[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 30. Transfer of Funds Not Limited to Same Bill]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5740-5764]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 30. Transfer of Funds Not Limited to Same Bill

    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 prohibit inclusion in general appropriation 
bills of reappropriations, 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. See 
Chapter 25, Sec. 3, supra, for further discussion of decisions 
involving reappropriations of unexpended balances on general 
appropriation bills. In that section, the emphasis is on the 
prohibition against reappropriations, while in the precedents cited in 
this section, the Chair's rulings focus on the proposed language as 
changing existing law. This section includes rulings wherein the Chair 
has relied upon both clauses 2 and 6 of Rule XXI to rule out provisions 
which sought to authorize the transfer of previously appropriated funds 
into new accounts (see Sec. Sec. 30.17, 30.19, and 30.20, infra).
    Prior to enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 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 they were not 
deemed to change existing law by conferring new authority (see, e.g., 4 
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3592; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1152; Ch. 25, 
Sec. 3.14, supra). Indeed, some precedents indicated that provisions in 
or amendments to general appropriation bills were in order which not 
only constituted reappropriations of unexpended balances, but which 
conferred new authority on federal officials to expend such balances 
for purposes different from those for which originally appropriated. 
(See, e.g., 4 Hinds'

[[Page 5741]]

Precedents Sec. 3591; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1153-1156, 1158.) 
Other precedents, however, indicated that propositions to make an 
appropriation payable from funds already appropriated for a different 
purpose were considered legislation (see, e.g., 7 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 1466). 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 the more recent precedents contained in this section, 
it is apparent that provisions on a general appropriation bill are in 
violation of Rule XXI clause 2 if they confer new authority to expend 
previously appropriated funds for a new purpose, or to expend funds for 
unauthorized projects, by mandating or permitting transfers between 
accounts.                          -------------------

Transfer From Previous Appropriations

Sec. 30.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing the transfer 
    of funds previously appropriated in another appropriation bill is 
    legislation. [An amendment proposing transfer of funds appropriated 
    under one heading in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1959 (Pub. 
    L. No. 85-766) for use under another heading in the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation Act, 1959 (Pub. L. No. 85-594), was held to 
    be legislation.]

    On Mar. 24, 1959,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 5916), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 5102, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl T.] Durham [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Durham: After line 24, page 13, 
        add the following:

                   ``Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization

            ``Federal contributions: For an additional amount for 
        `Federal contributions' to the States pursuant to section 205 
        of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to be 
        equally matched with State funds, $3 million to be derived by 
        transfer from the appropriation for `emergency supplies and 
        equipment,' fiscal year 1959.''

        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5742]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Carolina desire to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Durham: Mr. Chairman, this is a transfer of funds, a matter 
    that I understand appears all through the bill, and I was so 
    advised by the clerk of the committee.
        The Chairman: This is a little more than that; it affects the 
    transfer of funds for the fiscal year 1959 for this new purpose, 
    and as such would constitute legislation.
        Mr. Durham: If that is the Chair's interpretation, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 30.2 In an appropriation bill a provision transferring funds 
    previously appropriated under another subhead in a prior enactment 
    was held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 18, 1955,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 4903), 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 101 Cong. Rec. 3197, 3198, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Contributions to the United Nations expanded program of 
                              technical assistance

            For an additional amount for ``Contributions to the United 
        Nations expanded program of technical assistance,'' for United 
        States contributions during the period ending June 30, 1955, $4 
        million, to be derived by transfer from the appropriation 
        contained in Public Law 778, 83d Congress, for assistance 
        authorized by section 121 of Public Law 665, 83d Congress. . . 
        .

        See Sec. 29.6, supra, where transfers between accounts in the 
    pending bill, rather than from an account in a prior act were held 
    in order, citing 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1468.
        The Chairman: (11) What is the gentleman's point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: That it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill because in line 19 it provides that the ``$4 
    million, to be derived by transfer from the appropriation contained 
    in Public Law 778, 83d Congress, for assistance authorized by 
    section 121 of Public Law 665, 83d Congress.'' That section which I 
    have before me expressly provides that the money is given to the 
    President for his own purposes. Down in the next section a 
    limitation is put on the fund. The President's control over it is 
    limited to certain specific purposes. . . .
        Mr. [Prince H.] Preston [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Transfer From Fund Created From Bond Proceeds

Sec. 30.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing addi

[[Page 5743]]

    tional funds for rural electrification to be made available from 
    the loan authority for 1956 for rural housing (not an appropriated 
    account), was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 15, 1957,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R 6870), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 5684-86, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

                              Loan authorizations

            For an additional amount for loans for the rural-
        electrification program, $200 million, to be borrowed from the 
        Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with section 3(a) of 
        the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and to be 
        made available from the loan authorization contained in section 
        606(a) of the act of August 7, 1956 (Public Law 1020).

