[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-12]
[Page 5118-5144]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments
Motion to Close Debate
Sec. 11.1 A motion to fix the time of general debate on an
appropriation bill is not in order prior to resolving into the
Committee of the Whole; but after there has been debate in the
Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises, the motion is in
order in the House.
On Feb. 18, 1947,<SUP>(14)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Joseph
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, as follows and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968)
making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cannon] and myself.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, is this the bill that contains the cuts of
appropriations for OPA?
Mr. Taber: Yes.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then I object, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: The House may go into the Committee of the Whole and
later, after debate has occurred, rise, and then a motion would be
in order to close debate; but otherwise a motion would not be in
order at this time to close?
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York states the situation
accurately. The House must first go into Committee and have general
debate, and then rise and fix the time of debate by vote.
Consideration of Senate Amendments
Sec. 11.2 The House has considered Senate amendments to a
[[Page 5119]]
general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole under the
five-minute rule.
On July 12, 1945,<SUP>(1)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 7474, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong. Rec.
7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945. For further
discussion see Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368)
making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments.
Pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with general debate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean,
of course, that there could be no debate on amendments?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the
5-minute rule.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments, with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure is different from
consideration in the House as in Committee of the Whole, where motions
under Rule XVI clause 4 are in order.
Terms of Debate
Sec. 11.3 Before consideration of the general appropriation bill, 1951,
containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of the
government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that general debate
run without limit to be equally divided between the Chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and
that following the reading of the first chapter of the bill not to
exceed two hours general debate be had before the reading of each
subsequent chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and
one-half by the ranking
[[Page 5120]]
minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter.
On Apr. 3, 1950,<SUP>(2)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes; and
pending that I ask unanimous consent that time for general debate
be equally divided, one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half by myself; that debate be
confined to the bill; and that following the reading of the first
chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours general debate be had
before the reading of each subsequent chapter, one-half to be
controlled by the chairman and one-half by the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter. . . .
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will
not object, except to say that I trust and am sure the majority of
the Members of the House hope that the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] will not make
points of order against Members on the ground that they are
speaking out of order when so much is involved in this bill. I
think we should have the greatest leeway to discuss these things.
The Speaker: The Chair would think that this appropriation bill
actually being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the
Government, a Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide
range.
Mr. Jensen: I thank the Speaker. I was hoping the Speaker would
say just that.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentlman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.4 During the consideration of the general appropriation bill,
1951, terms of consideration were agreed upon, including: that a
chapter then under consideration be considered as read and open to
points of order and amendment; and that a certain Member be
authorized to offer a blanket amendment to a part of the chapter.
On Apr. 27, 1950,<SUP>(3)</SUP> the following unanimous-consent
requests were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that--
The chapter on agricultural appropriations be considered as
read and open to points of order and amendment; that the gentleman
from Min
[[Page 5121]]
nesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen] have consent to offer a blanket
amendment relating to administrative expenses;
That when the House adjourns on Friday it adjourn to meet on
Monday next;
That no debate be in order on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday
except general debate;
That general debate on the civil functions appropriations bill
be confined to Tuesday;
That when the House adjourns on Tuesday next all general debate
be concluded on the entire bill.
There was no objection to the request.
House as in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 11.5 On numerous occasions the House has by unanimous consent
provided for the consideration of a nongeneral appropriation bill
in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On June 14, 1962,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the following request was made in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 10481, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I ask for the
immediate consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 745),
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1962; and I
ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that it be considered in the
House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: <SUP>(5)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.6 Unanimous consent was granted that a joint resolution
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of Labor
be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
On Mar. 24, 1964,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 6096, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with the unamimous consent granted yesterday, I call up
House Joint Resolution 962, making a supplemental appropriation for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for the Department of Labor,
and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
The Speaker: <SUP>(7)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
[[Page 5122]]
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sum is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, namely:
department of labor
Bureau of Employment Security
Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and ex-
Servicemen
For an additional amount for ``Unemployment compensation
for Federal employees and ex-servicemen'', $42,000,000.
Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 11.7 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions
of the 1943 agriculture appropriation bill, the House adopted a
motion to suspend the rules and pass a new bill containing matters
in the original bill not in controversy.
On July 2, 1942,<SUP>(8)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the
Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for
other purposes.
The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second
be considered as ordered.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Tarver]?
There was no objection.
After some discussion,<SUP>(9)</SUP> the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.<SUP>(10)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at pp. 5954-60.
10. Id. at p. 5960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments--Reading Bill
Sec. 11.8 General revenue and appropriation bills are considered by
paragraph for amendment and all other bills are considered by
sections, including bills making appropriations for specific
purposes.
On May 21, 1940,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 544,
[[Page 5123]]
a relief appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of
amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: <SUP>(12)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this bill comes from the
Appropriations Committee. Ordinarily bills coming from the
Appropriations Committee are read by paragraph. Bills coming from
other committees are read by sections. I want to ask the Chairman,
so that all Members may know as we approach the reading of the
bill, how this bill will be read, so that they may know where to
offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair will state, in response to the
parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, under the
rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills are
considered by paragraph and that all other measures are considered
by sections. Consequently, the pending bill will be considered by
sections and amendments offered by sections rather than by
paragraphs.
Sec. 11.9 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments are
in order only to the paragraph just read, not to the entire subject
matter under a heading in an appropriation bill.
On Jan. 17, 1940,<SUP>(13)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill.
Proceedings took place as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec.
11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1970 (proceedings relating
to H.R. 16916).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: A parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Luce: May I ask where the proper place would be to insert
an amendment before the next part of the bill headed by capitals?
The Chairman: The Chair was unable to hear all of the inquiry
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Luce: May I ask how far the bill has been read?
The Chairman: Down through the bottom of page 50. The only
paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing Authority''
that would now be subject to amendment would be the last four lines
on page 50.
Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the
House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for
amendment.
The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time
immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs
Sec. 11.10 The rule of germaneness applies to amendments to
appropriation bills; and an amendment proposing a specific
appropriation must be
[[Page 5124]]
offered when the paragraphs dealing with that subject are being
considered
On Jan. 31, 1938,<SUP>(15)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. An
amendment was read and a point of order raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of
amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public utilities commission
For two commissioners, people's counsel, and for other personal
services, $76,000, of which amount $1,620 shall be available for
the employment of a secretary to the people's counsel, and not to
exceed $5,000 may be used for the employment of expert services by
contract or otherwise and without reference to the Classification
Act of 1923, as amended.
Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the language on page 7, line 3, after
``$76,000'', beginning with the words ``of which'' and ending with
the word ``amended.''. . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(16)</SUP> In the opinion of the Chair, very
clearly this is an attempt to impose legislation on an
appropriation bill, and the point of order is therefore sustained.
. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
For general advertising, authorized and required by law,
and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in
regulations, $9,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall
not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers
published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding
the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law.
. . .
Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On
page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs as
follows:
``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel
before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel,
$5,000.''. . .
Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of order against
the language on page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to
the end of the paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the
ground that it was legislation in an appropriation bill. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut would restore
the language that was stricken out on the point of order; not only
that, but we have passed that particular section and the amendment
comes too late. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland bases his point of
order on two grounds. . . .
The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that
the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the
paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.
When Paragraph Is Considered Passed
Sec. 11.11 In reading a general appropriation bill under the
[[Page 5125]]
five-minute rule, a section or paragraph is considered as having
been passed for an amendment when an amendment in the form of a new
section or paragraph has been agreed to. On appeal, the Chair's
ruling that the adoption of an amendment adding a new paragraph
precludes further amendments to the prior paragraph of the bill was
sustained.
On Jan. 23, 1942,<SUP>(17)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6448, a supplemental appropriation bill for national
defense. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 607, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount for
the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for (1) the
construction of a hydroelectric project on the French Broad River
near Dandridge, Tenn., (2) the purchase or building of transmission
facilities needed to connect this project to the existing
transmission system of the Authority, and (3) the acquisition of
land necessary for and the relocation of highways in connection
with the accomplishment of the above project; $30,000,000, to be
available for the administrative objects of expenditure and subject
to the conditions specified under this heading in the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act, 1942.
