[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 29. Transfer of Funds Within Same Bill]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5729-5740]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 29. Transfer of Funds Within Same Bill

    Transfers of appropriations within the confines of the same bill 
are normally considered in order on a general appropriation bill if not 
accompanied by legislative 
language.                          -------------------

Bestowing New Authority on Bureau of the Budget

Sec. 29.1 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of Labor to allot or transfer, with the approval of the 
    Director of the Budget, funds from a certain appropriation in the 
    bill to any bureau of the Department of Labor, to enable such 
    agency to perform certain services, was held to be legislation and 
    not in order on a general appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 20, 1939,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2868, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk read 
a paragraph providing an appropriation for the Department of Labor, 
Wage and Hour Division, which contained the following proviso:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided, That the Secretary of Labor may allot or transfer, 
    with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, 
    funds from this appropriation to any bureau or office of the

[[Page 5730]]

    Department of Labor to enable such agency to perform services for 
    the Wage and Hour Division.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the proviso beginning in line 3, page 5, and 
    including the rest of the section on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill that imposes additional duties 
    upon the Bureau of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: No.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

In General; Permissive Authority to Transfer Indefinite Amount

Sec. 29.2 On one occasion, a provision in a general appropriation bill 
    which permitted the transfer to an appropriation therein of amounts 
    contained in other items in that bill, while not constituting a 
    reappropriation proscribed by Rule XXI clause 6 (then clause 5), 
    was conceded to be in violation of the rules (as legislative in 
    character) and was therefore ruled out on a point of order.

     On June 4, 1971,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8825), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 18039, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Government Contributions

        For contributions to employees life insurance fund, retirement 
    fund, and health benefits fund, as authorized by law, $5,245,000, 
    and in addition, such amount as may be necessary may be transferred 
    from the preceding appropriation for ``miscellaneous items''.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 6, line 7, after the 
    figure ``$5,245,000.'' It is this language:

            And in addition, such amount as may be necessary may be 
        transferred from the preceding appropriation for 
        ``miscellaneous items''.

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this language on 
    the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I will say to 
    the gentleman from Iowa this is merely a facilitating provision. 
    This is an amount that must be paid. It is subject to a point of 
    order, but it is going to be paid one way or the other, because it 
    is provided by law for Government contributions. We have no way of 
    determining precisely what amount will be needed.
        Some Members have 15 employees. Some have 16. Some have four or 
    five.

[[Page 5731]]

    Regardless of the amount, it has to be paid.
        Mr. Gross: Then I submit, Mr. Chairman, the Members of the 
    House have no way of knowing what constitutes ``miscellaneous 
    items.''
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: It refers to the ``preceding 
    appropriation for `miscellaneous items'.'' This is transfer 
    authority. That is what it amounts to.
        Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I insist on the point of order.
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: We do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer of Funds to Account in Bill

Sec. 29.3 A provision in an appropriation bill that the Secretary may 
    transfer funds, from appropriations available for authorized 
    activities of the Department of Agriculture, for use in formulating 
    programs for such authorized activities, was held in order.

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 3306, 3307, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Admistinction may be 
        made between actual permissible transfer of funds and the 
        conferral of a general discretionary authority to make 
        transfers which might be impermissible if having reference to 
        transfer of funds not contained within the same bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Economic investigations: For acquiring and diffusing useful 
    information among the people of the United States, and for aiding 
    in formulating programs for authorized activities of the Department 
    of Agriculture, relative to agricultural production, distribution, 
    land utilization, and conservation in their broadest aspects, 
    including farm management and practice, utilization of farm and 
    food products, purchasing of farm supplies, farm population and 
    rural life, farm labor, farm finance, insurance and taxation, 
    adjustments in production to probable demand for the different farm 
    and food products; land ownership and values, costs, prices, and 
    income in their relation to agriculture, including causes for their 
    variations and trends, $839,100: Provided, That the Secretary may 
    transfer to this appropriation from the funds available for 
    authorized activities of the Department of Agriculture such sums as 
    may be necessary for aiding in formulating programs for such 
    authorized activities, including expenditures for employment of 
    persons and means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point 
    of order [that the provision] is legislation