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language commencing on page 2, line 23, after the word, 
    ``as amended'' and reading: ``And to be made available from the 
    loan authorization contained in section 606(a) of the act of August 
    7, 1956 (Public Law 1020).''
        Mr. Chairman, the public law referred to has nothing whatsoever 
    to do with the authorization of REA, but is a loan authorization 
    for construction of rural housing as provided in the Rural Housing 
    Act of 1949, as amended by the act of 1956, which gives 
    authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture to issue such 
    debentures as necessary to carry out the authority contained in 
    section 11 of the act of 1949.

        I submit that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    is subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama on line 
    23, page 2, is against the three lines beginning with the word 
    ``and'' as being legislation upon an appropriation bill, which it 
    obviously is.

Transfer From Funds Available to Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 30.4 To an appropriation bill an amendment making available to the 
    Secretary of the Army for furnishing a specified milk ration 
    certain available funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be legislation and therefore not in order.

    On Apr. 29, 1954,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5744]]

Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill (H.R. 8873), a point 
of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 5749, 4750, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roosevelt: At line 12, page 6, 
        after the figure ``$4,150,479,000'', insert the following: 
        ``plus such other amounts, from the funds available to the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation for price support to producers of 
        milk, butterfat and the products of milk and butterfat, which 
        the Secretary of the Army requires in order to make available 
        to each of the persons herein described, a minimum daily ration 
        of 1 quart of whole fluid milk in addition to such other 
        amounts of milk products to which he is entitled.''

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I press the point of order, based on the fact 
    that this amendment seeks to change existing law, first; secondly, 
    it seeks to provide funds other than those provided in the act; 
    and, thirdly, I believe it seeks to place additional duties on the 
    Secretary of the Army.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Roosevelt] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. McCulloch (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        May I say in opposition to my friend on the point of order that 
    this does not change existing law insofar as appropriations have 
    been made. As I pointed out, this does not call for any new 
    appropriation. It merely marks the transfer of existing 
    appropriations for dispensation in accordance with the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, and that the point of order is well 
    taken. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Transfer to Previous Appropriation.

Sec. 30.5 To an appropriation bill an amendment adding an appropriation 
    and providing for transferring funds therefrom to an appropriation 
    made by a prior enactment but without regard to the limitations 
    applicable to the previously appropriated funds was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 20, 1954,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 9936), 
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 11123, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of 
    Massachusetts]: Page 6, line 11, after the words ``ship 
    construction'' strike out all of lines 11,

[[Page 5745]]

    12, and 13, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``For payment of construction-differential subsidy and cost of 
    national defense features incident to construction of four 
    passenger-cargo ships under title V of the Merchant Marine Act, 
    1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1154); for reconditioning and 
    betterment of not to exceed four ships in the national defense 
    reserve fleet; and for necessary expenses for the acquisition of 
    used tankers pursuant to section 510 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
    1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1160), and the payment of cost of 
    national defense features incorporated in new tankers constructed 
    to replace such used tankers, $82,600,000, to remain available 
    until expended: Provided, That transfers may be made to the 
    appropriation for the current fiscal year for `Salaries and 
    expenses' for administrative expenses (not to exceed $500,000) and 
    for reserve fleet expenses (in such amounts as may be required), 
    and any such transfers shall be without regard to the limitations 
    under that appropriation on the amounts available for such 
    expenses: Provided further, That appropriations granted herein 
    shall be available to pay construction-differential subsidy granted 
    by the Federal Maritime Board, pursuant to section 501(c) of the 
    Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, to aid in the reconstruction 
    of any Mariner-class ships sold under the provisions of title VII 
    of the 1936 act.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment contains legislation. The language 
    ``and any such transfers shall be without regard to the limitations 
    under that appropriation of the amounts available for such 
    expenses'' makes it clearly subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wigglesworth: Mr. Chairman, the language submitted is the 
    language that was received from the Bureau of the Budget. It seemed 
    to me that if this step was to be taken this was the desirable way 
    to do. However, if the gentleman from New York insists, I concede 
    that the language in question is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment does contain legislation.