Mr. Lambertson rose.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Page 4, after
line 9, insert:
``Department of State
``Transportation Foreign Service: For an additional amount
for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942,
including the objects specified under this head in the
Department of State Appropriation Act, 1942, $800,000.''
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this
amendment is to make provision for a deficiency which was not
foreseen, and which has occurred as the result of the declaration
of war. We have in all parts of Europe and Asia diplomatic and
consular representatives and attaches who must be brought home,
together with their families and clerks and office staffs. They
have to be shifted as a result of a change in the status brought
about by the declaration of war. In the original appropriation
there was something in excess of $700,000 in this fund--an amount
which would have sufficed under normal conditions, but under recent
developments there have been such heavy expenditures that only
about $17,000 remains, which is insufficient to carry the Service
beyond the 1st of the month. I offer this amendment to make
provision for the unexpected deficiency.
The Chairman: <SUP>(18)</SUP> The question is on agreeing to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5126]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lambertson: Page 3, line 22,
strike out lines 22, page 3, to and including line 9 on page 4.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order
that the amendment comes too late. We have passed that paragraph.
We have adopted an amendment since the paragraph was read and it is
no longer subject to amendment.
Mr. Lambertson: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet standing alone
before the gentleman from Missouri rose. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from Missouri, but I had the floor ahead of him.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, it is my
impression that the gentleman from Kansas was on his feet, and,
seeing that the chairman of the subcommittee rose, he deferred to
him to offer an amendment first.
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee was recognized by
the Chair. The Chair asks the gentleman from Missouri if he insists
upon his point of order
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must
insist on the point of order.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on
the point of order?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Kansas was on his feet asking for
recognition at the time and on top of that the amendment was
offered by the gentleman from Missouri, but that would not preclude
this amendment from being offered. This is an amendment to strike
out the previous paragraph. The amendment that the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon], added was an amendment adding an additional
paragraph.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not
address the Chair at all. He at no time addressed the Chair until
after the Clerk had concluded the reading of the new paragraph and
the committee had adopted it.
Mr. Lambertson: I beg your pardon; I did. I did stand and I did
address the Chair. I was standing before he ever started to get up.
The Chairman: The Chair was aware of the fact that the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] was on his feet, and the
Chair would like to overrule the point of order, but feels that
technically the point of order is well taken, and it being insisted
upon by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Chair
is constrained to sustain the point of order.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the
Chair.
The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr.
Taber] there were ayes 75 and noes 62.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Cannon of
Missouri and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there
were ayes 126 and noes 89.
[[Page 5127]]
So the decision of the Chair was sustained.
Sec. 11.12 If an amendment affects, in part, a paragraph of an
appropriation bill not yet read by the Clerk, but no point of order
is made against the amendment, it is considered, but further
amendments to intervening portions of text that have not been read
are not precluded.
On Apr. 3, 1957,<SUP>(19)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and
Welfare, and related agencies appropriation bill. At one point the
Clerk read as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: <SUP>(20)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pelly: I did not understand that the Clerk had read beyond
line 17. May I inquire if this amendment includes the figure on
line 20?
The Chairman: The amendment that the gentleman from Louisiana
offered was addressed to the language beginning on line 5 but does
touch on a sum included in the next paragraph beginning on line 18.
Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which
would apply to line 17. If this amendment were acted on, would that
prevent my amendment from being offered at the end of the paragraph
which begins on line 5 and ends on line 17?
The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman applies to that
portion between line 15 and line 17?
Mr. Pelly: That is correct.
The Chairman: It would be in order, because the Clerk has not
read the next 3 lines, 18, 19, and 20.
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: May I be heard, Mr.
Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Fogarty: It was my understanding that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Louisiana went down to and included the
language at the end of line 20 on page 25.
The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the
Clerk has not read those last three lines.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that
further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20
on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Hebert] takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down
to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his
amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but
the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was
read.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make is
that there were no objections raised when the amendment was offered
and considered down through line 20.