[[Page 5732]]

    upon an appropriation bill and a delegation to the Secretary of 
    authority to transfer funds, and delegates to or requires of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture additional duties in violation of the 
    rules. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, no funds are 
    affected here except funds which have been appropriated by 
    Congress, and the Secretary of Agriculture under the terms of the 
    organic law is authorized to administer the Department, and he may, 
    as administrator of that Department at any time transfer such funds 
    from one activity to another. The point of order is not well taken, 
    Mr. Chairman, the appropriation is for the use of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture in the discharge of his official duties, as provided by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . The first point of order 
    made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] is overruled 
    because an examination of section 511 of title 5 of the United 
    States Code discloses that it is certainly in order. The last part 
    is related to the transfer of funds. The Chair quotes from Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume VII, section 1470, the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             A proposition to transfer funds from one department of the 
        Government to another for purposes authorized by law was held 
        not to involve legislation and to be in order in an 
        appropriation bill.

        The gentleman makes the point of order that it is legislation 
    in an appropriation bill. The point of order is overruled.

Granting Transfer Authority

Sec. 29.4 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    authorizing the commissioners to transfer money from a specific 
    appropriation to another appropriation was held to be legislative 
    in nature and not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3108, 3109, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Police Court

            Salaries: For personal services, $107,030: Provided That 
        upon occupancy of the new police court building the 
        Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part of this 
        appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may be 
        necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District Buildings.''--

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on the language contained in the paragraph beginning 
    in line 22 of page 48, after the ``$107,030'', which reads:

            Provided, That upon occupancy of the new police court 
        building the Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part 
        of this appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may 
        be necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District buildings''--

        That it is legislation and changes existing law. . . .

[[Page 5733]]

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma makes a point of 
    order against the proviso on page 48, line 22, which reads:

            Provided, That upon occupancy of the new police-court 
        building the Commissioners are authorized to transfer such part 
        of this appropriation for payment of custodial employees as may 
        be necessary to the appropriation in this act for ``Care of the 
        District buildings.''

        This provision seeks to authorize the Commissioners of the 
    District of Columbia to transfer funds appropriated for one 
    specific purpose to another purpose, and, apparently, seeks also to 
    impose an additional duty on the Commissioners. Therefore, it is 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Limiting Amounts Transferred Within Accounts in Bill

Sec. 29.5 A general provision in an appropriation bill permitting 
    transfers of sums appropriated therein from one subhead to another 
    in the same enactment was held not to constitute legislation.

    On June 29, 1959,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 12131, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               General Provisions

            Not to exceed 5 per centum of any appropriation made 
        available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        by this Act may be transferred to any other such appropriation, 
        but the ``Salaries and expenses'' appropriation shall not be 
        thereby increased.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 5, lines 17 to 21, inclusive, as being legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We think 
    this is not legislation. It refers entirely to funds within this 
    bill. It starts off as a limitation and applies only to funds in 
    this bill.
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Thomas: I yield to my friend from Iowa.
        Mr. Jensen: This is nothing more nor less than a limitation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from

[[Page 5734]]

    Iowa [Mr. Gross] makes a point of order against that portion of the 
    bill appearing on page 5, lines 17 through 21, that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It appears to the Chair that 
    the transfer applies to funds only within this bill, that it is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 29.6 An amendment to a title of an appropriation bill providing 
    that not to exceed five percent of any appropriation in the title 
    may be transferred to any other appropriation therein, but no such 
    appropriation shall be increased by more than five percent by any 
    such transfer was held not to constitute legislation.

    On Apr. 25, 1950,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Labor Department and Federal Security Agency 
chapter of the general appropriation bill for 1951. The Clerk read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 5732, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: 
    On page 124, line 13, insert ``Sec. 106. Not to exceed 5 percent of 
    any appropriation in this title may be transferred to any other 
    such appropriation, but no such appropriation shall be increased by 
    more than 5 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That no such 
    transfer shall be used for creation of new functions within the 
    Department.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill in that it gives authority to somebody else to 
    perform a budgetary act in a department. It goes beyond the pale of 
    a direct appropriation or a limitation and it gives authority to 
    the department to transfer funds. That authority does not exist 
    without this language and it is clearly a delegation of additional 
    duties to the department that do not already exist. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Rhode Island has offered an amendment which has been reported. The 
    gentleman from New York has made a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill in violation of the rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Rhode Island and has listened to the argument presented by the 
    gentleman from New York. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    language contained in this amendment does not constitute 
    legislation, and invites attention to section 1468 of Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 7, in which it is stated:

            A proposition to transfer a sum previously appropriated 
        from one subhead to another in the same enactment was held not 
        to constitute legislation.