Lifting Appropriation Ceiling; Allowing Transfer to New Project

Sec. 30.6 A provision in an appropriation bill changing the dollar 
    limitation on a project and transferring previously appropriated 
    funds from one project to another was conceded to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
12740), the

[[Page 5746]]

following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the language on page 12, beginning on line 11, running 
    through line 19, as being legislation on an appropriation bill, the 
    language being as follows:

                        Construction and Rehabilitation

            The limitation under this head in the Interior Department 
        Appropriation Act, 1955, on the amount available toward the 
        emergency rehabilitation of the Crescent Lake Dam project, 
        Oregon, is increased from ``$297,000'' to $305,000'', and not 
        to exceed $300,000 of funds available under this head for 
        fiscal year 1961 shall be used for advance planning activities 
        on the Canadian River project, Texas.

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is good, but for the all-powerful reason that it does not 
    appropriate any money, but simply transfers money appropriated 
    several years ago and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Change in Purpose of Permanent Appropriation

Sec. 30.7 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of Agriculture to pay out of funds made available by section 32 of 
    the Act of Aug. 24, 1935, transportation and handling charges on 
    surplus commodities owned by the department and its agencies for 
    the purpose of distribution to public welfare agencies was held to 
    be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), a point of order was directed against the following 
language of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 5911-13, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Department of Agriculture is authorized to pay out of funds 
    made available by section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
    U.S.C. 612(c)) transportation and handling charges on surplus 
    commodities owned by the Department or any of its instrumentalities 
    or agencies for the purpose of distribution to public welfare 
    agencies.
        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the language on page 193, lines 18 through 24, 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore is 
    contrary to the rules of the House, in that it seeks to add an 
    additional purpose for which section 32 funds may be expended.
        Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, is the section which 
    sets aside 30 percent of the gross customs receipts to

[[Page 5747]]

    be expended for certain purposes; namely, to increase the export 
    and the consumption of agricultural commodities. The purposes for 
    which the funds may be expended are set out. They may be used by 
    paying indemnities to exporters, and by making payments to 
    producers. The further authority proposed to be set forth in this 
    bill is to pay the transportation and handling charges on certain 
    agricultural commodities. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: While there is much 
    merit to the intent of our friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, I 
    am rather of the same opinion as my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Georgia, so far as the use of section 32 funds is concerned. 
    Further, it has been my purpose and the purpose of our committee to 
    cooperate with the legislative committee and in no case to usurp or 
    try to usurp their prerogatives. The provision put in here is a 
    stop-gap and it was done only on the basis that the legislative 
    committee was now considering this matter. I think the committee is 
    so considering it. I wonder if it would not be better to let the 
    whole thing go out and let the legislative committee handle it by 
    substantive law. I think that is the way it properly should be 
    handled. I did yield to the desires of our colleagues of the 
    committee to try to meet this situation by putting it in here. But 
    if there is any objection on the part of the legislative committee, 
    certainly it is their business. We are trying to help out rather 
    than try to usurp their prerogatives. That is the position I take.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language referred to and is 
    definitely of the opinion that it does include legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. The Chair is very favorably impressed with the 
    last statement made by the gentleman from Georgia in reply to the 
    observation made by the gentleman from South Dakota to the effect 
    that if existing law provided for this there would be no useful 
    purpose to be served by having this provision in the bill. It does 
    appear very clearly to the Chair that the inclusion of this 
    language would result in a diversion of certain funds from the 
    purpose provided by existing law for the use of those funds. It 
    therefore appearing to the Chair that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

New Purpose For Previously Appropriated Funds

Sec. 30.8 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds for 
    two reclamation projects be derived by transfer from appropriations 
    previously made available to the Department of the Interior was 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 26, 1958, (2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R 
10881), a point

[[Page 5748]]

of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 2899, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Bureau of Reclamation

