        public-welfare personnel: For grants to States for increasing 
        the number of adequately trained public-welfare personnel 
        available for work in the publicassistance programs as 
        authorized by section 705 of the Social Security Act, as 
        amended, $2,500,000.''

        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. I believe that section was passed, but I will 
    reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Cooley: It was not passed. My amendment was at the Clerk's 
    desk, but the Clerk was reading so rapidly that he passed that 
    section inadvertently. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not in order 
    at this point in the bill, the Clerk having read down to line 2 on 
    page 33; and, furthermore, that it is not authorized by law.
        Mr. Cooley: May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Cooley: Do I understand the gentleman to base his point of 
    order upon the ground that this amount was not authorized by law?
        Mr. Taber: Upon the ground that the amendment is not in order 
    at the point where the Clerk had finished reading.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on that point. The 
    gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet while the Clerk was 
    reading. The Clerk continued to read before the gentleman had a 
    chance to offer his amendment.
        The gentleman was entitled to recognition.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

After Reading of Paragraph

Sec. 12.8 The time for making points or order against items in an 
    appropriation bill is after the House has resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph containing such 
    items has been read for amendment.

[[Page 5150]]

    On July 5, 1945,(13) the following proceedings took 
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    3649), making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that 
    motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
    general debate in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill 
    contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not 
    in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, it is not.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order 
    is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?

        The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.

Sec. 12.9 The proper time to raise a point of order against language in 
    a paragraph of a general appropriation bill is after the paragraph 
    has been read but before debate starts thereon. (Note: The Chair, 
    however, will not permit the reading of an amendment to preclude a 
    point of order made by a Member who has shown due diligence and who 
    sought recognition at the proper time.)

    On May 24, 1960,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Construction, General

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law. . . .

        Mr. [Fred] Wampler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wampler: On page 4, line 16, 
        strike the amount ``$662,622,300'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the amount ``$662,807,300''.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I have a point of order against the language to be 
    found on this page. Will the discussion of this

[[Page 5151]]

    amendment abrogate my right to make a point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, it would. If the 
    gentleman has a point of order, it would have to be urged at this 
    point.
        Mr. Gross: The gentleman is trying to obtain recognition from 
    the Chair to make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman to make the 
    point of order.

Sec. 12.10 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read 
    and amendments thereto have been considered.

    On May 25, 1959,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7176) the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 9013, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: I make a point of order to the language on page 9, 
    lines 5 and 6 ``from the Baltic countries.''
        The Chairman: The Chair must advise the gentleman that the 
    point of order comes too late. That section has been read and 
    amendments to the section have been considered. The point of order 
    is overruled.
        The Clerk will read.

Sec. 12.11 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read 
    and an amendment thereto has been agreed to.

    On June 13, 1961,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7577, a bill making appropriations for the executive 
office and the Department of Commerce. The Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 10177, 10178, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
    Small Business Administration, including hire of passenger motor 
    vehicles, $6,750,000. . . .
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: On page 28, lines 11 and 
        12, after ``exceed'', strike out ``$17,524,000'' and insert 
        ``$18,447,000''.

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee accepts the amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 5152]]

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            For necessary expenses of the Subversive Activities Control 
        Board, including services as authorized by section 15 of the 
        Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a) . . . $305,000.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is a point of order to the language on page 29 in 
    order?
        The Chairman: If it is to language preceding line 5 on page 29 
    it is not in order.
        Mr. Gross: It does precede line 5 on page 29. The Clerk did not 
    read the language on page 29, lines 1 to 5.
        The Chairman: The Clerk has read and an amendment has been 
    adopted to the paragraph starting on page 28, line 8 and ending on 
    page 29, line 5.
        Mr. Gross. Then a point of order to the language on page 29, 
    line 5, is not in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman it comes too 
    late at this time.

Bill Considered as Read

Sec. 12.12 Where the remainder of a general appropriation bill has been 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point by unanimous 
    consent, points of order against any provision in that portion of 
    the bill must be made prior to debate or amendment to the remainder 
    of the bill.

    On June 26, 1972,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15586) the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 22428, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read in full and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, would that foreclose the making of a point of 
    order against a point that has not been reached in the bill?
        A point of order can still be made?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, is it not necessary that the point of order be 
    made now?
        Having dispensed with the reading of the bill, the point of 
    order has to be made now?
        The Chairman: If the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee is approved, the gentleman from Iowa is correct, the 
    point of order should be made at that time.

Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 12.13 Points of order against proposed amendments must

[[Page 5153]]

    be made immediately after the amendment is read; after a Member has 
    been granted 15 minutes to address the Committee of the Whole on 
    his amendment, it is too late to make a point of order against it.

    On Apr. 17, 1943,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: On page 
    65, line 6, after the colon, insert: ``Provided further, That no 
    part of said appropriation or any other appropriation carried in 
    this bill shall be used for incentive payments or subsidies or for 
    any expense for or incident to the payment of incentive payments or 
    any other form of subsidy payments.''
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    to speak for 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick (of North Dakota): Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York): The regular order, Mr Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The gentleman 
    has been recognized and has been granted permission to proceed for 
    15 minutes. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.