The Chairman: The portion of the gentleman's amendment having
to do
[[Page 5128]]
with those three lines, lines 18, 19, and 20, can have no effect
until those lines are read and then considered.
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Fogarty: Is the gentleman's amendment in order when he has,
in one amendment, sought to cut three places in the bill, from
lines 5 to 20?
The Chairman: No point of order was raised against it.
Mr. Fogarty: I thought that would be a concession that those
lines had been read, the lines down to and including line 20.
The Chairman: It is no concession until such time as that
portion of the bill is read
Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no
objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my
amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the
amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
The Chairman: No.
Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment
Sec. 11.13 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill which
has been passed during the reading of the bill may be offered only
by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 14, 1970,<SUP>(1)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the education appropriation bill (H.R 19616)
a point of order was raised against an amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec.
21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1972 (proceedings
relating to H.R. 15417).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Esch: Strike out lines 17 and 18
on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following ``titles I,
III, IV (except part F), part E of title V and title VI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, title I, including
section''.
And, on line 2 of page 4, strike out ``$899,880,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$992,100,000''
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment on precisely the same grounds.
The Clerk has now read past page 4, line 17, ``Community
Education.''
The gentleman was not on his feet. He did not address the
Chair. The amendment is clearly out of order.
Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet, and as soon as the
Clerk read ``higher education'' I said, ``Mr. Chairman.''
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely object to the fact that I am not
given recognition. I was on my feet, having recognized the
experience of the previous Member.
As soon as the Clerk read ``higher education,'' I said ``Mr.
Chairman'' twice.
The Chairman: <SUP>(2)</SUP> The Chair would like to protect
the gentleman in his
[[Page 5129]]
rights. If the gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair did not
hear the gentleman at that point. The gentleman may make a
unanimous-consent request that his amendment be considered although
the Clerk had passed it at the time he was recognized by the Chair,
and, if there is no objection, the amendment can be considered
under those circumstances. Does the gentleman make such a request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be considered.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I must protect the bill. I am pained,
but I must object.
The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to uphold the point of
order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair wants to be
fair, but the gentlemen in the Chamber that wish to offer their
amendments must be on their feet.
Amendment Affecting Previous Line in Paragraph
Sec. 11.14 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill being read
under the five-minute rule is open to amendment at any point; thus,
a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be
recognized to offer an amendment, even though an amendment proposed
by another Member affects a line occurring earlier in the
paragraph.
On July 23, 1970,<SUP>(3)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: <SUP>(4)</SUP> The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: May I respectfully remind the Chair that I was
recognized, and that the Chair allowed a point of order to
intervene only, and I had been recognized. The Chair ruled that
since a point of order had been made, the Chair would dispose of
the point of order first.
The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of
order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The
Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of
their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman
from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 5130]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding
with line 3, page 39?
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my
amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the
gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my
information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman
from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the
same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the
amendment.
Language Previously Stricken
Sec. 11.15 A point of order having been sustained against an entire
paragraph in an appropriation bill, it is in order to offer an
amendment at that point in the bill to insert a new paragraph
containing the stricken language excepting those provisions which
were held in violation of the rules.
On July 23, 1970,<SUP>(5)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R 18515), a
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: on
page 38, line 1, insert the following:
Office of Economic Opportunity
economic opportunity program
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved
August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus
reimbursements: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund
for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the purchase and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and for construction, alteration, and
repair of buildings and other facilities, as authorized by
section 602 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Provided
further, That this appropriation shall not be available for
contracts under titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for
more than twenty-four months. . . .
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: <SUP>(6)</SUP> The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the
amendment is that all of the language to which the amendment
addresses itself on page 38 of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been
stricken.
[[Page 5131]]
Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can amend something that
is not before the House.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has
offered a separate amendment to insert a new paragraph, and the
amendment is in order.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Changing Figures in Bill
Sec. 11.16 To a bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia
that were to be chargeable against revenues of the District for the
ensuing fiscal year, an amendment increasing the amount of the
appropriation for certain items included in the bill was held to be
in order.