            For an additional amount for the ``Upper Colorado River 
        Basin Fund'' for the Glen Canyon project, not to exceed $10 
        million; and for the Trinity River division of the Central 
        Valley project, not to exceed $10 million; to be derived by 
        transfer from any definite annual appropriations available to 
        the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year 1958 and 
        from the appropriation ``Construction and Rehabilitation'': 
        Provided, That no part of any funds allocated to these two 
        project activities shall be used for contracts not in effect as 
        of February 20, 1958.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on line 20, page 14, and 
    ending on page 15, line 7, on the ground that it changes existing 
    law and is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.9 Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    President to allocate a certain sum from funds made available by 
    the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1937 was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On Aug. 17, 1937,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the third deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
8245), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 9171, 9172, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harry L.] Englesbright [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against that portion of the title appearing 
    on page 18, beginning on line 5, and reading as follows:

            Yosemite National Park, Calif.: For the acquisition of 
        certain lands, including expenses incidental thereto, as set 
        forth in the act approved July 9, 1937 (Public, No. 195, 75th 
        Cong.), the President is authorized to allocate not to exceed 
        $2,005,000, from funds made available by section 1 of the 
        Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, such amount having 
        been heretofore earmarked for such purpose.

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill, that it is 
    directory in character, that it changes existing law, and is 
    unauthorized.
        If the Chair will permit, may I call the attention of the Chair 
    to certain authorities?
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    matter is subject to a point of order, there is no use prolonging 
    the agony.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language in this paragraph seeks to authorize the President 
    to allocate funds not heretofore allocated to this park. This is 
    purely legislation

[[Page 5749]]

    upon an appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is 
    sustained with reference to that portion of the title ``Department 
    of the Interior'' which appears on page 18, lines 5 to 12, 
    inclusive, under the heading, ``National Park Service.''

Continuation of Previous Appropriations; New Purpose

Sec. 30.10 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill which is 
    applicable to funds appropriated in another act constitutes 
    legislation and is not in order.

    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 the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12132, 12133, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             Department of Commerce

                              Bureau of the Census

                             Salaries and Expenses

            The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal 
        year 1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on 
        a reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, 
        or costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
        appropriations to the Bureau of the Census.

        Mr. [Joseph F.] Holt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the following language, on page 7, lines 11 to 
    15, ``The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal year 
    1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on a 
    reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, or 
    costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
    appropriations to the Bureau of the Census'' constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is subject to a point of 
    order.
        It refers to funds that are not in this bill but in another; 
    and I noted in the report that the Comptroller General expresses 
    the opinion that specific legislative authorization should be 
    obtained. I maintain that the place to obtain it is not here but in 
    the legislative committee.
        The Chairman: (7) does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I might say that the committee 
    had no deep feeling one way or the other on this provision. It was 
    inserted in the bill because the Bureau of the Budget said the 
    Census Bureau must have this language in order to expend their own 
    funds. We are merely trying to help the agency out. It does not 
    call for 5 cents expenditure; it does not call for either an 
    increase or a decrease in the appropriation. It is merely the way 
    costs are applied within the agency.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The point of order 
    is made that the following language, appearing on page 7, lines 11 
    to 15, ``The appropriation granted under this head for the fiscal 
    year 1960 shall be available to finance, through advances or on

[[Page 5750]]

    a reimbursable basis, the procurement of materials, services, or 
    costs of activities which relate to, or benefit, two or more 
    appropriations to the Bureau of the Census'' constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and has no reference to the 
    bill before the Committee.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Appropriation Continued Without Warrant Action

Sec. 30.11 Language in an appropriation bill for establishment of air-
    navigation facilities providing that the appropriation for a 
    preceding year ``is hereby continued available without warrant 
    action'' and merged with this appropriation, was held unauthorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(8) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Establishment of air-navigation facilities: For the 
        acquisition and establishment by contract or purchase and hire 
        of aid-navigation facilities, including the equipment of 
        additional civil airways for day and night flying . . . the 
        alteration and modernization of existing air-navigation 
        facilities; the acquisition of the necessary sites by lease or 
        grant . . . and hire, maintenance, repair, and operation of 
        passenger-carrying automobiles, $9,400,000: Provided, That the 
        consolidated appropriation under this head for the fiscal year 
        1945 is hereby continued available without warrant action until 
        June 30, 1946, and is hereby merged with this appropriation, 
        the total amount to be disbursed and accounted for as one fund.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 58, line 16, ``without warrant action'' 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 30.12 A provision in an appropriation bill for development of 
    landing areas making available funds from a prior appropriation 
    bill ``without warrant action'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5751]]

