[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters]
[Â§ 6. Amendments Between the Houses]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5359-5372]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 6. Amendments Between the Houses

    A rule of the House (12) prohibits its conferees from 
agreeing to certain Senate amendments to general appropriation bills 
absent specific authority conferred by the House. The rule provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1973). For 
        further discussion of issues arising between the House and 
        Senate with respect to appropriation bills generally, and 
        appropriations on legislative bills, see Ch. 25 Sec. 13, supra. 
        See also Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra; Ch. 33, House-
        Senate Conferences, infra. And, see Ch. 13, Powers and 
        Prerogatives of the House, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill 
    which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI, (13) 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. (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 1, supra, for discussion of Rule XXI clause 2.
14. Managers may be authorized to agree to an appropriation by a 
        resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. See 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents 
        Sec. 1577.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Senate Amendment

Sec. 6.1 When the House was considering a Senate amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill proposing an expenditure not authorized by law, 
    it was held to be in order in the House to amend such Senate 
    amendment by germane amendments that were legislative in nature.

    On Feb. 8, 1937, (15) the House was considering a Senate 
amend

[[Page 5360]]

ment in disagreement on H.R. 3587, a deficiency appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senate amendment no. 9: Strike out, after the word 
    ``appropriation'', the following language ``or of the appropriation 
    in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1936 shall be used 
    hereafter to pay the compensation of any person, not taken from 
    relief rolls, detailed or loaned for service in connection with any 
    investigation or inquiry undertaken by any committee of either 
    House . . .'' and insert ``or of any appropriation for any 
    executive department or independent executive agency shall be used 
    hereafter 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 . . . 
    unless the . . . agency . . . from whose staff such person is 
    detailed or loaned shall render to the Secretary of the Senate or 
    the Clerk of the House of Representatives . . . a statement on or 
    before the 10th day of each month of number, grade, or status . . . 
    of the persons so detailed or loaned from the staff of such . . . 
    agency . . . during the preceding calendar month.''
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, hich I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Woodrum moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment no. 9 and agree to the same 
        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. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential 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. . . .

        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

[[Page 5361]]

        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.

Instance of Consideration of Senate Amendments in Committee of the 
    Whole

Sec. 6.2 Where an appropriation bill was amended by the Senate and a 
    conference requested by the Senate, and the Senate amendments then 
    referred by the Speaker to the House Committee on Appropriations, 
    that committee reported out an alternative bill on the same 
    subject; upon the Senate's refusal to consider the second bill, the 
    House committee then reported back the Senate amendments to the 
    first bill, which were considered and amended in Committee of the 
    Whole and then sent to conference.

    On June 1, 1945, the House Committee on Appropriations reported out 
H.R. 3368, the National War Agencies appropriation, 1946. 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 5450, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 1945, (18) the Committee on Rules reported a 
resolution (H. Res. 289), subsequently adopted, waiving points of order 
against legislative provisions in the bill. The House then resolved 
itself into the Committee of the Whole (19) or consideration 
of the bill. During such consideration, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, offered an mendment to provide appropriations for continuance of 
the Fair Employment Practice Committee, a measure with considerable 
support in the House. A point of order having been raised against the 
amendment, Chairman John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, sustained the point 
of order, ruling that the amendment was out of order as legislation on 
an appropriation bill. (1) The bill subsequently passed the 
House. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 5795-99.
19. Id. at p. 5799.
 1. Id. at p. 5831.
 2. Id. at pp. 5832, 5833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 1945, H.R. 3368 was reported in the Senate. 
(3) Fol

[[Page 5362]]

lowing the report, Senator Dennis Chavez, of New Mexico, submitted a 
written notice, at the direction of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, that it was his intention to move to suspend the rules 
for the purpose of proposing an amendment to H.R. 3368 to insert 
provisions for the appropriation for the Committee on Fair Employment 
Practice. (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 6322
 4. Id. at pp. 6322, 6323.
            Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate rules sought to be 
        suspended were Rule XVI clauses 1 and 4, relating to amendments 
        to appropriation bills. Written notice of intention to move for 
        suspension of the rules under certain circumstances was 
        required by Senate Rule XL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 1945, the Senate considered and adopted the amendment 
proposing such appropriation, and subsequently passed the bill and 
requested a conference. (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 7068, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 1945, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, pursuant to his 
discretionary authority under Rule XXIV clause 2, referred H.R. 3368 
with Senate amendments to the Committee on Appropriations. 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 7142.
            Parliamentarian's Note: Before this reference was made, a 
        unanimous-consent request and an effort to obtain a resolution 
        from the Committee on Rules of the House making it in order to 
        take H.R. 3368 as amended from the Speaker's table, disagree 
        with the amendments, and agree to a conference both failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 1945, the Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 
3649,(7)) which was similar in effect to H.R. 3368 and 
included some of the measures added by the Senate, but which did not 
include the appropriation for the Committee on Fair Employment 
Practice. Points of order were reserved by Members against the bill. An 
effort was made to obtain a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
waiving points of order against the legislative provisions contained in 
H.R. 3649, but requests therefore were denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7189, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 1945,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of H.R. 3649. General debate 
had been waived. But numerous points of order were raised against 
provisions of H.R. 3649 that appropriated for war 
agencies.(9) the basis of these points of order, many 
provisions of the bill were deleted before the bill was passed and sent 
to the Senate. After it became apparent that the Senate