On June 14, 1954,<SUP>(7)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriations bill
(H.R. 9517), which made appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1955, a point of order was raised against an amendment, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 100 Cong. Rec. 8191, 8192, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dewitt S.] Hyde [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$1,124,365'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$1,393,665.''
On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$135,406'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$404,706.''
Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation
upon an appropriation bill. There is no authority of law for the
District of Columbia to enter into a new activity of this kind, and
a new business venture. Therefore, the subcommittee saw fit to
eliminate that from the bill, and I make a point of order against
it.
The Chairman: <SUP>(8)</SUP> Permit the Chair to make this
statement. The amendment, which is before the Committee and which
the Chair now has before him, simply increases the amount of money
in the bill. Does the gentleman from Indiana make a point of order
against increasing the amount of money in the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression
that it was for the purpose of starting the District of Columbia in
the parking business. If I may reserve my point of order until the
gentleman explains what the purpose of his amendment is, of course
I will be in a better position to speak against it. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I still insist on the point of order on the
ground that the appropriation is not authorized by law.
The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that if the money is
unauthorized it is ineffective. The Chair is also
[[Page 5132]]
of the opinion that the money can be used only for the items
included in the bill and as authorized by law.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: If a ceiling had been specified on total
authorized expenditures, an amendment which had the effect of exceeding
that total would not have been permitted. The amounts added to the
appropriation here did not cause a specific authorized total to be
exceeded, and the Chair took the view that the increase in the
appropriation would apply only to items included in the bill and
already authorized.
Sec. 11.17 Where the House has adopted an amendment changing a figure
in an appropriation bill, it is not in order to further amend such
figure.
On Mar. 11, 1942,<SUP>(9)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6736. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2270, 2272, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cochran: On page 7, line 5, after
the word ``law'', strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert
``$128,273,700.''
(The amendment was adopted.)
Mr. [James] Domengeaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 5, strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$145,933,700.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment on the ground that there has been a
change already in this figure and another change cannot be
considered.
The Chairman: <SUP>(10)</SUP> The gentleman is correct. The
figure cannot now be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.18 Where a figure in an appropriation bill has been agreed to
(and hence cannot be altered by an amendment proposing a further
change in amount), an amendment inserted following the figure
agreed upon and providing funds ``in addition thereto'' is in order
if authorized.
On June 5, 1959,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7509, a bill making appropriations for the civil
functions administered by the Department of the Army. The Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 10057, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. (Fred) Wampler [of Indiana]: On page
21, line
[[Page 5133]]
7, after the amount shown add the following: ``And in addition
$52,000 for the following projects: Sugar Creek, West Terre Haute,
Clinton, and Conover Levee.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(12)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
language has been once amended.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York must have
misunderstood the reading of the amendment, because it follows the
amount and does not alter the amount.
The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his amendment.
Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 11.19 Where an appropriation bill is being read by paragraphs, a
subsitute for several paragraphs of the bill may be offered to the
first paragraph modified by the amendment only if notice is given
that, if the amendment is agreed to, motions will be made
subsequently to strike out the remaining paragraphs affected
thereby.
On July 29, 1969,<SUP>(13)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]:
On page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``For carrying out titles II, III, V, VII, and section 807
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended, section 402 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Admendments of 1967, and title III-A and V-A of the National
Defense Education Act of 1958, $254,163,000. . . . ''
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
The Chairman: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The gentleman will state his
point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that the paragraph which it amends has not
yet been read. . . .
Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had
finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and
concludes on line 24, page 25.
At that point amendments to that paragraph were in order. But
the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois does not change so
much as a comma in that paragraph; it repeats it absolutely
verbatim. It is not an amendment to that paragraph. It is only in
subsequent paragraphs that any amendment is made.
[[Page 5134]]
I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the
gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is
read before he can offer an amendment to it.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois
on the point of order.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I submit that really all I am doing
is adding to the first paragraph; therefore, it is very much in
order.
The Chairman: The Chair has considered the arguments both for
and against the point of order. The Chair sees no inconsistency in
the gentleman's amendment repeating the paragraph on page 26 which
the Clerk had not yet read. It is a different paragraph, but the
Chair feels that the following paragraph can be consolidated with
an amendment to the total paragraph. . . .