the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Development of landing areas: For completion of the program for 
    the construction, improvement, and repair of public airports for 
    national defense the consolidated appropriation under this head in 
    the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1943; shall remain 
    available until June 30, 1946, without warrant action, and the 
    portion thereof available for administrative expenses shall be 
    available also for the operation, maintenance, and repair of 
    passenger-carrying automobiles, and not to exceed $3,000 for 
    printing and binding. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make a point of order against the words on page 61, line 
    10, ``without warrant action'', that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making Available Other Funds by Reference to the Budget Estimates 
    Submitted by the President

Sec. 30.13 Language in an appropriation bill appropriating for the 
    Office of the Solicitor, Department of Agriculture, a specific 
    amount ``together with such amounts from other appropriations or 
    authorizations as are provided in the . . . Budget . . . which 
    several amounts . . . as may be determined by the Secretary . . . 
    shall be transferred to . . . this appropriation,'' was conceded to 
    be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950, (12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 5913, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 205, beginning with 
    line 8:
        together with such 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 $207,000, shall be 
        transferred to and made a part of this appropriation: Provided, 
        however, That if the total amounts of such appropriations or 
        authorizations for the current fiscal year shall at any time 
        exceed or fall below the amounts estimated, respectively, 
        therefor in the budget for such year, the amounts transferred

[[Page 5752]]

        or to be transferred therefrom to this appropriation shall be 
        increased or decreased in such amounts as the Bureau of the 
        Budget, after a hearing thereon with representatives of the 
        Department, shall determine are appropriate to the requirements 
        as changed by such reductions or increases in such 
        appropriations or authorizations.

        I make a point of order against all of the remainder of the 
    provision relating to the Office of Solicitor on the ground that 
    the provision therein contained is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I can 
    only say that this is the usual and customary way of carrying these 
    funds. In fairness to the Chair, I think it does appear to be 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has made a point of order against 
    the language appearing on page 205 beginning with the words 
    ``together with such amounts'' in line 8 and through the remainder 
    of that paragraph, on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and in violation of the rules of the House. The 
    gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point of order; therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Transfers Within Department

Sec. 30.14 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing any 
    appropriation therein for the Treasury Department to be transferred 
    to any other appropriation for that department, with approval of 
    the Bureau of the Budget, and requiring the reporting of such 
    transfers to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
    Senate, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out on a point of 
    order.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7060), Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point 
of order against the provision described above, as being legislation on 
an appropriation bill and bestowing authority not previously granted by 
law. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. The provision in question 
        stated: ``Not to exceed 2\1/2\% of any appropriation herein for 
        the Treasury Department . . . may be transferred with approval 
        of Bureau of the Budget, to any other appropriation of the 
        Department . . . and such transfers shall be reported promptly 
        to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).

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

[[Page 5753]]

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, obviously 
    the language is subject to a point of order, if the gentleman 
    insists on his point of order.
        The Chairman: The paragraph does contain legislation, as 
    maintained by the gentleman from Iowa; and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Sec. 30.15 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the transfer of 
    any appropriation available to the Post Office Department for the 
    current fiscal year to be transferred to any other such 
    appropriation was ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7060), a point of order was raised by Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, against the language described above. The following 
exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 6869, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    language has been in the bill for many years. I believe the 
    gentleman will find that the transfer authority within this 
    Department is considerably different from the point he raised in 
    the case of the Treasury,(18) where there was 
    transferability between agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 30.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language probably is subject to a point of order, but it 
    can take from the Department the only device it has to cope with 
    unexpected and unforeseen changes in mail flow volume which can and 
    frequently do occur. That makes transferability almost vital to the 
    efficient functioning of the Department.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa insist on his point 
    of order?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The paragraph does contain legislative matter, 
    and the point of order is sustained.

Transfers Between Departments

Sec. 30.16 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    head of any department of the government having funds available for 
    scientific investigations to transfer such funds, under certain 
    conditions, to the Interior Department for expenditure by such 
    department was held to be legislation and ruled out of order.