[[Page 5363]]

would not consider H.R. 3649, the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, on July 11, 1945, reported out H.R. 3368 with the Senate 
amendments.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 7226.
 9. Id. at pp. 7226-36.
10. Id. at p. 7404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 12, 1945, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole; dispensed with general debate; considered Senate amendments 
to H.R. 3368 under the five-minute rule and concurred with an amendment 
to the Senate amendment containing the appropriation for the Fair 
Employment Practice Committee; and, after disagreeing with other Senate 
amendments, agreed to the conference requested by the 
Senate.(11) Thereafter, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment relating to the Committee on Fair 
Employment Practice, (12) and on July 13, 1945, the 
conference report on H.R. 3368 was agreed to by both Houses. 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 7474-94.
12. Id. at p. 7464.
13. Id. at pp. 7510, 7534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent; House Conferees Authorized To Agree to Senate 
    Amendments Notwithstanding Rule XX Clause 2

Sec. 6.3 Form of a unanimous-consent request to send an appropriation 
    bill to conference and authorize the House conferees to agree to 
    Senate legislative amendments notwithstanding the restrictions 
    contained in Rule XX clause 2.

    On June 3, 1936,(14) Member addressed Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 
    12624, the first deficiency appropriation bill, together with the 
    Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
    agree to the conference requested by the Senate; also that the 
    managers on the part of the House, notwithstanding the provisions 
    of clause 2, rule XX, be authorized to agree to any Senate 
    amendment with or without amendment, except the Senate amendment 
    having to do with the Florida ship canal and the Senate amendment 
    providing $300,000,000 for public-works projects.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chair appointed the following conferees: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
    Taylor of Colorado, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Woodrum, Mr. Boylan, Mr. Cannon 
    of Missouri, Mr. Taber, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Thurston.

[[Page 5364]]

Sec. 6.4 Form of a unanimous-consent request to take from the Speaker's 
    table an appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto; 
    disagree to the Senate amendments; agree to the conference asked by 
    the Senate; and to give the managers on the part of the House 
    authority to agree to the amendments of the Senate with amendments, 
    notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XX clause 2 and to consider 
    the conference report any time after filed.

    On July 2, 1947,(15) Member addressed Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 8131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4031) 
    making appropriations to meet emergencies for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to 
    the conference asked by the Senate; and that the managers on the 
    part of the House have authority to agree to the amendments of the 
    Senate with amendments, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 
    of rule XX, and that the conference report may be considered at any 
    time.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York? (After a pause.) The Chair hears none and appoints 
    the following conferees: Messrs. Taber, Wigglesworth, Engel of 
    Michigan, Stefan, Case of South Dakota, Keefe, Kerr, and Mahon.

Point of Order Against Senate Amendment Reported in Disagreement

Sec. 6.5 When an amendment is adopted by the Senate which, had it been 
    offered in the House, might have been subject to a point of order 
    as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and the conferees report such 
    amendment in disagreement, the House may consider the amendment.

    On Oct. 6, 1949, (16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 14028, 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 3838) making appropriations for 
    the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1950, 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to 
    make a point of order against a provision of this bill.

[[Page 5365]]

        The Speaker: (17)) The gentleman can reserve the 
    right to make that point of order later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

    After adoption of the conference report, the House considered the 
amendments reported in disagreement.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
    disagreement.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 132: Page 56, line 7, insert the 
        following: ``: Provided further, That no part of this or prior 
        appropriations shall be used for construction, nor for further 
        commitments to construction of Moorhead Dam and Reservoir, 
        Mont., or any feature thereof until a definite plan report 
        thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Wyoming 
        and Montana, and approved by the Congress.''