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, when a
bill is to be read by paragraph and a Member wishes to amend a
paragraph that has been read and several succeeding paragraphs he
is permitted to offer an amendment at the time the first of those
paragraphs is read that he wants to amend and then at the same time
give notice that if his amendment, which goes beyond the first
paragraph and into several others, is adopted he will move to
strike the succeeding paragraphs.
In the first place, the gentleman from Illinois gave no such
notice, but let us not dwell on that. Let us dwell on the danger of
upholding the amendment he is offering.
The gentleman from Illinois, I am sure, will agree that he
makes no change whatsoever in the paragraph just read; absolutely
no change.
If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment
at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that
comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that
is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes
nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going
to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an
amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the
thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr.
Chairman.
I believe this is a very serious problem, and I most earnestly
ask the Chair to carefully consider his ruling, because otherwise
it might be possible to offer an amendment to repeat the language
for the next 25 pages until it gets to the things one seeks to
change. I believe it is terribly important that this amendment be
considered out of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is
presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He has
resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedent,'' volume V, page
404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:
When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for
several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by
paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph
with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to
strike out the remaining paragraphs.
The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give
such notice. The amendment goes beyond the para
[[Page 5135]]
graph which has been read and in effect modifies a paragraph which
has not yet been read.
The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.
The amendment in the form in which it is offered is not in
order.
Sec. 11.20 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several
paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been agreed to and notice
has been given that motions would be made to strike out ensuing
paragraphs of the bill as read, the paragraphs are subject to
perfecting amendments while such motions to strike are pending.
On June 15, 1972, during consideration of the Departments of Labor
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill <SUP>(15)</SUP>
Mr. William D. Hathaway, of Maine, offered an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as follows: <SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 15417.
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the
paragraph of the bill just read which is a single substitute for
several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Office of
Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed
to I will make motions to strike out the remaining paragraphs
beginning with line 14 on page 19 and extending through and
including line 17 on page 21.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hathaway: On page 19, strike out
lines 6 through 13 and substitute in lieu thereof: . . .
The amendment was agreed to.<SUP>(17)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph
beginning on line 16, page 20, and extending down through line 8 on
page 21.
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> Without objection, the motion is
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman reserving the
right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
. . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21,
line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down through the word
``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that amendment now that
the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
The Chairman: It is possible.
Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after
``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3.
The Chairman: The Chair was of the impression that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine had been agreed to,
striking out the
[[Page 5136]]
paragraph to which the amendment is offered. . . .
Mr. Quie: In my copy of the Hathaway amendment it was not
stricken out. If that is correct, the Hathaway amendment would put
a period after ``1974'' on line 1 and strike out the rest. It was
my understanding the Hathaway amendment put a period after the word
``Act'' on line 3 and struck out the proviso, which is the rest of
line 3 down through line 8.
It then appeared that the Chairman had not heard Mr. Quie's
reservation of objection. The following exchange occurred:
The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that the gentleman
rose too late. The motion had been offered by Mr. Hathaway, and
there was no objection and it was acceded to.
Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, the Chair asked if there was any
objection, and I reserved the right to object, which I am still
reserving, and on that I asked my parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The Chair must state that the Chair did not hear
the gentleman say he was reserving the right to object on the
Hathaway motion. . . .
The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the basis of his
statement which the Chair did not hear.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Further objection was made to the Quie amendment, however:
<SUP>(20)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, my point
of order is that the committee has just agreed to this.
The Chairman: The committee has agreed to what?
Mr. Flood: The position taken by my friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Quie). I have here, for instance, that we voted not
to exceed $18 million for research and training, under part C of
said 1963 act. Now I had the clear impression, I am sorry to say,
that the committee just agreed to this. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment
offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning
on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was
agreed to.
Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the
bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a
perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a
motion to strike out is first offered.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is if a motion to
strike has been made, is it not then out of order to try to amend
the paragraph that the motion to strike applies to?
The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting
amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending.