        There are quite a number of decisions cited in approval of that 
    holding.

[[Page 5735]]

    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

     29.7 Language in a general appropriation bill permitting 
    appropriations to be used interchangeably among several offices 
    with approval of the Bureau of the Budget provided that no office 
    exceed the amount appropriated for it by more than a designated 
    percentage, was held to be legislative in character.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 2353, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not to exceed 5 percent of the foregoing appropriations for 
    personal services shall be available interchangeably, subject to 
    the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, for expenditures in the 
    various offices and divisions named, but not more than 5 percent 
    shall be added to the amount appropriated for any one of said 
    offices or divisions and any interchange of appropriations 
    hereunder shall be reported to Congress in the annual Budget, and 
    not to exceed $250,000 of said appropriations shall be available 
    for the employment, on duties properly chargeable to each of said 
    appropriations, of special assistants to the Attorney General 
    without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language on page 36 beginning with line 23 and 
    continuing to the end of the page, and on page 37, the first 10 
    lines, inclusive, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill not provided for by law.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order. It has been in the bill for many years, 
    however.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The language in this paragraph giving 
approval authority to the Bureau of the Budget, requiring reporting to 
Congress, and waiving the Classification Act of 1923 was clearly 
legislation.

Interchange of Appropriations

Sec. 29.8 Language in an appropriation bill permitting interchange of 
    appropriations in the bill for purposes authorized by law was in 
    order on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture

[[Page 5736]]

Department appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 3458, 3459, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Interchange of Appropriations

        Not to exceed 5 percent of the foregoing amounts for the 
    miscellaneous expenses of the work of any bureau, division, or 
    office herein provided for shall be available interchangeably for 
    expenditures on the objects included within the general expenses of 
    such bureau, division, or office, but not more than 5 percent shall 
    be added to any one item of appropriation except in cases of 
    extraordinary emergency.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and delegates authority and requires the 
    performance of further duties on the part of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the Chair 
    ruled on that point of order when a similar provision was before 
    the Committee Friday.
        The Chairman: (18) On a number of occasions a 
    similar point of order has been overruled. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on Transfers Between Accounts in Paragraph

Sec. 29.9 A provision restricting the amount which could be transferred 
    between accounts under that paragraph was held in order as a 
    limitation.

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590), a 
point of order was raised against the proviso in the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 27288, 27289, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Property Management and Disposal Service

                               operating expenses

            For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for 
        carrying out the functions of the Administrator with respect to 
        the utilization of excess property; the disposal of surplus 
        property; the rehabilitation of personal property . . . the 
        supplemental stockpile established by section 104(b) of the 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (68 
        Stat. 456, as amended by 73 Stat. 607); including services as 
        authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and reimbursement for security 
        guard services, $33,000,000, to be derived from proceeds from 
        transfers of excess property, disposal of surplus property, and 
        sales of stockpile materials . . . Provided further, That none 
        of the funds available under this heading shall be available 
        for transfer to any other account nor for the funding of any 
        activities other than those specifically authorized under this 
        heading.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After points of order had been conceded with respect to other 
language in the paragraph (omit

[[Page 5737]]

ted here),(1) the following colloquy occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Points of order were directed against provisions in a paragraph of 
        the appropriation bill (1) authorizing the General Services 
        Administration to acquire lease-hold interests in property; (2) 
        removing limitations imposed by law on the value of surplus 
        strategic materials which may be transferred without 
        reimbursement to the national stockpile; and (3) authorizing 
        materials in certain stockpiles and inventories to be available 
        without reimbursement for transfer to contractors as payment 
        for expenses. These provisions were conceded to be legislation 
        and were stricken from the bill.
            See Sec. 38.7, infra, for more detailed treatment of the 
        points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the points 
    of order made against the language are conceded down to line 7, 
    page 23, but the language of that ``Provided further,'' is a simple 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and is not subject to a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair agrees with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.
        The various points of order that are conceded are sustained, 
    and that language is stricken. The language:

            Provided further, That none of the funds available under 
        this heading shall be available for transfer to any other 
        account nor for the funding of any activities other than those 
        specifically authorized under this heading.

        Which is a proper limitation and appears beginning in line 7, 
    page 23, through line 10, remains in the bill, since the point of 
    order has not been made against the entire paragraph.