        Mr. D'Ewart: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. D'Ewart: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    provision. . . .
        I make this point of order under rule 21, as it is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; (1) because it is an 
    affirmative direction and (2) it restricts executive discretion to 
    a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy. I call the 
    Speaker's attention to page 422, section 844 of the House Rules and 
    Manual, which reads, in part, as follows:

            A provision proposing to construe existing law is in itself 
        a proposition of legislation and therefore not in order.

        On page 423 in the same section, I quote further:

            A paragraph which proposes legislation being permitted to 
        remain may be perfected by a germane amendment, but this does 
        not permit an amendment which adds additional legislation. And 
        where a Senate amendment proposes legislation, the same 
        principle holds true.

        I would call further the Speaker's attention to section 845, 
    which reads, in part, as follows: . . .

            In construing a proposed limitation, if the Chair finds the 
        purpose to be legislative, in that the intent is to restrict 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail, 
        he should sustain the point of order.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment to the appropriation 
    bill is an affirmative direction and restricts executive discretion 
    to a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that if an amendment of 
    this sort had been proposed in the House of Representatives when 
    this bill was under consideration in all probability it would have 
    been subject to a point of order. The Chair does not feel that in 
    this case it is a violation of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple 
    reason that it has been held as early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker 
    Gillette that when an amendment that might have been subject to a 
    point of order in the House if offered here was adopted by the 
    Senate, and

[[Page 5366]]

    the conferees reported such an amendment in disagreement the House 
    may consider the amendment.
        Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Montana.
        Mr. Kirwan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment.

Conferees' Authority Where Rule Waived Against House Provision

Sec. 6.6 Where an appropriation bill is considered in the House under a 
    rule waiving points of order against a provision therein which is 
    unauthorized by law, and the Senate then amends the unauthorized 
    provision, reducing the sum of money involved and striking out a 
    portion of the language, House conferees may (without violating the 
    provisions of Rule XX clause 2) agree to a sum between the two 
    versions and restore the House language.

    On Dec. 20, 1969, (18) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 15149) the following point of order was raised, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against that portion of the conference report which 
    provides funds for the purchase of planes for the Republic of China 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation that is not authorized by 
    law.
        I read from the conference report on the authorization bill 
    which appears in the Congressional Record of December 18 on page 
    39841 relating to the military assistance, section 504 of the act.
        The House bill authorized a total of $454,500,000 for military 
    assistance of which $350,000,000 was for worldwide allocation; 
    $50,000,000 for Korea; $54,500,000 for the Republic of China.
        The Senate amendment authorized a total of $325,000,000 without 
    any allocation to specified countries.
        The managers on the part of the House agreed to the 
    authorization of $350,000,000 without specifying any country 
    allocation. They found it impossible to obtain agreement to a 
    larger total for military assistance and believe that any specific 
    additional allocation for Korea or for the Republic of China would 
    result in a drastic curtailment of the worldwide authorization 
    which would be detrimental to our national security.
        So in the basic law, in the authorization law there is no 
    allocation specifically of funds for any country and I suggest that 
    the appropriation of funds in a specific amount for military 
    assistance to a particular country is without authorization of law. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (19) [T]he Chair recalls that when this 
    appropriation bill passed the House, it was considered under a rule 
    waiving points of order.

[[Page 5367]]

    The House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of 
    $454,500,000. The Senate reduced this figure to $325 million. The 
    conferees have reached an agreement between these two amounts, as 
    they had the authority to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
    authority and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Such an amendment, had it been offered in 
the House to merely change the unauthorized amount in the House bill 
against which points of order had been waived, would have been 
protected by the waiver and thus not subject to a point of order under 
Rule XXI clause 2.

Senate Amendment, Within Conference Agreement, Held Authorized

Sec. 6.7 A point of order against a conference report, based on the 
    contention that managers on the part of the House had agreed to a 
    Senate amendment which provided for an appropriation not authorized 
    by law, was overruled.

    On Sept. 27, 1961,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 21521, 21522, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the conference report,(1) and I refer 
    especially to the paragraph on page 30, under the title of 
    ``Preservation of Ancient Nubian Monuments--Special Foreign 
    Currency Program'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. On H.R. 9169, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I 
        of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized 
        by section 104(k) of that Act, $4,000,000 to remain available 
        until expended.