Therefore the Chair rules that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) is in order on the basis that
it is
[[Page 5137]]
a perfecting amendment to the paragraph to which the motion to
strike is pending.
Separate Votes in House on Amendments
Sec. 11.21 Separate votes have been demanded on amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 4, 1957,<SUP>(1)</SUP> H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill was being
considered in the House after amendments had been adopted in the
Committee of the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:
<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5162, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. Note: The Committee on Appropriations furnished printed forms
containing all 18 amendments to the bill adopted in the
Committee of the Whole, with further pertinent information.
Fourteen rollcalls occurred in one day with respect to such
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unfinished business is the further consideration of the
bill H.R. 6287, which the Clerk will report by title.
[The Clerk read the title of the bill.]
Separate votes having been demanded on all amendments adopted
in the Committee of the Whole, the Clerk will report the first
amendment on which a separate vote was demanded.
Recommittal of Bill With Instructions
Sec. 11.22 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions was held not to be in
order in the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 3, 1957,<SUP>(3)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read a motion as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report the
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be reported
back to the House within 5 days with amendments which will indicate
the places and amounts in the budget where the committee believes,
in view of the statements made in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, that substantial reductions may best be
made and will meet the views of the House with the least
curtailment
[[Page 5138]]
of efficient administration by the Departments affected.
Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order on the motion. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(4)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Rhode
Island care to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the
motion, there is a matter of wording contained therein that is not
permissible under the rules governing procedure in the Committee of
the Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the
House.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard?
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want
to point out that there is a precedent for the motion and the rules
cite a precedent where that motion has been held to be proper in
the Committee
The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent,
but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained
in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be
entertained in the Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the
motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the
Chair sustains the point of order
Parliamentarian's Note: While the motion that the Committee rise
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
bill be recommitted may be in order when the bill is being considered
under the general rules of the House (see 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), it is not in
order in the form presented above (where inconsistent motions are
joined) nor is it in order when a bill is being considered under a
special rule (see 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10,
1950).
Sec. 11.23 On occasion a general appropriation bill has been
recommitted with instructions to report back forthwith with an
amendment; the bill has then been so reported, the amendment agreed
to, the bill again ordered engrossed and read a third time, and the
bill passed, in that order.
On June 8, 1945,<SUP>(5)</SUP> during consideration in the House of
H.R. 3368, a war agencies appropriation bill, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 5832, 5833, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 97 Cong.
Rec. 6533, 6534, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: <SUP>(6)</SUP> The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
[[Page 5139]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Taber: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Taber moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions to report the same back
forthwith with an amendment reducing the Office of War
Information by $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for
activities in Europe and the United States.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to recommit
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House
divided, and there were--ayes 120, noes 108.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 133, nays 128, not
voting 166. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
instructions of the House, I now report back to the House the bill
H.R. 3368, the war agencies appropriation bill, with the amendment
incorporated in the motion to recommit, and with the recommendation
that the amendment be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[Amendment reducing the Office of War Information by
$17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for activities in Europe
and the United States.]
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 252, nays 2, not
voting 178. . . .
So the bill was passed.
Sec. 11.24 A deficiency appropriation bill has been recommitted with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.
On Apr. 1, 1948,<SUP>(7)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6055. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 3994, 3995, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri) moves to recommit the bill
to
[[Page 5140]]
the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill back forthwith with an amendment as follows:
On page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 154, not
voting 78. . . .
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the instructions of
the House, I report the bill back with an amendment which is at the
desk.
The Speaker: <SUP>(8)</SUP> The Clerk will read the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Reduction of Total Appropriation
Sec. 11.25 The House has agreed to a motion to recommit an
appropriation bill with instructions to the Committee on
Appropriations to report back forthwith with an amendment reducing
the total appropriation to a figure not to exceed 95 percent of the
budget estimates.
On July 18, 1967,<SUP>(9)</SUP> during consideration in the House
of H.R. 11456, a Department of Transportation appropriation bill, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 19273-75, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that
committee to report it back forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new section as
follows:
``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies
provided for herein beyond 95 per centum of the total aggregate
net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H.