    On May 2, 1951,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3790), a

[[Page 5754]]

point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 109. During the current fiscal year the head of any 
        department or establishment of the Government having funds 
        available for scientific and technical investigations within 
        the scope of the functions of the Department of the Interior 
        may, with the approval of the Secretary, transfer to the 
        Department such sums as may be necessary therefor, which sums 
        so transferred may be expended for the same objects and in the 
        same manner as sums appropriated herein but without their 
        limitations.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language in section 109 on the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds in Other Acts Available for New Purpose

Sec. 30.17 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring that 
    funds provided in other acts be available 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 (5 now clause 6).

    On Aug. 1, 1973,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and Executive Office appropriation bill (H.R. 9590) for fiscal 
1974, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, raised a point of order against 
certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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).

[[Page 5755]]

        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: (2) The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sec. 30.18 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,(3) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 38541, 48542, 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.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 6, beginning with line 11 and through line 18, as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard in support of the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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.

Funds Carried Forward for Same Purpose

Sec. 30.19 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

[[Page 5756]]

    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,(5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 20538, 20539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 4, after line 23, insert:

                                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 preceeding 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: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Funds Continued Available for Same Purpose

Sec. 30.20 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 Rule XXI clause 2.

[[Page 5757]]

    On Mar. 3, 1954,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
appropriation. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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:(8) Will the gentleman explain his 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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.

Transfer of Funds to Other Agencies of Government for Authorized Work

Sec. 30.21 A provision in a general appropriation bill permitting 
    reimbursement (or advance transfer) of funds therein between 
    federal agencies for purposes authorized by law is in order as a 
    direction to the reimbursing agency as to the manner in which such 
    funds are to be expended--where existing law permits the 
    reimbursing agency to requisition services of other federal 
    agencies.

    On June 21, 1974,(9) during consideration of H.R 15472, 
the Department of Agriculture, Environmental and Consumer Protection 
appropriation bill, language authorizing the Environmental Protection 
Agency to transfer funds to other federal agencies for certain services 
rendered to the EPA was held not to change provisions of existing law 
permitting reimbursements between agencies, where the Committee on 
Appropriations cited statutory authority for such interagency 
agreements.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 20592, 20593, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See 31 USC Sec. 686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Energy Research and Development

            For energy research and development activities, including 
        hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and 
        operation of aircraft; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
        authorized by section 5901-5902, United States Code, title 5; 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
        individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the

[[Page 5758]]

         rate of GS-18; purchase of reprints; library memberships in 
        societies or associations which issue publications to members 
        only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who are 
        not members; $103,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        [Provided, That the Environmental Protection Agency may 
        transfer so much of the funds appropriated herein as it deems 
        appropriate to other federal agencies for energy research and 
        development activities that they may be in a position to 
        supply, or to render:] Provided further, That the amount 
        appropriated for ``Energy Research and Development'' in the 
        Special Energy Research and Development Appropriation Act, 
        1975, shall be merged, without limitation, with this 
        appropriation: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        contained in this Act shall be used to fund the development of 
        automotive power systems: Provided further, That this 
        appropriation shall be available only within the limits of 
        amounts authorized by law for fiscal year 1975.

                               point of order

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language at page 33, commencing with the word ``provided'' at line 
    17 down through the end of page 33, line 21.
        The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the language 
    complained of constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    is, as such, violative of rule XXI, clause 2.
        Mr. Chairman, I am prepared, at the convenience of the Chair, 
    to be heard on this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the basic authority for interagency agreements is 
    the Economy Act of 1932, which, subject to the limitation noted 
    below, permits the requisitioning of goods and services between 
    Federal agencies. Additionally, there are other statutes applicable 
    to EPA which authorize cooperation and coordination with other 
    Federal agencies, these include section 104(a), (b), (c), (i), (h), 
    (p), and (t) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; section 
    204 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; section 102(b) and 103 of the 
    Clean Air Act; section 14(1) of the Noise Control Act of 1972; and 
    sections 20(a), 22(b); and 23(b) of the Federal Pesticide Control 
    Act of 1972.
        So, the language to which the gentleman objects, while it might 
    be repetitious, is clearly authorized in numerous instances and is 
    not legislation on an appropriation bill, but a repetition of the 
    law as it now exists.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the point of order lies, not to the authority to 
    transfer, but the authority of the receiving agency. As the Chair 
    will note, the Environmental Protection Agency may transfer funds 
    as it deems appropriate to other Federal agencies for energy 
    research and development activities.
        First of all, I am not aware of EPA having any development 
    responsibilities in any of the statutes cited. Sec