        Mr. Speaker, to my mind that appropriation is not covered by 
    the statute on which it is based. When we went over there--to the 
    conference--and marked it up, I understood it was to be brought 
    back for a separate vote. I did not hear anything else or any talk 
    except that they were going to knock off a couple of words: ``to 
    remain available until expended.''
        Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should read section 104(k) which is 
    referred to in the amendment:

            To collect, collate, translate, abstract, and disseminate 
        scientific and technological information and to conduct and 
        support scientific activities overseas including programs and 
        projects of scientific cooperation between the United States 
        and other countries such as coordinated research against 
        diseases common to all mankind or unique to individual regions 
        of the globe. No foreign currency shall be used for the purpose 
        of this section unless specific appropriations be made therfor.

        To my mind, this authorization was not covered by the language 
    of section 104(k). In my opinion, it does not include the sort of 
    operation that is men

[[Page 5368]]

    tioned here. It does not have proper authority for an appropriation 
    of this character. It does not authorize purchase of currency.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I would like the 
    privilege of addressing the Speaker on this item.
        . . . Let me first call the attention of the Speaker to the 
    exact language on page 30 of the bill:

            For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I 
        of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized 
        by section 104(k) of that act $4 million to remain available 
        until expended.

        Let us see what 104(k) says:

            To collect, collate, translate, abstract, and disseminate 
        scientific and technological information--

        That is exactly what you are doing here.
         conduct and support scientific activities overseas--

        Mr. Speaker, how much more definite could that be?
        cooperation between the United States and other countries such 
        as coordinated research--

        And so forth.
        Mr. Speaker, that language is very definite and it certainly 
    covers this like a blanket.
        I cannot see any escape from it.
        Is that all, now, Mr. Speaker? May I read to the Chair section 
    502(c) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended:
        It is the sense of the Congress that prompt and careful 
    consideration should be given to participation by the United States 
    in an internationally financed program which would utilize--
        What?
        foreign currencies available to the United States--

        To do what?
        to preserve the great cultural monuments of the Upper Nile.

        Can it be any more specific than that?
        Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that our able and 
    distinguished friend's point of order should be overruled.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair will permit, the point on 
    which this question is to be determined is the authority in section 
    104(k). There is nothing there that authorizes an appropriation for 
    the purchase of Egyptian pounds. That is what this appropriation is 
    made for.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]t is the opinion of the Chair that section 104(k) 
    justifies the language contained in the conference report and the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Discussion of Senate Rule Concerning Legislation on Appropriation Bills

Sec. 6.8 Where a general appropriation bill passed by the House 
    contained legislation, it was held in the Senate that such 
    legislative provisions permitted the consideration of legislative 
    amendments.

[[Page 5369]]

    On May 29, 1936,(3) the Senate was considering H.R. 
12624, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 8308-10, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Presiding Officer: (4) The Senator from Missouri 
    made the point of order that the committee amendment amounted to 
    general legislation. The Chair overruled the point of order made by 
    the Senator from Missouri because title II of the bill as it came 
    from the House of Representatives contained many matters of general 
    legislation, and in such a case the rule laid down by Vice 
    President Marshall is stated thus:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl A. Hatch (N.M.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Notwithstanding the rule of the Senate to the effect that 
        general legislation may not be attached to an appropriation 
        bill, still when the House of Representatives opens the door 
        and proceeds to enter upon a field of general legislation which 
        has to do with a subject of this character, the Chair is going 
        to rule--but, of course, the Senate can reverse the ruling of 
        the Chair--that the House having opened the door the Senate of 
        the United States can walk in through the door and pursue the 
        field.

        In view of that ruling, the Chair announced that the point of 
    order made by the Senator from Missouri was overruled. From the 
    ruling of the Chair the Senator from Missouri has appealed to the 
    Senate.
        Mr. [Joel Bennett] Clark [of Missouri]: Mr. President, I desire 
    very briefly to discuss the appeal. . . .
        The Chair holds, and holds properly, that title II of the bill 
    does contain some legislation. Many appropriation bills come over 
    here from the House that contain some item of legislation; but from 
    the present ruling of the Chair it would follow that if any general 
    appropriation bill contained any item of legislation, therefore any 
    other item of legislation would be in order in the Senate on a 
    general appropriation bill.
        I do not believe that is sound. In other words, it seems to me 
    the necessary application of the ruling of Vice President Marshall, 
    which the Chair has just read, would be to the particular provision 
    which it was sought to amend, and that from the ordinary artifice 
    of dividing a bill into titles, it does not follow that if a 
    particular title happened to contain matter of legislation it would 
    open up the whole title to any other item of legislation. In other 
    words, the question should be whether or not the provision sought 
    to be stricken out by the pending Senate amendment is legislation, 
    and whether that should be opened up by the Senate amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Alva B.] Adams [of Colorado]: I am thoroughly in accord 
    with the decision of the Chair, but I beg to differ with the 
    reasoning. My understanding of the terms ``new legislation'' and 
    ``general legislation'' is that they should be construed to mean 
    something alien to an appropriation bill. In other words, title II 
    does not contain within it that which I think can be correctly 
    defined as new or general legislation. Every part of an 
    appropriation bill is legislation. An appropriation bill is 
    legislation. What the rule seeks to forbid is attaching to an 
    appropriation bill legislation upon other subjects which are new, 
    and which are matters