Appropriations in Legislative Bills

Sec. 12.14 While Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5) provides that points 
    of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be raised 
    at any time, the practice of the House is that such points of order 
    should be raised when the bill is read for amendment.

    On Mar. 18, 1946,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal 
Works Administration. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 2365, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 5407, with Mr. [Fadjo] Cravens [of Arkansas] in the 
    chair.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    to make

[[Page 5154]]

    a point of order against portions of the bill in paragraphs (a), 
    (b), and what was originally (c), proposed now to be made (b) by a 
    committee amendment, on the ground that they constitute 
    appropriations. Under the rule forbidding the reporting of 
    appropriations by a committee without jurisdiction, I make a point 
    of order against the consideration of the language on page 2, 
    beginning in line 4, reading:

            And the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore 
        made for the construction of projects outside the District of 
        Columbia.

        Also on page 2, beginning in line 23, the last sentence of that 
    paragraph which reads:

            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.

        Under the rule, a point of order would lie against 
    consideration of those portions of the bill, and I make such a 
    point of order at this time.
        Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    appropriations referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. 
    Case) have already been made, and this money has been appropriated.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes that the proper time to raise 
    such points of order is not at the present time, but when the bill 
    is read under the 5-minute rule for amendment.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Of course, I know that is frequently 
    done, but I think the rule authorizes the point of order to be made 
    at any time during consideration of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is informed that under the previous 
    practice of the House, such points of order should be raised when 
    the bill is read for amendment.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I have no objection to presenting 
    them later, but I do not want to lose my right to present them by 
    failure to raise them at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will not lose any of his rights.

Sec. 12.15 Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills 
    may be raised at any time, even though debate has taken place on 
    the merits of the proposition.

    On June 17, 1937,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7472, a District of Columbia tax bill. The Clerk read 
as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75h Cong. 1st Sess. See also 99 Cong. Rec. 
        10398, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1953 (proceedings relating 
        to H.R. 6016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        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

[[Page 5155]]

    advisable to insure the collection of such fees. . . .
        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: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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 and that this is purely an 
    appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the 
    gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 12.16 A point of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5) 
    against an appropriation in a bill reported by a legislative 
    committee) ``may be raised at any time''; and in response to an 
    inquiry the Chair advised a Member that if the offending. Language 
    was not stricken by amendment it could still be reached by a point 
    of order.

    On May 18, 1966,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an amendment to H.R. 14544, the Participation 
Sales Act of 1966, proceedings occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment: On page 3, line 3 strike out 
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' and insert: 
    ``Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph (4) of this 
    subsection.''
        The committee amendment was agreed to Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas 
    [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    language to be amended by the committee amendment. I would not 
    insist on the point of order if I knew the committee amendment 
    would be adopted.
        Should the committee amendment be rejected, I inquire of the 
    Chair if I then might be able to lodge my point of order against 
    the language stricken by the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North 
    Carolina

[[Page 5156]]

    that the Chair will undertake to protect the gentleman's right to 
    raise points of order under clause 4 of rule XXI at any time during 
    the consideration of this section of the bill whether the committee 
    amendments are adopted or rejected.

Sec. 12.17 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole against a bill reported by a legislative com- mittee, on the 
    ground that it proposed an appropriation contrary to Rule XXI 
    clause 4 (now clause 5), the Committee rose pending decision by the 
    Chair on the point of order.

        On June 4, 1957,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954. The following proceedings 
    took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the entire bill, H.R. 6974, on the ground 
    that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report 
    an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little 
    bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained if the 
    Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the 
    circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that 
    the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that 
    motion.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the 
    Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to 
    extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
    1954, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was 
in fact in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and the 
Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise so 
application could be made to the Committee on Rules for a resolution 
waiving points of order against the bill. See House Resolution 274. 
However, a point of order under this rule applies only to offensive 
language in the bill, and not against consideration of the entire bill 
(see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2142; 121 Cong. Rec. 12049, 94th Cong. 
1st Sess.,

[[Page 5157]]

Apr. 28, 1975). If the entire language of the bill were ruled out in 
Committee of the Whole, the enacting clause would still exist and an 
amendment would still be in order if germane to the title of the bill 
and not containing an appropriation.

Point of Order Against Senate Bill

Sec. 12.18 Where language in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 
    5) is stricken from a Senate bill in Committee of the Whole by a 
    point of order, the Chairman reports that fact to the House.

    On July 31, 1957,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for development and modernization 
of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities. At 
one point, proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 13181, 13182, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The time of the gentleman from 
    Michigan has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All time has expired.
        The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, stated that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 1856) 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, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 361, he reported the same back to the House.
        The Chairman also reported that the language in the bill on 
    page 7, line 12, reading as follows: ``and unexpended balances of 
    appropriations, allocations, and other funds available or'' was 
    stricken out on a point of order.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The resulting change in the Senate bill was 
        treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so engrossed and 
        messaged to the Senate, though not voted upon as a separate 
        amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               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.