[[Page 5759]]

    ond, I am not aware of any statutory authority for EPA to transfer 
    as it deems appropriate. This constitutes excessive authority far 
    beyond that existing in present law.
        In addition to this, the agencies to whom EPA might transfer 
    funds are not identified, and it is not clear who will be the 
    recipient agencies or what energy research and development 
    activities they shall go into. This is far beyond the authorities 
    under existing law, and I believe that the burden under the Rules 
    of the House is upon the proponents of the legislation to establish 
    the authority under which: First, the funds shall be transferred; 
    and second, under which the activities referred to in the section 
    will be carried out.
        One of the principal questions around which the point of order 
    revolves, Mr. Chairman, is the question of, First, who shall 
    conduct the activity; second, what shall be the activity conducted; 
    and third, under what authority will the agency's recipient of the 
    funds spent receive the funds and carry out the development and 
    research projects.
        I believe there has been no legislation cited by my good friend 
    from Mississippi which would indicate the authority for other 
    agencies to receive the funds or to engage in development and 
    research activities.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments of the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and believes that the arguments are fully covered by 
    Cannon's Precedents, House of Representatives, volume 7, page 468, 
    section 1470, which states:

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

        Such reimbursement authority, where shown to be authorized by 
    law is therefore in order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Compare with Sec. Sec. 30.22 and 30.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of Funds Specifically Authorized for One Agency to Other 
    Unspecified Agencies

Sec. 30.22 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for the official residence of the Vice President and permitting 
    advances, repayments, or transfers of those funds to other 
    departments or agencies to carry out those activities (where 
    existing law authorized appropriations only to the General Services 
    Administration) was conceded to change existing law and was ruled 
    out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 14, 1976,(13) the following proceedings took 
place dur

[[Page 5760]]

ing consideration of H.R. 14261 (Treasury, Postal Service, and general 
government appropriations for fiscal 1977):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 17854, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    Official Residence of the Vice President

                               operating expenses

            For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
        furnishing, improvement, heating and lighting, including 
        electric power and fixtures, of the official residence of the 
        Vice President, $61,000: Provided, That advances or repayments 
        or transfers from this appropriation may be made to any 
        department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
        activities.

                               point of order

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language of the bill on page 8, lines 17 through 23, and page 9, 
    lines 1 and 2, as violative of rule XXI, clause 2, constituting 
    legislation in an appropriation bill, referring specifically to the 
    words following the word ``Provided'', at line 22, ``Provided, That 
    advances or repayments or transfers from this appropriation may be 
    made to any department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
    activities.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of 
    order and again leave the responsibility on the shoulders of the 
    gentleman who raises it and we will try to make the final bill 
    comply therewith.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order. For that reason the point of order is 
    sustained, and the entire paragraph is stricken.

Sec. 30.23 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill providing for 
    advances, repayments, and transfers from the appropriation therein 
    to any department or agency was ruled out in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2 as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On June 8, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 7552, Departments of Treasury, Postal Service, 
and general government appropriations for 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17922, 17923, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    Official Residence of the Vice President

                               operating expenses

            For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
        furnishing, improvement, heating and lighting, including 
        electric power and fixtures, of the official residence of the 
        Vice President, $61,000: Provided, That advances or repayments 
        or transfers from this appropriation may be made to any

[[Page 5761]]

        department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
        activities:

                              points of order

        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against this portion of the bill on the basis 
    previously stated.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    (Mr. Steed) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, in this case there is authorization for the item. 
    In the 93d Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 202, passed July 12, 
    1974, provides for the inclusion of this item in the bill. It is 
    Public Law 93-346.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair direct a question to the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Harris) so that the gentleman may clarify his 
    point.
        Against what portion of this paragraph does the gentleman make 
    his point of order?
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with official 
    entertaining expenses in this item, and that is not authorized 
    under law.
        The Chairman: To what line is the gentleman referring? Will the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) explain it so we will know to 
    what specific lines of the paragraph he directs his point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I believe the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) made the point of order 
    against the entire item.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, this is the item on the Official 
    Executive Residence of the Vice President, Operating Expenses.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair state to the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Harris) that there is authorization for 
    appropriations for the official residence of the Vice President, if 
    that is the point the gentleman is attempting to address in this 
    matter. Therefore, that portion of the paragraph would not be 
    subject to a point of order.
        Mr. Harris: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) will 
    state his point of order.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, let me read this to be sure we are 
    speaking of the same item.
        I make a point of order against the language of the bill on 
    page 8, lines 20 through 25, and on page 9, lines 1 and 2. That 
    item is entitled ``Official Residence of the Vice President--
    Operating Expenses,'' and this language violates rule XXI, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House. That is the basis for the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, we have had previous 
    points of order sustained against this item, and, in fact, in last 
    year's appropriation bill a similar point of order was sustained.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair state that the present occupant of 
    the chair was the occupant of the chair last year and considered 
    the proviso starting on line 25 of page 8 and continuing through 
    line 26 and lines 1 and 2 on page 9. On that basis the point of

[[Page 5762]]

    order was sustained. However, the earlier designation, as the Chair 
    understood the statement of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Harris), would not follow, because basically there is authority for 
    the Vice President's residence.
        That is the reason the Chair is giving ample opportunity to the 
    Members to clarify the point of order. A point of order was in fact 
    sustained on the proviso mentioned last year. I understand the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is making a point of order 
    based on that proviso.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on the point of 
    order, if we read section 3 of this act, it says that the Secretary 
    of the Navy shall, subject to the supervision and control of the 
    Vice President, provide for the staffing, upkeep, alteration, and 
    furnishing of an official residence and grounds for the Vice 
    President.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not know what more authority we need.

        The Chairman:  The Chair will state that in line with the like 
    ruling last year, a paragraph in a general appropriation bill 
    containing funds for the official residence of the President and of 
    the Vice President and providing for advances, repayments or 
    transfers of those funds to other departments or agencies--not just 
    to General Services Administration--was conceded to change existing 
    law and was ruled out as being in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        Therefore, on the basis of the proviso, the point of order 
    issustained against the entire paragraph.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Public Law No. 93-346, appropriations 
for the Vice President's residence are authorized only to GSA, and not 
to other departments and agencies. If money is authorized only for a 
purpose and not to an agency, the Chair's ruling would be different.

Transfer Among Accounts Upon Approval of Committee

Sec. Sec. 30.24 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill authorizing 
    the transfer of funds 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,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4877, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 7747, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of

[[Page 5763]]

    order against the language on page 29, line 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 authorize 
    the transfer of previously appropriated amounts not in this bill.
        Therefore, it exceeds the authority of the committee to in fact 
    consider it.
        I would make that point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will say 
    to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) that this language has 
    been carried for several years in the bill and is subject to a 
    point of order. The committee will concede the point of order.
        The Chairman:  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley) 
    concedes the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) and the language is stricken from the bill.

Transfer of Defense ``Funds Available'' to State

Sec. 30.25 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill transferring 
    available funds from a department to another department and 
    directing the use to which those funds must be put was conceded to 
    be legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, as well as a 
    reappropriation violating Rule XXI clause 6.

    On Dec. 8, 1982,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7355), a point of order was sustained to a portion of that bill, 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 29449, 29450, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 793. Of the funds available to the Department of 
        Defense, $200,000 shall be transferred to the Department of 
        Education which shall grant such sum to the Board of Education 
        of the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery, New York, central school 
        district. The funds transferred by this section shall be in 
        addition to any assistance to which the Board may be entitled 
        under subchapter 1, chapter 13 of Title 20 United States Code. 
        . . .

        I make a point of order against section 793, which provides 
    appropria

[[Page 5764]]

    tions without authorization, and constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, which I believe to be in violation of clause 2 
    of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo  [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    section is subject to a point of order, but this is a special case. 
    These are children of men and women at West Point who are attending 
    the public schools. If these funds are not allocated, the school 
    will close and there will be no school for these young people to 
    attend. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: 20 The gentleman insists 
    on his point of order, and the Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Bailey (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will have to rule that, for the reasons conceded, the 
    point of order to section 793 as stated by the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Nichols) is sustained.