Unallocated Funds in Pending Bill

Sec. 29.10 To a general appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    certain public works, an amendment providing that a particular 
    authorized project should be financed out of ``any available 
    unallocated funds contained in this act'' was held to be in order.

    On June 5, 1959,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509), making appropriations for 
the civil functions of the Department of the Army, a point of order was 
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10054, 10055, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sikes: On page 4, line 16, strike 
        out the period, add a semicolon and the words ``Provided 
        further, That the improvement of the Escambra River, Fla., 
        according to authorized specification may be undertaken with 
        any available unallocated funds contained in this act.'' . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it

[[Page 5738]]

    changes existing law. It attempts to control funds that have been 
    appropriated in previous acts in a way that is different from the 
    way those acts now stand and as those old appropriations stood.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair would like to be 
    informed as to whether or not the particular project referred to in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is authorized 
    by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: That I do not know.
        Mr. Sikes: May I respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    project is authorized by law. It was carried in the last rivers and 
    harbors omnibus bill, which was signed by the President, and I am 
    informed the number of that law is 500 of the 85th Congress. I 
    further point out that this is permissive and as such would not 
    constitute legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Taber: The previous act carried a provision ``to remain 
    available until expended.'' This particular amendment would mean 
    that they would be using it for something that was not in the 
    original bill, and that would result in a change in existing law 
    That is the idea that I had in making the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Apparently the gentleman from New York is not making the point 
    of order on whether or not the project is authorized. The Chair has 
    been informed by the gentleman from Florida that the project is 
    authorized by law.
        Insofar as the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York is concerned, the Chair overrules the point of order because 
    this language is quite specific in that it makes available 
    unallocated funds contained in this act, the act now being debated 
    before the committee, and does not affect heretofore made 
    appropriations.

Discretionary Transfer of Funds

Sec. 29.11 Language in an appropriation bill making an appropriation 
    for specific objects ``together with such amounts (transferred) 
    from other appropriations . . . as may be determined by the 
    Secretary,'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On May 17, 1951,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5468, 5469, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Office of Information

            For necessary expenses in connection with the publication . 
        . . and distribution of bulletins, documents, and reports, the 
        preparation, distribution, and display of agricultural motion 
        and sound pictures . . . and the coordination of informational 
        work and programs authorized by Congress in the Department, 
        $1,271,000, together with such

[[Page 5739]]

        amounts from other appropriations or authorizations as are 
        provided in the schedules in the budget for the current fiscal 
        year for such expenses, which several amounts or portions 
        thereof, as may be determined by the Secretary, not exceeding a 
        total of $16,200, shall be transferred to and made a part of 
        this appropriation, of which total appropriation amounts not 
        exceeding those specified may be used for the purposes 
        enumerated as follows: For preparation and display of exhibits, 
        $104,725. . . .

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in lines 4 to 9, inclusive, 
    page 46, on the ground that it involves additional duties on the 
    part of the Secretary of Agriculture.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer With Approval of Committee on Appropriations

Sec. 29.12 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    transfer of funds within an appropriation for allowances and 
    expenses, with the approval of the Committee on Appropriations, was 
    conceded to constitute legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 
    2 and was stricken from the bill on a point of order.

    On Mar. 16, 1977,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4877 (supplemental appropriation bill), 
a point of order was sustained against a provision in the bill, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7747, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Such amounts as deemed necessary for the payment of 
        allowances and expenses within this appropriation may be 
        transferred among accounts upon approval of the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 29, lines 17 through 
    20, inclusive, on the grounds that the language as it is written 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        In previous instances where an appropriation bill has contained 
    similar language--and I emphasize the word ``similar''--the Chair 
    has held that it is permissible to allow language that would 
    transfer appropriations from one subhead to another in the same 
    enactment.
        The language before us, if it is read carefully, makes it 
    rather clear that what is being permitted is the transfer of 
    amounts, and they may be transferred, as the language says, among 
    accounts upon approval.
        It is not in fact an authorization to transfer amongst the 
    various moneys in this bill, but in fact could be used to

[[Page 5740]]

     authorize the transfer of previously appropriated amounts not in 
    this bill.
        Therefore, it exceeds the authority of the committee to in fact 
    consider it. . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois] . . . The committee will 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Shipley] concedes the point of order. Therefore, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Bauman] and the language is stricken from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------