[[Page 5370]]

    of general legislation, rather than the regulation, the control, 
    and the direction of the particular appropriation. In that sense I 
    do not believe that a limitation, however inaptly framed, which is 
    directed exclusively to the appropriation made by the bill, is 
    either to be termed ``new'' or ``general'' legislation. Therefore, 
    it has seemed to me that the premise upon which the Senator from 
    Arkansas argues is unsound.
         I should be willing to concede that if this be legislation 
    opening the gates, it would open them to germane legislation, and 
    to germane legislation only. I cannot see that proposed legislation 
    providing for the appointment of a commission, that commission to 
    go out and engage in scientific undertakings, scientific 
    investigations, to determine the commercial feasibility of a 
    project, is germane to an appropriation bill.
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair has not ruled on the question 
    as to whether or not it must be germane. The only question on which 
    the Chair ruled was the point of order made by the Senator from 
    Missouri.
        Mr. Adams: I wanted it made clear that my original point of 
    order was submitted on the ground that the amendment of the Senator 
    from Arkansas was general legislation and that it was not germane 
    to the bill.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is, Shall the decision of 
    the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? . . .

        Mr. Clark: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        The Presiding Officer: The question raised by the point of 
    order made by the Senator from Missouri goes only to the committee 
    amendment. The Chair overruled the point of order made by the 
    Senator from Missouri, holding that, while the amendment did amount 
    to general legislation, nevertheless title II of the bill itself 
    contained many items of general legislation, and under the ruling 
    of Vice President Marshall, the Chair, having been advised that 
    that ruling has been uniformly followed, held that the House of 
    Representatives having opened the door, the Senate could go in. 
    Those were the words of Vice President Marshall. A vote to sustain 
    the ruling of the Chair should be in the affirmative; a vote 
    against the ruling of the Chair should be in the negative. . . .
        [The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 19.]
        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

    On the question of the germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. 
Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, to the committee amendment discussed 
above, the following statement was made:

        The Vice President (John N. Garner, of Texas): Let the Chair 
    once more state his understanding of the parliamentary situation. 
    The present occupant regrets he was not in the chair at the time 
    the original point of order was made. The Senate by a vote of 53 to 
    19 has determined that the committee amendment to the appropriation 
    bill is in order. Therefore, any amendment that is germane to the 
    legislation is in order. The question of germaneness of the 
    amendment offered by the Senator

[[Page 5371]]

    from Arkansas is the question now before the Senate.
        Apparently, as the Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian, 
    whoever drew the rules of the Senate was not willing to trust the 
    presiding officer to determine the germaneness of an amendment of 
    this kind, as, under the rules, the Chair does not have the right 
    to determine the germaneness of an amendment to legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, submits to the Senate the 
    question, Is the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas germane to 
    the amendment of the committee?
        [On a yea and nay vote, the Senate decided Mr. Robinson's 
    amendment to be germane to the amendment reported by the 
    committee--yeas 53, nays 21.]

Germane Amendment to Senate Legislative Amendment Reported in 
    Disagreement

Sec. 6.9 A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from 
    conference in disagreement may be amended by a germane amendment 
    even though the proposed amendment is also legislative.

     On Aug. 1, 1979,(5) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 4388 (energy and water development appropriation bill), a 
motion was held in order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 22007, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate 
        No. 37 and concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu 
        of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building'' $52,583,400 toward finishing such building and to 
        remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount of 
        $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on the total cost for 
        construction of the Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building.
            It is further provided, That such building and office space 
        therein upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel 
        presently supplied by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the 
        Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Hill Apartments and such buildings 
        shall be vacated.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. . . .
        [T]his amendment offered at this time would not have been in 
    order had it been offered to the bill as originally before the 
    House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a 
    change of the report language that is in the appropriation bill and 
    it is germane and it is a part of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. The Chair would like to state that the only requirement of 
    the amendment in the

[[Page 5372]]

    motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama is that it be germane 
    to the Senate amendment. The language is quite clearly germane to 
    the Senate amendment No. 37 and, therefore, the motion is in order 
    and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------