Doc 15).''
The Speaker: <SUP>(10)</SUP> Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page 5141]]
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 188, not
voting 30. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the instructions of the House, in the motion to
recommit, I report back the bill H.R. 11456 with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new
section as follows:
``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be
available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not
result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies
provided for herein beyond 95 percent of the total aggregate
net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H.
Doc 15).''
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Sec. 11.26 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill with instructions
to the committee to reduce the amount of the appropriation by $50
million is in order; but the committee, if the motion is adopted,
may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment
proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.
On May 15, 1939,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the House was considering H.R 6260,
a War Department civil functions appropriation bill. The Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey] moves to recommit the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of
the bill $50,000,000
Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do
indirectly what cannot be done directly.
The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals
$305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for
cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan
Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for
flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of
the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors
and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other
governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away
a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in
the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be
done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot
be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same
propositions that were voted on last
[[Page 5142]]
Wednesday, therefore is subject to a point of order.
The Speaker: <SUP>(12)</SUP> The Chair may state, in connection
with the point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi,
that the Chair understands the purpose of the motion to recommit,
one motion to recommit always being in order after the third
reading, is to give to those Members opposed to the bill an
opportunity to have an expression of opinion by the House upon
their proposition. It is true that under the precedents it is not
in order by way of a motion to recommit to propose an amendment to
an amendment previously adopted by the House, but the motion now
pending does not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on
Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion
that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not
subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the motion is
simply to reduce the bill $50,000,000.
The Speaker: The Chair understands the rule to be that the
House can adopt a motion to recommit with instructions to reduce
the amount of the appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee,
if this motion should be adopted, could not report the bill back to
the House with an amendment proposing a change in the amendments
adopted by the House.
Prohibition on Use of Appropriations
Sec. 11.27 The House has agreed to a recommittal motion which sought a
prohibition on the use of funds in a supplemental appropriation
bill (providing funds for the Department of Agriculture) to finance
the export of agricultural commodities to the United Arab Republic.
On Jan. 26, 1965,<SUP>(13)</SUP> the House was considering House
Joint Resolution 234. The Clerk read a motion to recommit and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois] moves to recommit House
Joint Resolution 234 to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with
the following amendment: On page 2, line 13, strike the period at
the end of the sentence and insert the following: ``: Provided,
That no part of this appropriation shall be used during the fiscal
year 1965 to finance the export of any agricultural commodity to
the United Arab Republic under the provisions of title I of such
Act.''
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The question is on the motion to
recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 204, nays 177, not
voting 53. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
[[Page 5143]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
instructions of the House, I report back to the House, House Joint
Resolution 234, with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, and was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 11.28 The House adopted an amendment, reported pursuant to a
recommittal motion, to prohibit the use of appropriations in the
bill to administer any program for the sale of agricultural
commodities to nations that sell supplies to North Vietnam.
On Apr. 26, 1966,<SUP>(15)</SUP> during consideration in the House
of H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8972, 8973, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois] moves that the bill be
recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report it back forthwith with the following
amendment: On page 36, on line 6 strike the period, insert a
colon and the following:
``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be
used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of
agricultural commodities pursuant to title I or IV of Public
Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which
sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its
registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment,
materials, or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed
by a Communist regime.''
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: <SUP>(16)</SUP> The question is on the motion to
recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 290, nays, 98, not
voting 44. . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I
report back the bill H.R. 14596 with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
[[Page 5144]]
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 366, nays 23, not
voting 43.
Enrollment of Appropriation Bills
Sec. 11.29 Set out below is the form of a concurrent resolution
providing that in the enrollment of general appropriation bills
enacted during the remainder of a session the Clerk of the House
may correct chapter, title, and section numbers.
On July 4, 1952,<SUP>(17)</SUP> Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, by
unanimous consent, submitted the following concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 239]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Jour. 746, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That in the enrollment of general appropriation bills
enacted during the remainder of the second session of the Eighty-
second Congress the Clerk of the House may correct chapter, title,
and section numbers.
The concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to. A motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the concurrent resolution was agreed to
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.